annatar1914 wrote:a society having the primary means of production in common ownership by those who labor would be even less so, of an alien concept.
Possibly; however, the means of accomplishing this and its circumstances would have to be elucidated further.
annatar1914 wrote:And yet, if they all, all early Christians, had all things in common, then it isn't ''voluntary'' if one wanted to be a Christian.
Except they didn't. We know the Church in Jerusalem practiced this to some degree, but we also know that the Church in Ephesus did not given Paul's letter to Timothy; wherein, we see that responsibility for older widows was to fall on the head of household and was NOT to be a burden to the church. This implies a separate means of provision and income generation as distinct from the ecclesial which was directly sanctioned and supported by Apostolic writ (1 Timothy 5:3-16).
Christ Himself likewise indicates this with the upholding of the eldest son's responsibility regarding the caring for parents which was affixed to Old Testament inheritance laws (double portion for eldest son) that seem to be themselves at odds with a common ownership
contra private property (Matthew 15:3-7, Deuteronomy 21:17).
annatar1914 wrote:That's what States do, compel human wills, restrain them.
As were the Patriarchs, who were the original "state" over their own families and property. Indeed, Abraham as private free-holder could wage war as he did against the kings of the valley, and Scripture indicates that such men had the power to execute capital punishment, as we can see in Judah's threat against Tamar. This is the model I believe to still be the "optimal" form for Christian society as it was only replaced in the days of Samuel by the monarchy which Scripture clearly teaches as a negative development.
After all, we are warned of kings and other agents of compulsion against the homesteading Christian (1 Samuel 8:10-22)
annatar1914 wrote:And, I must make a distinction, by no means idiosyncratic to myself, that no Socialist State has ever confiscated legal ''personal property''. What everyone owns, held in trust, is the means of production, ''private property''.
I appreciate the distinction, but I don't think it changes much, I don't expect the Red commies to come and take my toothbrush.
The issue is whether or not the land under one's feet and its productive capabilities (along with the fruit of their own labor) belong to the family that uses it (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20)
The pleasures of enjoying what one produces from one's own land is raised up in Scripture as a beautiful delight, and owners of farms are even used as an analogy, in particular their right to do what they want with their own money (Matthew 20:15).
annatar1914 wrote:I'd say the rise of Papism and the Bourgeoisie is the story of the True Faith's decline in the West.
Gracelessness.
Neither a pope nor a rich man implies Gracelessness. Only a pope who usurps the authority that belongs to Christ and His Word or a rich man who lacks charity and defrauds the poor are such graceless individuals, and lets keep in mind, that both would have failed in their devices had they not sought protection from the state. Even Marx acknowledges that the state became what it is today for this very purpose, to protect the greedy, and as all protestants know well, the rise of absolutism came as states were co-opted and reinforced by the Popes in order to resist reform which created equally statist reactions by protestants in order that the reformation could be protected from inquisition.
This also reminds me of something my son said to me, literally just this past week.
He told me:
"Dad, I want to be a rich man someday."
When I heard this, I was concerned, as I believe that contentment and devotion should be sought first and not riches, so I asked him:
"Why is that son?"He then said:
"So I can give to the poor, like Good King Wenceslas"I was very proud, because
he gets it. God want us to give freely of what we have as a sacrifice, not by compulsion, and truly we should confess that generosity can be a motivator for wealth as much as greed, especially for the Christian.
Indeed, that it is sacrifice and not the money itself that God wants from people is clear in that the person who made the best contribution to Christ was the lowly widow with her mite and not the rich men out of their storehouses.
For she
sacrificed more. It was a matter of devotion. This does not seem to be what communists want. They don't want to see poor people sacrifice, they only want to see the storehouses of the wealthy drained. This isn't what Christ taught or wanted, he wants all to sacrifice, including the poor. He only rebukes the wealthy because in spite of their ability to do so they often refuse to sacrifice for the cause of Christ and His Kingdom, for they have idolized that which is fleeting, the gold that rusts. This is the great temptation of wealth.
So should the greedy be rebuked?
Sure. Should those who defraud and oppress the poor be resisted?
Sure.But charity cannot exist in a society that doesn't allow for one acquire their own excesses and surplus. Indeed, the closing lines of Good King Wenceslas are particularly instructive.
in his masters step he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye, who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing.
Should the good king have had his manor confiscated, his piles of gold, and his massive lands? Is that what Christ call us to require?
I think not. Why else would the blessing of Job after his restoration had been to have more than all others around him?
annatar1914 wrote:''Put not thy trust in princes''...
Indeed.
annatar1914 wrote:However, it is a curious sign of internal hidden Unity, that both true Right and true Left can agree that the right to bear arms against criminals and tyrants, that this is close if not identical to a universal absolute that the human person has this right ingrained in his being, made as he is in the Image and Likeness of God Himself (Who has all rights and owes nothing to anything that He has made, only the gratuitous nature of His Goodly Beneficent Will supplies all creatures justly and mercifully)
The Old Left and True Right can diagnose the disease and even agree to a degree as to the immediate procedures for procuring the solution; however, we disagree as to the fundamental cause and what the restored man should look like.
Both sides see the current state working to benefit greedy bankers and corporations as a fundamental evil, a union forged in hell.
However, the communists see the bankers and corporations as embodying capitalism and the state as their puppet, which without the state, no capitalism could exist, only communism.
Ancaps such as myself see the bankers and corporations as embodying cronyism and the state as their puppet, which without the state, they could not exist, only anarcho-capitalism.
Ancaps and commies both see being armed as a necessary stop-gap against this unholy union of the greedy (the corporations, bankers, etc) and the oppressive (the state).
Hence, why both sides of the spectrum desire full and unmitigated gun ownership/possession.
We both want to see this union destroyed, and both sides see guns as part of the equation to this end.