Capitalism is Biblical

I heard a Christian say she doesn’t believe in Capitalism. She believes there ought to be an equal distribution of wealth. She thinks this is what Jesus said. She thinks this is ‘standing for what is right’. She said we ought to maintain morals. She said we should give to the needy.

But when you think about it, she’s contradicted herself on at least two points. The very fact that she mentions ‘giving’, is an endorsement of Capitalism, because Capitalism is defined as the ‘economic system where ownership and control of capital is in private hands’. Without Capitalism there is no such thing as private property; and without private property, there can be no such thing as ‘giving’, because in Socialism everything already belongs to everybody. (You can’t ‘give’ something to someone if it already belongs to him or her.) The Bible talks about ‘giving’ to the poor, which means the Bible acknowledges the notion of private property, which equals Capitalism.

She said we should keep our morals. But that’s possible only with Capitalism. In Socialism there can be no such concept as stealing, because everything already belongs to everybody. (You can’t ‘steal’ something if everything already belongs to you.) Therefore without Capitalism there can be no concept of ‘sin’ against God, only of crime against the State. There is no longer any such thing as morality. But when the Bible commanded, ‘Thou shalt not steal’, it was to protect the moral value of private property, which equals Capitalism.

Without private property rights (i.e. without Capitalism) the concept of ‘giving’ is replaced by the concept of ‘redistribution’, which equals Socialism, and denies the Biblical concepts of private property, giving, stealing, sin against God, and replaces it with the humanist concept of the State being supreme.

The forced, legislated, equal redistribution of wealth – is tantamount to theft. Jesus never commanded such a thing. The Bible reaffirms the morality of private property. And it commands us to help the needy.

The best way to help the needy isn’t always to give them money. Doing that creates welfare dependency. A better way to help them is to provide them with paid employment. But to do that, you first have to own a business – which equals capitalism. Without capitalism, you can’t lift up the poor – in Socialism (i.e. without private property rights), you can only bring everyone else down to the level of the poor.

The redistributionists claim to be compassionate – but in the long term, their methods do not really help the poor; and in the meantime, they perpetrate an injustice against the hardworking, rightful creators and owners of the very wealth which can be used to give the poor a chance to work and improve their status.

What do YOU think?

comments

Comments

  1. The Bible also describes a jubilee year in which property is returned to the original owner and debts are cancelled. That is not the capitalist way. Capitalists would prefer to have debt slaves and keep the workers wages low to increase profits. I disagree that capitalism is moral, rather it is highly immoral, and I am surprised so many Christians and churches support this steal from the worker to enrich the corporations that is the american system. A good historial perspective can be found in the works of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. The only purpose of the corporation is to make profits. Period. The Bible asks, what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul? Jesus got angry at the money changers and threw them out of the temple. Today’s money changers are the bankers and financial hucksters. Jesus came to set the captive free. We are captives to capitalism and our current monetary system while we live on earth. A social democracy would be more in line with what Jesus had in mind, but let us not forget, we are in the world but not of the world. Our home is in heaven. We will all live in mansions we didn’t build or buy, eat fresh fruits on trees growing by the river of life that we didn’t plant, and the streets are paved in gold that we don’t need to horde. For all in heaven to share, spread the wealth, so to speak. There will be no distinction, no rich or poor, no free or slave, no white or black, no distinctions at all. Sounds sort of Marxists now that I think about it. lol

  2. Darrin McDougall says:

    Your Comments on this subject are a little off base my friend,if you were talking of communism I would heartily agree with you, but true socialism doesn’t “steal a persons wealth” but rather strives to help all by a fair taxation of all, according to their wealth,and using these funds to help all people by providing such infrastructure as free education,health and security to all of it’s people instead of the favoured rich few.Take for example, Norway or Sweden which both have a socialist governments, but have rich people as well as working class people and all have equal access to health, education etc.If governments don’t provide these services to it’s people then what’s the point of having them, we might as well go back to tribalism ,or everyman for himself and bugger the rest.By the way I’m a staunch Australian unionist who also has devoutly believed in Jesus and the authority and existence of the one true God all of his life,and I’m not trying to teach you to “suck eggs” as they say but wasn’t Jesus quoted as saying it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain access to heaven.Please don’t take this an attack on your belief of christ, but a healthy discourse is always beneficial to all.
    Regards and good life to you all.
    Darrin

    • European Socialism was not so much a reaction against Capitalism as it was a reaction against Europe’s entrenched class systems which were limiting true Capitalism and causing the economic conditions which the Socialists then reacted against. Europe had never yet experienced true Capitalism: only early America was to become the first true experience in Freedom! European Socialism was therefore a mis-reaction. The socialists got it wrong – early America got it right.

      • Tropical_Guy says:

        Socialism is the one who set and determines standards in an effort to create people being at odds so that it is easier to get enmasse the people to accept it. Socialism causes unstable economies because they hurt the job providers in order to keep their programs.

  3. Good points John. I want to add that we should beware of statements that capitalism needs to be abandoned because of the current economic mess.

    This mess originated more because governments created a situation where people were encouraged to borrow money they could never repay to institutions who could not forgive the debt without triggering off a chain reaction of economic devastation. This situation was created through government legislation, through government-created private institutions like the Federal Reserve which offered credit at ridiculously low interest rates, and so on.

    Some want to imply that what we need now is more socialism, more big government, to get us out of the mess. The government’s role should be to encourage the markets to be honest and just – not to prop up the inefficient institutions which created the problems in the first place.

Speak Your Mind

*

close
Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube Icon