Even "democratic" socialism is indeed "imposed" upon the unwilling by "the tyranny of the majority." The fact that a majority of voters decide policies in a democratic society does not mean that they are ethically able to impose an unethical oppression of dissenting minorities.
Every democratic government of whatever stripe "imposes" their policies on the unwilling. Democracies are elected by the people, and so they satisfy a greater proportion of the people than autocracies or oligarchies, but of course there will be some who are dissatisfied by the decisions. What better is a capitalist democracy in this regard?
Since democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority over the minority, it is incumbent on a moral people to force only such conditions upon society as do not deprive any minority group of their legitimate rights to property, life or freedom.
And who does that? Do you not have a seat belt law in United States? I happen to believe that I am safer not wearing a seat belt. I have heard a number of horror stories of people who we cut through the middle by a seat belt after an auto accident. I have also heard testimonies of survivors of automobile crashes who testify that they are alive because they hadn't worn their seat belt. Even if I were proved wrong in this regard, how is anyone else harmed if I don't wear my seat belt. Isn't my right to "life" or at least to "freedom" removed by imposing the seat belt law on me? So tell me what society does not deprive minorities of their rights to freedom? Or perhaps in this case, even their right to life? As for rights to property, if your state intends to run a highway in a particular location, where are the rights of the property owner whose property lies in the path of the proposed highway? The rights that are lost are supposedly for a greater good—a necessary highway. It reminds me of your position that God allows excruciating suffering for a greater good.
Democratically-decided policies can be, and often are, entirely unethical.
I've no argument with that.
If I could persuade the majority of American voters to invade Canada, rob its banks, and give the plunder to Christian missions, this would not be ethical—however much I may approve of Christian missions, and however large a majority may have been persuaded to vote for my proposal. Democratic decisions decide government policies—but they do not decide Christian morality.
Irrelevant to the question at hand.
My family did not use public schools, nor public healthcare. We provided for these things out of our own pockets (though we were poor, living at a level that would have qualified us to receive government welfare, had we been willing to seek it). We (like many other Christians) objected, upon a conscience basis, to many of the policies of public education and of public healthcare. Nonetheless, our taxes (taken from us involuntarily) were used to pay for these things, which we neither used, nor approved of. This is the result of expanded governmental overreach, which was apparently approved by the majority of voters.
I have had a somewhat similar situation. My father was a subsistence farmer on a quarter acre of land in the backwoods of Ontario. Indeed, I still live on the same property. My father had a minimal income. He had 2 horses, 3 or 4 cows, as well as a couple of pigs. We had no automobiles or motors of any kind (and of course, no electricity). My father obtained a small pulpwood contract from the local paper mill (about 60 cords), and he cut that pulpwood with a swede saw. My mother canned hundreds of quarts of wild strawberries, wild raspberries, wild blue berries, wild cranberries, high bush cranberry jam and jelly, garden vegetables, venison, and purchased fruit when she could get it. My father shot deer in season and out, though he was careful not to begin hunting until August when the fawns were old enough to be on their own. As long as I remember, we always had plenty to eat, and I was unaware that we were poor by community standards until I was an adult. The income tax department came to realize that my father had never in his life filed an income tax form. I remember his receiving threatening letters—threats of imprisonment. He ignored them. He simply said that he didn't make enough money to pay income tax. After a while the letters ceased—and there was never a legal case brought against him. My father was independently minded, and proud to be able to provide for his family in the way he knew so well. He refused to accept welfare or any kind of financial aid. The only exception that I remember was on the occasion of the 25th wedding anniversary of him and Mom, when an altruistic neighbour took a collection to honour them. My father always voted C.C.F. He thought that it would be best for poor farmers. That was the most left-wing party ever to be in Canada. The acronym stood for Canadian Commonwealth Federation (although some said it stood for "Crazy Canadian Farmers"). As I grew older, I tended more to political right. I have always voted for a Conservative Party in Canada. Indeed, I was once a candidate for the Social Credit Party of Canada. This party, now defunct, was not a Socialist Party. It was the most right-wing party in Canada. Its main thrust was to alter the money system in such a way that it comes into existence as a credit rather than a debt. Because money is presently based on debt, Canada and United States have huge national debts. If every cent of money in our countries were applied to our National Debts, there would be no money left to buy goods and services, and we'd still be deeply in debt—and the interest on these debts is monumental and continues to increase as the debts increase.
The majority, in Canada or elsewhere, who vote for socialist policies, are always free to practice the sharing of their wealth with the poor, quite voluntarily, without seeking laws forcing others to do the same—and such would be a very Christian-like thing to do.
Do you call income tax a means of "forcing" people to share? Don't you have income taxes in United States? Does this not "force" you to share with the less wealthy? Perhaps not as much. Here in Canada we have "Old Age Pension" for older citizens beginning at age 65. It is not a lot of money, but everyone gets it, including the wealthy (but the latter pay more heavily in income tax). The poor who cannot make ends meet, receive a sizable supplement to the Old Age Pension. Many of us in Canada do voluntarily share our income with the needy. We often do it through organized charities such as Mennonite Central Committee, and World Vision of Canada.
I see socialized methods of more equal distribution of wealth, no deterrent at all to giving to the needy. Some have a mind to give in every democratic society, and many have a mind not to do so. Whether or not it is done is unrelated to the society's political or economic system.
By contrast, voting for socialism involves no Christian virtue, and is motivated, in many cases by covetousness and resentment toward the productive rich.
"The productive rich"
That kind of thinking is deception. The rich often control monopolies that take away incentive from small businesses. American capitalism tends to continuously move the capital from the less wealthy to the wealthy through monopolies. But in democratic socialist countries, it is much more difficult to become filthy rich. For example, in United States in 2015, there were 536 billionaires (U.S.D.) and in Canada there were 39. Of course, the U.S. is 10 times as populous. So if Canada were less socialist and were more like United States, one would expect about 54 billionaires (U.S.D) in Canada. Darned socialist country is robbing the rich! What a shame! But who need a billion U.S. dollars anyway?
A vote for socialist policies is not a way of saying, "I, as a productive citizen, am willing to be generous toward the less-productive members of society," but rather, "I, as a voter who thinks he knows what everyone should do with their own money, am going to require, by law, that those who have different stewardship priorities from my own will be made to support the agendas that I choose."
And how do you know all of that? Are you an expert in socialism? Or are you simply parroting the anti-socialist sentiments to which you have been subjected in United States?
There is no reason to vote for socialistic policies, other than to enable the government to confiscate for redistribution the resources of the unwilling—a segment of the population that could easily represent nearly half the citizenry. Grand theft committed by the majority of citizens is as immoral as is that done by an individual burglar. It is simply more frightening and irresistible.
Congratulations! I believe your sentiments have a solid basis in unreality. Where is this "unwilling segment of the population that could be even half of Canadians? There are plenty of Canadian visitors to United States. I suggest you question them, and find out for yourself whether half of them dissatisfied and who consider the Canadian political system to be engaging in "grand theft."
Once the confiscated money is in the hands of government, there are no guarantees that its redistribution will be done efficiently (without excessive salaries to administrators) nor to the recipients who are the most deserving, from the standpoint of Christian morals.
Doesn't the same hold the funds taxed by
any government, including that of United States? Does your government properly used the money it "confiscates" from the people through taxation? And the same with state governments?
I give a large percentage of my income to the poor (more than twice the amount that Canadians of my income-level are required to shell-out for federal taxes). For this, I charge no administrative fees, and I can choose to assist those who most deserve help, rather than (for example) a woman whose career is having babies out of wedlock so as to maintain an uninterrupted stream of income from the government. Personally, I feel better about giving God's money (and all of it is His) in assisting a virtuous, underemployed family man, or a Christian widow, or a disabled Christian brother, than to underwriting the sex-change surgery for a confused unbeliever (or a confused believer!)
We both agree that much of the money taxed by our governments is used for immoral principles and/or for continuing a particular unhealthy life style. But what can we do about it? It's the direction that modern society is taking. No matter whom we vote in, this trend is likely to continue.
People who say they trust the government to be more wise and good than the general citizenry, in the redistribution of wealth, are more gullible than any other class of men.
I don't know any people who say that. But let's face it: the general citizenry isn't assisting the poor, except for a very small percentage of them.
After all, what is "the government" other than ordinary citizens—most of them lawyers—who, through deception and back-room deals have slimed their way into positions of power? What a lovely lot to trust! Has there been any experience in your life that would persuade you that lawyers, as a class, are the most selfless and honest members of the general population? If not, what is the sense of handing-off our stewardship responsibilities to them?
Aren't we getting a little off topic here? The government has somehow morphed into unscrupulous lawyers. Also, I don't think I have advocated trusting socialist governments. I was merely pointing out that the Canadian government does assist needy people as well as ordinary middle-class families. I have been a teacher for 30 years, and I have been assisted in various ways. Just recently we travelled 220 miles to Winnipeg for medical appointments and were able to receive travel grants to assist us in our travelling expenses. Is that all bad? Does it take advantage of the "productive rich"?
But people can leave the democratic, socialist countries, too, if they are dissatisfied. Not many do, since not many are dissatisfied.
Have you ever tried to do this?
Why would I try to leave Canada? It's a great country! I am happy to live here. My first wife, and many other Canadians (including some of those from other countries who have become Canadians) consider Canada to be the best country in the world.
But why should, let's say, 45% (or any percent) of the citizens of a country be driven from their homeland, their jobs, their friends and neighbors, and their properties—simply because a majority of selfish fellow-citizens wish to impose oppression upon the entire population?
The Hutterites, whom you mentioned, were originally driven from Europe.
Correct. And now all of the world's Hutterites are located in United States and Canada: 25% in United States and 75% in Canada. They do quite a bit of visiting back and forth. I wonder why the Canadian Hutterites have not come from out of the oppressive Canadian government that steals their money, and forces them to share their wealth with non-Hutterites, and move to United States with the others?
You are right. Some North Americans, to avoid such injustices, may have to relocate to countries further south, east or west—but why should they have to do this? Are democratic nations supposed to drive out and expatriate dissenting minorities?
Do you know why a sizable number of Conservative Canadian Mennonites moved to Mexico? The Kleinegemeinde, Sommerfelder, and I think the Rheinlander also. It was mainly because the Canadian school systems forced them to do their schooling in English. Well, in Mexico, they experienced far more oppression than in Canada, mostly from bandits and corrupt police. So those groups returned to Canada, and now seem satisfied. I wonder why they didn't move to United States, "the land of the free," instead? They didn't want the bandits of Mexico but presently seem okay with the "grand theft" of Canada.
