22 August 2016
I consider socialism, at least as presently practiced [v.i.], to be inferior to capitalism—others have said and written enough about this subject so that there’s no need for me to elaborate for a well-informed reader—; this inferiority is, however, practical rather than moral. (In fact, one could argue that, since Galatians 6:2 tells us to bear one another’s burdens, a government that commits itself to socialism on Christian principles, and which makes it known to the governed that Christianity is the motivation for the adoption of that system (since, in lieu of this cognizance, people will place their trust in the government rather than in God), would more truly approach the Christian ideal than any other regime that has yet existed. (There have been Christian Socialist parties in Europe, but I don’t know whether any of them have ever held power.) Burdens can be borne by charities, of course, but not everyone who is able to contribute to charity does so, and so the burden is not shared by all. “Christian Socialism” (or, to be alliterative, Sacred Socialism) might prove less effective economically than (pure) capitalism, but this drawback could be deemed acceptable for the sake of rescuing those who fall into the cracks in the free-market sidewalk. Anyway, this hypothetical socialist brand could probably be modified from the current bureaucratic model. Why, for example, couldn’t a government provide the people with services only indirectly, by contracting with charitable organizations (which operate less expensively than government departments and agencies), just as it does with arms manufacturers?