This is a very POLITICAL question but I'd love to get a Christian viewpoint

Fun exercise.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Economic 0.75
Social -0.46

Ouch.

boring centrist!

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60288728&postcount=47

I'm personally centre right, I have taken this quiz before and I have been centre left. However, I've always been slightly on the authoritarian side of the graph.

Húrin wrote: »

I've never really understood how some Christians are so supportive of an essentialy amoral and unfair economic system as capitalism?

It's not that I support the rich remaining unfairly rich. It's that I don't support the Government shifting around money. I would see it as more positive if people themselves could take the initiative to provide for their neighbour. I prefer when charity or assistance rests with the people rather than with the State.

It's not that I see capitalism as a seamless model, it's that I see communism and socialism to be failed ideologies that cannot work. If there was a way to encourage personal and charitable initiative in society so that the weak would have a fair chance I would support that.

Húrin wrote: »

Only the already rich oppose the government redistributing resources. The reason for this is because your idealistic notion of mass charity never actually happens. Human nature is too nasty for it. The reality of human history is that a failure to redistribute wealth causes suffering. End of story.

Do you really trust the Government to shift around your money exactly as it is with integrity? I certainly don't. This was exactly the same problem in Eastern Europe. If we can automatically assume that everyone is to be trusted that's fine, but if not we cannot. That's why I support that the individuals do it themselves independently instead of being coerced. Human nature is too nasty to trust the Government to do it also.

I'm not rich by any means yet this does ring alarm bells for me.

Húrin wrote: »

I agree. However, regulated capitalism that involves redistribution works best. History proves this. We have it to some degree here but I'm thinking of the Scandinavian countries. That is capitalism too but it's not the capitalism that you bizarrely prefer.

I think personal responsibility is also a positive attribute to promote. The welfare state might be a grand idea, but I think both components would be necessary. As PDN said, nobody supports an entirely free market, or an entirely socialist / communist system. I personally think that we should be trying as individuals to provide for the other too.

Húrin wrote: »

There is not such a way it seems, and accepting that failure for me is not good enough. Basically you don't care enough about the weak having a fair chance, and prefer them to be subject to some economic version of natural selection.

I don't accept failure. However I am a realist also. Where on earth did you conclude that I don't care enough about the weak having a fair chance? That's exactly what I discussed about at the start of my post.

You've totally strawmanned my post now. How does, human beings should have personal responsibility to provide for eachother sound like I support Social Darwinism in an economic sense? I just don't think the Government should be doing it all.

Húrin wrote: »

In this statement you say it is desirable to encourage charity, due to the fact that the weak don't currently have a fair chance. However, there is already a demonstrated way for the weak to take a fair chance by the method of redistribution. But that is a condition too far for you. You would prefer that the weak don't get a fair chance than accept the necessity for the Government shifting around money.

Hurín, I never said this. I said I think that charity and people providing for eachother is better than the Government taking money by coercion. The benefits of altruism in the individual and in the society, and the benefits of how people would interact to eachother in a society which encouraged this through education are also positive reasons why I would support this. I think this can happen with capitalism, you don't.

Húrin wrote: »

Ideally charity and people providing for eachother is better than the Government taking money by coercion. But the reason the poor are poor is because of coercion.

Isn't the political compass not partially about political ideals?

Húrin wrote: »

You are assuming that state redistribution competes which individual acts of charity. This is not the case. Charity is no less vibrant in countries where revenues are redistributed downwards.

You said how could someone be a capitalist and a Christian. I explained how. Your main objection was not against a mixed economic system, but rather how a Christian could not support government sponsored redistribution.

The discussion is now changing shape. I can be a Christian and support moderate capitalism because I believe people can provide for eachother and that people can support eachother. Indeed, isn't this a Christian virtue? I don't recall anywhere in the Biblical text about the goodness of the State taking money for the poor. Rather I read about individuals giving to charity and about individuals providing for others.

Húrin wrote: »

I find your ideas unrealistic because they basically depend on everyone being nice to their fellow man. You seem to think that the moral improvement of the rich is more important than the material improvement of the poor. You're unwilling to support policies which have been shown to actually work, because they aren't 'nice' enough for you.

This is a Christian ideal. Your main objection was:

I've never really understood how some Christians are so supportive of an essentialy amoral and unfair economic system as capitalism?

Let's deal with this head on.

You said that you couldn't understand how a Christian could support an amoral and unfair economic system.

I replied saying that I don't support an unfair economic system but an economic system that allows for autonomy for people to provide for eachother out of their own initiative. This apparently was too Christian, and hence unrealistic. Make up your mind please

As for moral improvement, your objection to capitalism is based on morals. I never said that the moral improvement of the rich is more important than providing for the poor. I just think we can provide for eachother without being rigid communists or socialists.

Húrin wrote: »

I think this can happen with capitalism but only if the state is assertive in the market. You think that is can happen even if the state does not assert any redistributive policies. The difference is that the former has been shown to work. We're still waiting for someone to demonstrate the latter.

We were waiting for people to demonstrate several political theories before they came into fruition. I'm just saying that my model actually resembles Biblical virtues quite well and is consistent with Christian values despite your previous objection to my political compass result.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't recall anywhere in the Biblical text about the goodness of the State taking money for the poor. Rather I read about individuals giving to charity and about individuals providing for others.

In the Jewish law, there was a 10% tithe for the poor that everyone had to give. The early Christian church, as described in the Bible, was very millenialist and thus had little concern with politics except where it interfered with the spread of the gospels. The early saints pooled their excess money to support the poor among the saints.

Jakkass wrote: »

I replied saying that I don't support an unfair economic system but an economic system that allows for autonomy for people to provide for eachother out of their own initiative.

I don't see why an economic system that allows for autonomy for people to provide for each other out of their own initiative would not also be an unfair economic system.

This apparently was too Christian, and hence unrealistic. Make up your mind please

Political models which presume everyone is a Christian are unrealistic.

As for moral improvement, your objection to capitalism is based on morals. I never said that the moral improvement of the rich is more important than providing for the poor. I just think we can provide for eachother without being rigid communists or socialists.

Voluntarily providing for each other is indeed theoretically possible. However this has never actually happened on a large scale, and I have no reason to think that it will, on this side of the resurrection.

I'm not advocating "rigid" communism or socialism anyway. I don't see why you think that state redistribution somehow cancels out the peoples' ability to practice charity.

We were waiting for people to demonstrate several political theories before they came into fruition. I'm just saying that my model actually resembles Biblical virtues quite well and is consistent with Christian values despite your previous objection to my political compass result.

I do not agree that 14 hour work days in unsafe factories, schools in ramshackle buildings, and quality healthcare only for the rich, and the other horrors of laissez-faire capitalist societies are consistent with Christian values.

I think that economic systems should be judged on their results, not their ideals. That's why I think that the regulated market model of Scandinavian countries works better than the others.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hurín: I'll keep this short and sweet. Regarding your last point about results. How on earth can you determine if something has results if it hasn't been implemented? Most of the current ideas we now have come from the idealism of the past. Would you agree with that much?

I don't see anything in your political views that has not been tried. For instance, you are presumably happy with the charity status that most of our underfunded hospitals "enjoy". Classic case of idealism failing a necessary service.

Most successful ideas we have come from the idealism of the past tempered by knowledge of the further past.

PDN wrote: »

Originally Posted by postcynical:
Well-designed questions.

I don't think the questions are well designed at all.

For example, if you believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but have no desire to enforce that moral viewpoint on anyone else, what relevance has that to whether you are authoritarian, libertarian of left/right wing?

Oh yes, the interpretation of the answers would be flexible enough to support any desired outcome. The questions themselves are very good though; I usually hate filling in questionnaires. Also, the grouping and ordering of the questions is suggestive. I would say it is no coincidence that the "good guys" are SouthWest and that most respondents to this survey score SouthWest. And vote for NorthEast political parties:rolleyes: