Paul doesn’t impart these instructions out of heartlessness; quite the opposite. He knows that idleness among capable individuals will be detrimental to them—stimulating guilt, ingratitude, and dependence—and to the group, because it causes resentment and strife. Notice his charge to help the weak and encourage the disheartened. Individual Christians and the church are morally obligated to care for the poor.84 But unchecked welfare or transfer payments compelled by the government cause the breakdown of the nuclear family, increased crime, hopelessness, meaninglessness, and bitterness.85
Paul isn’t the only biblical writer to condemn laziness, sloth, and idleness. The Book of Proverbs is full of such passages: “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!” (6:6); and “The craving of a sluggard will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work. All day long he craves for more, but the righteous give without sparing” (21:25). Here again a warning against laziness is juxtaposed with an exhortation to be generous and charitable, showing there is no inconsistency between the two. Similar proverbs abound: “As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed” (26:14); “One who is a slacker in his work is brother to one who destroys” (18:9); “A sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven people who answer discreetly” (26:16); “Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor” (12:24); and “A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied” (13:4). Jesus constantly commands us to care for the poor, but there is no biblical injunction for government to undertake the task.
If sloth and laziness are sins, isn’t it wrong (and unwise) to implement policies that encourage those traits? If so, then government programs that do so and thereby harm people are not as compassionate as they’re portrayed. But as previously noted, conservatives support a social safety net and favor programs designed to aid the truly needy, but not to the point of fostering dependence and idleness among those capable of working. Achieving the proper balance is sometimes more difficult in practice than in theory.
Before moving on from the biblical evidence, we must note that the tenth commandment forbids covetousness: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17). This admonition implicitly affirms the concept of private property—a central pillar of capitalism. It is not wrong to long for things, but it is sinful to covet that which belongs to another, and it is wrong for demagogic politicians to incite this destructive emotion in people for political gain.
When comparing capitalism and socialism, it should be enough to say that capitalism is superior because it produces greater prosperity, or even that socialism often leads to authoritarianism and enslavement of the people. But there’s something more fundamental, and it is what I instinctively sensed when I first rejected the platitude that Communism is good in theory but not in practice. Why did the concept of everyone receiving the same amount of resources or the same grade bother me? On further reflection, I realized my objection was not that everyone gets the same; it’s not that I wanted more than others or a better grade than them. It’s that I wanted to reserve the right to earn more regardless of what others had. It was a matter of personal liberty.
It’s not just that we would all receive equal amounts under pure Communism, but that the government would forcibly impose that result, depriving people of liberty to earn more and the incentive to be more productive. To deny human beings their freedom to pursue their callings—their vocational purposes—is immoral. It robs people of their dignity, value, and self-worth. It destroys the human spirit. This was at the core of my objection to this system when I was younger, even if the reasons hadn’t fully crystalized for me. Capitalism allows the human spirit to breathe free. In the next chapter we’ll further examine the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two economic systems.
CHAPTER EIGHT Socialism Kills, Capitalism Saves
“MARXISM HAS FAILED TO PROMOTE FREEDOM AND TO PRODUCE FOOD.”
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek underscore the interrelationship between economic and political liberty. “Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom,” writes Friedman. “By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.”1 Socialism often leads to political authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Socialist planners constrict our political liberty when they impose top-down economic dictates. Not only is economic freedom necessary for political freedom; “economic freedom,” writes Hayek, “had been the undesigned and unforeseen by-product of political freedom.”2
America’s new socialists claim to offer an enlightened version of socialism; they call it “democratic socialism” because it includes democratic elections. Tell that to the people of Venezuela who “elected” Nicolás Maduro through rigged elections dominated by government-controlled media propaganda.3 The Soviet Communists bragged about their open and fair elections too. Though America’s democratic socialists tout a softer socialism they claim would not lead to tyranny, top-down control is integral to their ideas. They would centrally control the allocation of resources and most sectors of the economy—not just healthcare.
Redistributionist policies require greater administrative bureaucracies and bigger budgets. It takes enormous political power to control a modern economy. AOC’s Green New Deal, examined in the next chapter, contemplates top-down control of healthcare, energy, incomes, and many other aspects of people’s lives. Whether implemented through a vast web of bureaucratic administrative bodies or through a single dictator, the result is the same: the government exerts increasing control over the individual while freedom evaporates.
Socialists can only effectuate their sweeping schemes through coercion. In fact, “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron; democracy and socialism are oil and water. Meaningful democracy or representative government, in the sense of people choosing their leaders, participating in government, and holding their elected leaders accountable, isn’t possible when the government controls the economy and the wide swathe of human activities and interactions encompassed by it.4
Leftists constantly tout their moral superiority, and it’s time conservatives reclaimed the moral high ground, beginning with capitalism. While we established that capitalism is not itself a moral system, it is morally superior to socialism. It’s not inherently greedy to pursue your self-interest. You couldn’t stay alive if you didn’t. “Only foggy moral pretense confuses legitimate self-interest with selfishness,” writes Jay Richards. “In fact, proper self-interest is the basis for the Golden Rule.” Adam Smith doesn’t promote greed or selfishness but advocates that we pursue goals within our narrow spheres of expertise, which will lead to positive results that no group of elite geniuses could achieve.5
Socialism, on the other hand, destroys the incentive to produce and achieve, as evidenced by the Soviet Union and all its captive satellite nations. As President Ronald Reagan declared in 1987, “The more repressive the government, the more controlled the economy, the more confiscatory the taxation, the more likely a society is to sink into poverty and despair. John Dos Passos was so right when he observed: ‘Marxism has not only failed to promote human freedom. It has failed to produce food.’ ”6
SOCIALISTS ARE MORE MATERIALISTIC THAN CAPITALISTS
Is the socialist more moral because he picks winners and losers and robs people of the fruit of their labors? Is it ethical for the government to impose equal outcomes when people contribute vastly different talents, efforts, and resources? Shouldn’t government instead seek to ensure equal opportunity, in line with the framers’ vision?
Human nature is full of inequalities, an
d we can’t—and wouldn’t want to—eradicate them with the stroke of a pen. Income equality is an invigorating rallying cry for virtue-signaling social justice warriors, but any credit they deserve for good intentions is outweighed by their ignorance of history, economics, and human nature. Socialism invariably leads to economic disaster and often to the government slaughter of its citizens. Even under less severe forms of socialism, regimes live off their nation’s wealth that was accumulated before socialist control, until they inevitably squander it.7
For all their sanctimony, socialists are more materialistic than capitalists. Their passion for equalizing incomes stems from covetousness—the preoccupation with what others have. To wish to dispossess others of their property is, essentially, greed. “Greed is woven through every human heart, and it is a mistake to assume that alternatives to capitalism will render greed vanished,” writes Lauren Reiff. “It doesn’t go away—it merely is channeled somewhere else, into taking from others namely, and that’s a dangerous game. That capitalism’s most fashionable smear is that it is greedy is awfully telling but absolutely not the correct allegation to make.”8
Professor Walter Williams argues that socialism, because of its forced redistribution of wealth, is immoral and akin to theft. “Reaching into one’s pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise,” writes Williams. “Reaching into another person’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.”9 Some may believe it’s not theft when the duly elected representatives of the people legislate income redistributions. But Dr. Williams’s use of the term “theft” is far more appropriate than Nancy Pelosi’s use of the same word to describe the Trump income tax cuts. “This tax cut for corporate America is theft. It’s theft from the future,” asserted Pelosi. “Their flagship issue is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of our children’s future.”10
Progressives like Pelosi believe all taxpayer-produced income is the government’s, and only the amount the government allows you to keep is yours. Few things better illustrate their socialist mind-set. In reality, government doesn’t create wealth, and it only derives revenue by taxing those who produce it. The government doesn’t bestow income on people any more than it gives them their God-given rights. It legally protects our freedom to earn and preserve our own income and wealth. But it doesn’t create them, and to claim otherwise is to contradict America’s founding ideas. If progressives were concerned about robbing from our children, they would quit demagoguing efforts to reform entitlements—whose skyrocketing costs will break the federal budget for future generations—and join with Republicans (whose recent record on this is also deficient) to ensure their long-term solvency.
We must be mindful of the proper role of government. The framers didn’t idealize the state but believed the government’s purpose is to protect its citizens from domestic and foreign threats, to enforce the rule of law, and to preserve order to maximize citizens’ freedoms. They cherished liberty and considered it a virtuous end in itself. Today, we have lost sight of the value of liberty, as we have increasingly traded it for the illusory promise of economic security. As history has consistently shown, when you engage in this Faustian bargain you end up losing both freedom and security.11
We must rekindle our spirit of liberty, especially among the younger generations. “The unbridled energy of free people is the most powerful, creative, and moral force on this planet,” President Reagan affirmed. He described freedom and prosperity as “two mutually reinforcing goals.”12 We must realize that every expansion of government entails a reduction of our liberties and consider whether it’s worth it. Of course, certain voluntary surrenders of liberty are part of our social compact, but we must strive to limit them wherever possible.
Despite abundant evidence that capitalism produces greater prosperity and liberty, many people still associate capitalism with evil corporations, robber barons, heartless entrepreneurs, and rampant selfishness and greed. This misperception cannot be blamed solely on leftist propagandists. Adam Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Misunderstanding Smith’s point, even some defenders of capitalism unduly emphasize the idea that benevolence has no place in a free market. But Smith’s point is that we can rely on the free market to work its magic apart from individual benevolence, not that capitalists aren’t benevolent. In the real world, greed has very little to do with the prices sellers set for their products. In a market economy, a seller can’t set an arbitrary price and expect buyers to pay it. Market competition, not greed, governs prices. “A seller’s feelings—whether ‘greedy’ or not—tell us nothing about what the buyer will be willing to pay,” writes Dr. Sowell.13
“AT ITS CORE, SOCIALISM CALLS EVIL SOMETHING THAT GOD CALLS GOOD”
Unfortunately, some libertarian purists, inspired by atheist objectivist Ayn Rand, have perversely glorified Adam Smith’s statement as an endorsement of greed and a repudiation of selflessness. Conservatives, especially Christians, must reject this pernicious argument. Christians are taught not only that they must not covet but that the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). Jesus tells us we can’t serve two masters (Matt. 6:24)—if we idolize money, we cannot properly worship and trust God. Notice that the problem isn’t money itself but the undue focus on it—the love of money. There is nothing wrong with wanting to prosper if we keep it in proper perspective and don’t idolize wealth or the pursuit of wealth.
Unquestionably socialism has a seductive appeal. On the surface it sounds compassionate for a presumably benevolent government to ensure that every citizen has what he needs to live comfortably. Why shouldn’t the government go further and ensure “fairness” so that everyone gets the same amount? But as we’ve seen, that wouldn’t actually be fair, and efforts to equalize incomes have caused untold damage. Although socialism has been thoroughly discredited in practice, people have short memories and little insulation from progressive media and academic indoctrination. Consequently, in some quarters, socialism has escaped history’s devastating verdict against it and been resurrected in the dreams of new generations of naïve, historically obtuse Americans.
Social justice warriors are not confined to the secular realm. The modern Christian church, both in Catholic and evangelical circles, is filled with misguided utopian dreamers. After all, didn’t the early Christian church model a Marxist society for us? Shouldn’t Christians follow that pattern and reorder their political system accordingly? As described in the Book of Acts, “No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had,” and “there were no needy persons among them.” Moreover, “From time to time those who owned land or houses sold them” and gave the proceeds to the apostles to distribute among the needy (4:32, 34–35).
These early Christian brothers certainly shared everything they had with one another, but this was hardly Marxism. It was a church-inspired arrangement of voluntary sharing. There was no hint of a class struggle pitting one group against another,14 and the state wasn’t involved—there was no taxation, confiscation of property, or redistribution of wealth by a governmental entity. People owned their property, and government didn’t compel them to sell it and surrender the proceeds. Yes, Ananias and Sapphira were punished for failing to deliver all the proceeds from their land sale, but their sin was lying to the Holy Spirit, not withholding money. The Bible even acknowledges that they owned the property, and it was their prerogative to sell it or not to sell it.15 “The early church was able to share possessions and property as a result of the unity brought by the Holy Spirit working in and through the believers’ lives,” writes Bruce Barton. “This way of living is different from communism because the sharing was voluntary, didn’t involve all private property but only as much as was needed, and was not a membership requirement in order to be a part of the church.”16
&nbs
p; The believers willingly participated out of a shared love and shared goal—glorifying God and living for Jesus Christ. Under Communism, people are forced to give, so their “giving” doesn’t proceed from a charitable heart and says nothing about their character or spirit. “Under communism, the cheerful, generous giver and the stingy man are both required to give exactly the same amount.”17 Scripture is clear that “each [person] should give what [he has] decided in [his] heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).
There is no directive in Acts for Christians to model this early communal practice, which ended before the apostolic age.18 “The description, ‘having all things in common,’ never appears in the New Testament with any other church,” says biblical scholar Michael Heiser. “That’s important because if this was a norm for all churches—this is the way Christianity en masse is supposed to operate, like a socialistic or communistic system—you would think that this would be a pattern that we would read about in the New Testament, but we don’t. It’s never presented as a norm for the believing community, so how could we say it’s a norm for all society now?”19
Guilty by Reason of Insanity Page 21