If Jesus had been born 30 years ago...

Jesus didn't use the sword of government to impose "economic fairness" on society, so he definitely wasn't a socialist.

There's a big difference between socialism and charity.

So those are the only options?  Be a socialist or support the 1 percenters?  

Please...

[/b][/quote]..and never a truer word was said, though I don't think you actually mean it like I do.

One of my biggest bugbears with Americans is this confusion between 'human rights to food and shelter' and charity, which by definition is not a right butt a privileged and at the mercy of someone else's goodwill.

I find charity as a way of wealth distribution absolutely immoral.  It results in an uneven and unethical and often unearned power imbalance  between people.  The 'haves' and the 'have nots'.  This does not mean that I don't subscribe to some charities  butt in my opinion it is way better to have an egalitarian system where EVERYONE'S right to food shelter, healthcare and education  where those who can afford it pay moreish assured in a caring society.  Government is the best way to achieve this through taxes and an equitable distribution system.  Most Western countries manage to do this pretty well, with the exception of USA.  They manage to combine a capitalist democratic economy with socialist social welfare programmes covering those issues I mentioned.
[/quote]

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than any economic system in history.  That's also why the American poor are relatively well-off by world standards.  Also, most of the Western countries that you are referring to aren't really socialist.  They just have strong social safety-nets, which they can afford because they rely on the US to protect them from foreign enemies (and thus don't spend much/any money on their national defenses).  

Most countries that practice ACTUAL socialism are authoritarian and poor as fuck.  It's immoral.  Stealing wealth is immoral.  Forced labor is immoral.  Socialism requires these things.  It's immoral.

Capitalist economies with strong social safety-nets are better.

[/b][/quote]..and never a truer word was said, though I don't think you actually mean it like I do.

One of my biggest bugbears with Americans is this confusion between 'human rights to food and shelter' and charity, which by definition is not a right butt a privileged and at the mercy of someone else's goodwill.

I find charity as a way of wealth distribution absolutely immoral.  It results in an uneven and unethical and often unearned power imbalance  between people.  The 'haves' and the 'have nots'.  This does not mean that I don't subscribe to some charities  butt in my opinion it is way better to have an egalitarian system where EVERYONE'S right to food shelter, healthcare and education  where those who can afford it pay moreish assured in a caring society.  Government is the best way to achieve this through taxes and an equitable distribution system.  Most Western countries manage to do this pretty well, with the exception of USA.  They manage to combine a capitalist democratic economy with socialist social welfare programmes covering those issues I mentioned.
[/quote]

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than any economic system in history.  That's also why the American poor are relatively well-off by world standards.  Also, most of the Western countries that you are referring to aren't really socialist.  They just have strong social safety-nets, which they can afford because they rely on the US to protect them from foreign enemies (and thus don't spend much/any money on their national defenses).  

Most countries that practice ACTUAL socialism are authoritarian and poor as fuck.  It's immoral.  Stealing wealth is immoral.  Forced labor is immoral.  Socialism requires these things.  It's immoral.

Capitalist economies with strong social safety-nets are better.



[/quote]
[/quote]

...and you are just an arrogant ignorant American 'Christian' who thinks the sun shines out of America's arse!

You wouldn't know 'the real world' if it bit you on the arse.

He would be locked in a mental institution.



But yes you are correct

Well if you say it, it must be true. Absolutes about hypotheticals. Great argument.