Jesus was a Socialist

[freedom-fighter]

I'm familiar with all kinds of fairy tales.

They all end with us living happily ever after.

Libertarianism is the biggest fairy tale of them all, it assumes that with no regulation corporations can be trusted to not dominate the people and instead benefit them

 

[Paschendale]

I disagree. If they don't want to share then the community won't provide for them. Government just throws the possiblity for corruption into the mix. At least a centralized, non direct democratic one does.

Doesn't the personal ability to opt out of a communal pot kinda of nullify the point? Those with wealth and power will choose not to share it and will not reap the benefits of the community. But they don't need the benefits of the community. They're wealthy and powerful! If the wealthy and powerful were going to choose to take care of those in need, they would be doing it already. Clearly they aren't going to. Jesis gave them far too much credit. Or maybe he didn't... He did basically say that almost all rich people go to hell... Maybe he knew that the wealthy couldn't be trusted. Who, then, does it fall upon to ensure that they are not permitted to continue their tyranny, and how would such a task be accomplished?

 

[SheWolf]

As somebody else said, Jesus didn't endorse a political ideology... and with my understanding of Social Libertarianism, it's like a collectivist community working together in the absence of government. Since Jesus didn't like taxes, I don't see a problem with thinking Jesus was a Collectivist Libertarian.. he definitely wasn't an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian... and if everybody did follow Jesus' principles, I think an anarchy would definitely be a non issue.... as long as there is no religious oppression. If there is religious freedom, then it would work, but it might be complicated, but isn't is a voluntary community?

 

[freedom-fighter]

Jesus made the foolish mistake of relying on people to voluntarily help others, rather than needing mommy and daddy government to force them to. Otherwise, the lifestyle and ideals he preached are exceedingly socialist. He preached that possessing wealth was inherently bad, and that it corrupts anyone. He said that people should give to the needy, and do so without reservation.

Of course, the reason Jesus didn't talk about a socialist state is because he preached that people should do these things of their own volition, which we clearly do not. He preached overcoming one's own base, selfish nature. Apparently, however, he thought too well of us, because we seem incapable of doing these things without the threat of force to back them up.

Finally someone who is capable of rational thought!

 

[WeAreReborn]

Doesn't the personal ability to opt out of a communal pot kinda of nullify the point? Those with wealth and power will choose not to share it and will not reap the benefits of the community. But they don't need the benefits of the community. They're wealthy and powerful! If the wealthy and powerful were going to choose to take care of those in need, they would be doing it already. Clearly they aren't going to. Jesis gave them far too much credit. Or maybe he didn't... He did basically say that almost all rich people go to hell... Maybe he knew that the wealthy couldn't be trusted. Who, then, does it fall upon to ensure that they are not permitted to continue their tyranny, and how would such a task be accomplished?

How would someone have wealth or power if there is no monetary system so money becomes irrelevant. How is someone powerful if everyone stops to obey him and submit to his will?

 

[SheWolf]

Libertarianism is the biggest fairy tale of them all, it assumes that with no regulation corporations can be trusted to not dominate the people and instead benefit them

Well.. I might offend somebody but I don't care..

America is a fairytale.. both parties are destroying it and are not helping the current situation. They are are just playing politics and sticking to their old, destructive ways.

 

[WeAreReborn]

As somebody else said, Jesus didn't endorse a political ideology... and with my understanding of Social Libertarianism, it's like a collectivist community working together in the absence of government. Since Jesus didn't like taxes, I don't see a problem with thinking Jesus was a Collectivist Libertarian.. he definitely wasn't an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian... and if everybody did follow Jesus' principles, I think an anarchy would definitely be a non issue.... as long as there is no religious oppression. If there is religious freedom, then it would work, but it might be complicated, but isn't is a voluntary community?

It isn't an issue even disregarding his teachings.

 

[SheWolf]

It isn't an issue even disregarding his teachings.

I don't understand what you are saying... we are discussing his teachings and if they are socialist libertarian, right? What is the issue.. religious freedom?

 

[WeAreReborn]

I don't understand what you are saying... we are discussing his teachings and if they are socialist libertarian, right? What is the issue.. religious freedom?

Ohh I completely misread. My mistake.

 

[freedom-fighter]

it's a fairy tale.

Essentially, Humans will voluntarily not do evil, but nobody actu
ally has any authority to stop them from doing so. They will all just wake up one day and agree to stop doing evil. In unison.

So corporations, media conglomerates, and anything privately owned can be trusted but human beings can't? And people are taught to be greedy consumers

 

[freedom-fighter]

I don't understand what you are saying... we are discussing his teachings and if they are socialist libertarian, right? What is the issue.. religious freedom?

What do you think of the idea? I mean he is obviously not a capitalist or a marxist.

 

[SheWolf]

What do you think of the idea? I mean he is obviously not a capitalist or a marxist.

I said more on the second page... but I don't know much about Socialist Libertarianism.. Isn't kind of like anarchy but with voluntary communities? I don't really have a problem with it, or trying to build those type of communities since I think government should be limited and is coercive in many ways.

 

[WeAreReborn]

I said more on the second page... but I don't know much about Socialist Libertarianism.. Isn't kind of like anarchy but with voluntary communities? I don't really have a problem with it, or trying to build those type of communities since I think government should be limited and is coercive in many ways.

It is actually an umbrella term for far leftist views similar to Social Anarchy. The ideas under it are Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Left Communism (Council Communism, Luxembourgism etc.) just to name a few.

 

[ARealConservative]

Libertarianism is the biggest fairy tale of them all, it assumes that with no regulation corporations can be trusted to not dominate the people and instead benefit them

agreed, libertarianism has some major flaws.

Which is why I choose conservatism. I can appreciate the libertarian philisophy, but it doesn't handle human flaws properly.

 

[Power]

No, socialists are simply Jesus-like.

 

[Z3n]

 

[ARealConservative]

this thread is pretty funny.

Lets say we have two guys. They both have $100.

Person A gives his hundred dollars away

Person B keeps it for himself.

Wow, person A sure is a great guy.

but wait. Person A can see the future. He can see that giving the money away will make his life better in the long run. He can see that in the grand scheme of things, giving the money away was the best thing he could do for his own well being. Doesn't sound like libertarian socialism to me, sounds like rational self interest

 

[surrealistpenguin]

Jesus was not a socialist. He preached a kind of petty-bourgeois, bleeding heart liberal charitableness but he was not a socialist and certainly not a libertarian socialist (*King* of the Jews? Hello?). Christian doctrine is domineering, misogynistic and generally backwards and it manifested itself as such.

 

[WeAreReborn]

this thread is pretty funny.

Lets say we have two guys. They both have $100.

Person A gives his hundred dollars away

Person B keeps it for himself.

Wow, person A sure is a great guy.

but wait. Person A can see the future. He can see that giving the money away will make his life better in the long run. He can see that in the grand scheme of things, giving the money away was the best thing he could do for his own well being. Doesn't sound like libertarian socialism to me, sounds like rational self interest

You know why it doesn't sound like libertarian Socialism? Because it is irrelevant. You are thinking of something like State Socialism. If you wish to make posts about that, this clearly isn't the thread for you. A better example is there is a company and one man leads. He tries to maximize profits so he underpays his works, outsources his jobs for cheap labour. In doing so he makes massive profits at the expense of thousands. Now there is a business that is run by the workers, it is controlled by them. It is specifically designed to make a product of quality while giving the workers great conditions to work in. The first is Capitalism and the second is similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism, the only kind of Libertarian Socialism with a monetary system. Your example is irrelevant because everything but Syndicalism doesn't have monetary systems.

 

[Guy Incognito]

this thread is pretty funny.

Lets say we have two guys. They both have $100.

Person A gives his hundred dollars away

Person B keeps it for himself.

Wow, person A sure is a great guy.

but wait. Person A can see the future. He can see that giving the money away will make his life better in the long run. He can see that in the grand scheme of things, giving the money away was the best thing he could do for his own well being. Doesn't sound like libertarian socialism to me, sounds like rational self interest

Doesn't sound like "rational" self-interest to me. How is giving away the money going to make A's life better? It's good for his soul? Where is A's proof that giving away the money is in his best interest?

I agree that it is in A's own best interest to give the money away, but without any hard evidence to demonstrate this it is hardly a "rational" belief.

Much like CaptainCourtesy's argument against the existence of altruism, this argument is fundamentally wrong, or else redefines rational self interest into something entirely trivial.

 

[ARealConservative]

You know why it doesn't sound like libertarian Socialism? Because it is irrelevant. You are thinking of something like State Socialism. If you wish to make posts about that, this clearly isn't the thread for you. A better example is there is a company and one man leads. He tries to maximize profits so he underpays his works, outsources his jobs for cheap labour. In doing so he makes massive profits at the expense of thousands. Now there is a business that is run by the workers, it is controlled by them. It is specifically designed to make a product of quality while giving the workers great conditions to work in. The first is Capitalism and the second is similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism, the only kind of Libertarian Socialism with a monetary system. Your example is irrelevant because everything but Syndicalism doesn't have monetary systems.

what the hell are you rambling on about?

This thread is about a guy named Jesus that had some pretty strong beliefs about our future.

not once did I mention a state, or forced charity. I pointed out how Jesus himself was making the case for doing these things for your own future well being.

So it is clearly you that needs to take it to another thread.

 

[ARealConservative]

Doesn't sound like "rational" self-interest to me. How is giving away the money going to make A's life better? It's good for his soul? Where is A's proof that giving away the money is in his best interest?

He doesn't need proof, because in the end, the only value a thing has is what he thinks the value is.

Since Jesus believed, he had all the proof he needed to place giving ahead of saving.

 

[WeAreReborn]

what the hell are you rambling on about?

This thread is about a guy named Jesus that had some pretty strong beliefs about our future.

not once did I mention a state, or forced charity. I pointed out how Jesus himself was making the case for doing these things for your own future well being.

So it is clearly you that needs to take it to another thread.

Ugh I need to stop reading so fast, because I misread again. :/

 

[SheWolf]

this thread is pretty funny.

Lets say we have two guys. They both have $100.

Person A gives his hundred dollars away

Person B keeps it for himself.

Wow, person A sure is a great guy.

but wait. Person A can see the future. He can see that giving the money away will make his life better in the long run. He can see that in the grand scheme of things, giving the money away was the best thing he could do for his own well being. Doesn't sound like libertarian socialism to me, sounds like rational self interest

If he gives his money away without government force... what is the problem? And isn't guy A capable of determining what is in his best interests just like Peter, when he gave up his wealth to follow Jesus?

 

[Paschendale]

How would someone have wealth or power if there is no monetary system so money becomes irrelevant. How is someone powerful if everyone stops to obey him and submit to his will?

Historically, it has been done with military force. This was basically how feudalism worked. A few powerful military leaders told the farmers and laborers what to do, and killed the ones that disagreed. And there has been money for thousands of years, and power as long as there have been people to socially interact with one another. Actually, before people, too. So long as there have been living creatures, some have exercised power over others, usually backed up with violence. The same dichotomy that exists now existed two thousand years ago. Jesus preached against exactly these types of people. If he lived now, he'd be preaching against corporate CEOs and corrupt, warmongering government officials.