I heard Tony Blair say last night that Jesus would have been a socialist

[Alex Libman]

Religion has always been the tool of the state. It can be molded into anything.

 

[angelatc]

robinhood would be a socialist
not sure about jesus - seems he would be a pro-life libertarian who advocated personal charity and volunteer assistance to the needy

IIRC, Robin Hood stole from the king, who was taxing the citizens into poverty. So that's more civil dosobedience than socialism, me thinks.

Of course, I think most of my Robin Hood knowledge came from the Bugs Bunny version, so I might be wrong.

 

[angelatc]

Sometimes I wonder how Americans are so turned-off by the word 'socialism'. There are many socialist democracies around the world, its not communism. Communism is communism disguised in socialism. Soc is about listening to the poor and providing assistance to the (economically) weaker sections of the society. Gandhi was for a socialist democracy. In my country too food prices soared in the recent crisis but the most unaffected class was the poorest ones, in my state there are big floods every year which destroys the cultivations of many lowly(geographically) areas,but people seldom dies in hunger, because they are provided with subsidized ration at about 10%(net) of market price. And I can only see benefit ofthe system. Poor don't die.

But what holds fit here doesn't necessarily be the same for you.That's why I never criticize anyone for socialism in the forums.

Socialism requires the use of force. Using the power of the government to take property away from the owners, and giving it to people who do absolutely nothing to earn it.

I have nothing against with providing assistance to the poor, but I want the freedom to give willingly to those I deem truly needy.

 

[LittleLightShining]

He was anti establishment, and a man of the people.

This is my interpretation of the scriptures.

Without doubt, many others will quote passages and interpret things differently.

That's Religion for you.

I agree.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Religion has always been the tool of the state. It can be molded into anything.

Religion is eons older than state.

BOTH are TPTB "tools".

They are both only means of rule, power and control, by the miniscule microscopic minority, and always will be.

 

[Theocrat]

Because of God's Sovereign, Providential Nature...

God is a noninterventionist, and so should be the government. Economically and in foreign policy.

God is definitely not a non-interventionist. He's a Theocrat.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Robin Hood was just another THIEF. Just like the state, only operating on a much smaller scale.

 

[acptulsa]

Anarchist.

Tony Blair is just trying to re-create God in his own image, just like most people do. What else can we understand--and that goes double for an arrogant, self-centered politician like Blair. But he's dead wrong. As Options Trader rightly pointed out, if there's a God out there at all, God is most certainly 99 44/100% non-interventionist.

Sound like a socialist to you?

 

[FindLiberty]

LONG LIVE CHRIST, THE ANARCHIST !!! ...and no doubt, he's a Libertarian.

...I thought about this while in silent prayer just yesterday as I took my Son Chip and Jesus Juice in remembrance of Him.

I think Jesus would approve of very little going on these days.

And, He may be a comin' back any day now to open up a big ol' can of WHOOPASS onto those whom have been naughty in deed and not nice at heart!

 

[angelatc]

Robin Hood was just another THIEF. Just like the state, only operating on a much smaller scale.

I still think that Robin Hood was a revolutionary. From Wikipedia,

In the oldest surviving accounts a particular reason for the outlaw's hostility to the sheriff is not given [11] but in later versions the sheriff is despotic and gravely abuses his position, appropriating land, levying excessive taxation, and persecuting the poor. In some later tales the antagonist is Prince John, based on the historical John of England, who is seen as the unjust usurper of his pious brother Richard the Lionheart. In the oldest versions surviving, Robin Hood is a yeoman, but in some later versions he is described as a nobleman, Earl of Huntingdon or Lord of the Manor of Loxley (or Locksley), usually designated Robin of Loxley, who was unjustly deprived of his lands.[12]

 

[Truth Warrior]

I still think that Robin Hood was a revolutionary. From Wikipedia,

Back from the fighting in the barbaric "Christian" crusades, under King Richard "the Lion Hearted" , captured and held for ransom. Robin THE hood merely opposed the OTHER sociopathic temporary "King" (so-called) John.

Thanks!

 

[youngbuck]

Socialism requires the use of force. Using the power of the government to take property away from the owners, and giving it to people who do absolutely nothing to earn it.

I have nothing against with providing assistance to the poor, but I want the freedom to give willingly to those I deem truly needy.

Exactly. Socialism is basically the forceful (through taxation, etc.) redistribution of wealth. How on earth can that be good?

 

[acptulsa]

Exactly. Socialism is basically the forceful (through taxation, etc.) redistribution of wealth. How on earth can that be good?

Theoretically.

The redistribution of wealth is no bad thing (much better if voluntary but still) provided you can guarantee beyond any doubt that this consists entirely of the well to do subsidizing the starving and never consists of the rich stealing from the poor. In the case of socialism, this means that the politicians and bureaucrats must always be pure and not corruptible. And that will make it a good thing in theory.

And prevent it from ever, ever being a good thing in the genuine real world.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Theoretically.

The redistribution of wealth is no bad thing (much better if voluntary but still) provided you can guarantee beyond any doubt that this consists entirely of the well to do subsidizing the starving and never consists of the rich stealing from the poor. In the case of socialism, this means that the politicians and bureaucrats must always be pure and not corruptible. And that will make it a good thing in theory.

And prevent it from ever, ever being a good thing in the genuine real world.

"A government ( "system" ) that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul."

"If you take care of the MEANS the ENDS will take care of themselves."

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Jesus might have given a homeless man the shirt off his back, but he wouldn't support a government that forces people to do so.

And I'm pretty sure he would be for helping others help themselves, and thus wouldn't support tax funded welfare that only succeeds in keeping people idle.