One of the hardest aspects of political discussion is that everyone seems to be looking for people to demonise. Capitalists, with whom I otherwise tend to agree, love to demonise "dole dossers" and immigrants, whereas Socialists and Communists have their billionaire boogie men. But the question I have to ask is in an era where even Disney has figured out that not every story needs a villain, why are we in the real world always looking for one?
In the header image, we see an example from a meme that crossed my timeline recently. It reads "8 guys have more money than 4 billion people combined. Pretty sure the single mom buying groceries with food stamps isn't the problem." To that I say amen! Your tragic exemplar is certainly not the problem. But let's take a moment to think about the people in this example.
First, we have our single mother. Already, there should be some alarm bells going off here. What we're actually dealing with is a manipulative rhetorical trick. A broad issue - in this case, the welfare state - is smuggled on the back of a sympathetic character. By relying on an admittedly sad example of someone who would genuinely need support, they distract from the issue as a whole.
This same strategy is often used in reverse. Just as the meme tugs at our heart to garner sympathy for single mothers, others stoke outrage by highlighting more negative examples. One negative example I personally once knew is a single mother who is that way very much by choice. She lived on welfare, yet sought IVF, resulting in the birth of her child. Should we treat this woman as exemplary, and use her as part of a campaign to abolish welfare altogether? Surely it is far wiser to treat the entire issue realistically! We shouldn't merely react to a hypothetical stereotype, nor even consider genuine individual examples. Rather, we should carefully consider the entire situation as it is.
The problem with memes like this is they are not designed to use, or even promote this sort of careful thought. Rather, it pushes a particular narrative, based on a particular mindset. It frames the issue as villains vs. victims, creating a dichotomy where you're either a decent human being willing to support the single mother, or a soulless shill for the monopoly monsters. Apathy is not an option, and considering nuance is forbidden.
But the reality of the situation is that it is nuanced. Emotions do not affect reality. You can't cure cancer with tears, you can't end wars with good vibes, and you can't reap a bountiful harvest if all you sow is love. Thus, we must take a more realistic approach to any policy. When we criticise welfare policies, what we need to ask is whether it incentivises good behavior, whether it is sustainable, and whether we are willing and able to deal with the consequences?
So, going back to the meme, we have a few unspoken assumptions to uncover. The first is that there is a problem, which is more specifically referred to as "the" problem. Our hypothetical single mother is explicitly not it, but the implication is these 8 people are. This is the fundamental disagreement between Capitalists and Socialists. Socialists, based on their overly simplistic view of wealth, see wealth inequality as inherently evil. They see things in terms of hoarders vs. helpless. Wealth is treated as a finite thing, which is unfairly distributed among the wealthy, while the poor are exploited, and forced to beg the greedy 1% "please Sir, I want some more".
There's a fairly simple illustration that shows the problem with this mentality. Was Henry VIII rich, or poor? During his reign, you probably couldn't get much richer than Henry VIII. What about our hypothetical single mother. Is she rich, or is she poor? A Socialist would probably consider her poor. Now let's compare the two.
Wealth | Henry VIII | Single mother |
Own a cell phone? | No | Probably |
Access to antibiotics, painkillers, or other modern medicine? | No | Yes |
Access to long-range transport? | No, limited to horse-drawn carriages | Yes, public transport, possibly a privately owned car |
Quick and diverse food choice? | No, seasonal and limited | Yes, supermarkets, global imports, fast food |
Instant long range communication? | No, technology unavailable | Yes, internet |
Likely to reach 60 years old? | Died at 55 | U.S. life expectancy ~78 |
This comparison exposes a fundamental flaw in the Socialist worldview. When we compare the rich of the past with the poor of the present, we see a stark contrast. Objectively, most people in the modern West are better off than Henry VIII, at least as far as quality of life goes. Things we take for granted, he couldn't have even dreamed of. If he got bored, he couldn't just whip out an iPhone and play Angry Birds. If he got a headache, he couldn't just pop a paracetamol. And while we have the luxury of being able to order a pizza right to our front door, Henry VIII had to wait for specific seasons just to access a particular fruit or vegetable.
We see, then, that our hypothetical single mother is poor only by today's standards. Applying those same standards to the 1500s, Henry VIII was even more poor. So what's with this apparent paradox? How is it that even the poor of our day are generally better off than our richest ancestors? This is ultimately because, contrary to the Socialist narrative, wealth is not a finite thing to be hoarded, nor does it need to be "fairly distributed" in order for everyone to make ends meet. In reality, wealth can be created, meaning even if the rich genuinely hoarded all their wealth, it wouldn't prevent even one person from earning more wealth.
Socialism looks at a man with two cows, determines this is somehow unfair to someone with no cows, and redistributes the two cows. Capitalism sees this same man with two cows, encourages him to trade one of his cows for a bull, and allows him to breed more cows.
The monetary element merely simplifies trade by adding an element of universal value. If you want something someone else has, you might not have something they want. But if you have money, you can buy what you want from them, and they can go and buy what they want from someone else.
So, going back to the original meme, we see that the whole complaint is invalid. To begin with, if we're being honest, no one who complains about wealth inequality is only upset about the 8 people to whom the meme refers. They're just as upset about the 9th richest person on Earth, and the 10th, and that resentment usually extends to not just the top 1%, but ultimately the top 50%. But ultimately, in a Capitalist system, a millionaire becomes a millionaire only through this system of voluntary exchange. If someone gets rich selling burgers, every dollar he makes is a dollar someone else willingly gave him, in exchange for that which he willingly gave them. If you then buy a burger from him, you do not then get to complain about the fact the money you spent is no longer in your control, nor do you get to complain that the new rightful owner of that money isn't spending it the way you would like him to. If he keeps it in a vault, it's his money, he can keep it in a vault. If he spends it on something for himself, it's his money, he can spend it on something for himself. If he donates it to charity, who are you to complain that he does not donate more of his money to charity?
Contrast this with welfare programs. Welfare programs are not about voluntary exchange. Rather, the government forcibly seizes money from someone else who has earned it, and gives it to someone who has not. Keep in mind, that someone who has earned it may well be you.
Of course, it may not be. I've never understood this strange mentality in political discussion where if an issue doesn't affect me directly, I shouldn't care. No, it doesn't matter if I'm not black, if the law says black people can't use a public water fountain, I'm kicking up a fuss. In the same way, maybe you're not a tax payer. Maybe you're still young, living with your parents, or for whatever reason you're tax exempt. It doesn't matter. Because of the fact tax money is earned, but not used, by the tax payer, it still makes sense that everyone would expect tax money to be spent wisely.
To be clear, I do want to distinguish myself from those who believe taxation is theft. I do believe it can become theft, and ultimately, I am a firm advocate for a flat tax, as it is by far the most fair, practical, and morally acceptable system. But whatever form of tax exists, the fact will always remain that it is money taken from those who have earned it, against their will. Therefore, it makes sense that the taxpayer might be a little concerned about how it is spent.
But a Socialist might interject with "I'm happy to pay taxes to support the welfare system". However, aside from being yet another appeal to emotion, what they're actually saying is "I want to spend my money my way, and I'm happy to make you spend your money my way too."
But what does Scripture say? Well, first of all, it doesn't speak too highly of those who will not work. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, we read "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
This is one of many passages in the Bible that emphasises the value of honest work. Aside from being explicit, "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat", Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he and his colleagues lived by example. He emphasises this, saying "...not because we do not have authority...". Elsewhere, he stated "Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14). Did Paul preach the Gospel? It was his literal calling! By divine command, the Church of Paul's time should have supported Paul as surely as Israel paid tithes to support the Levites. And yet here, we read that purely for sake of setting an example, Paul worked with his own hands, refused to eat anyone's bread, and sought not to burden the Thessalonians. Thus, by both command, and by example, Paul precluded the reception of even a man's most basic needs if that same man refuses to work to earn it.
What's more is he doesn't even stop there. He notes that the Thessalonians actually did have such members who were not willing to work for their food. "For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies." And this is sandwiched between two commands to give such people the cold shoulder. "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." "And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed."
Now, it should be noted that there is a difference between someone who will not work, and someone who cannot work. Thus, this is not a command against feeding the needy. In fact, many places in the New Testament show that early congregations often cooperated to eradicate neediness among themselves. Acts 4:32-35, for example, describes a very large group of Christians who voluntarily gave up their own property, laid it at the Apostles' feet, and the Apostles distributed it to each as had any need.
But even this came with caveats. Biblically speaking, Christians believe the Lord will provide us with what we need to do the good works He has given us to walk in. But we need to distinguish between the Lord giving us resources to wisely steward, and the Lord providing miracle after miracle until we effectively have infinite resources. This is why Paul gives Timothy instruction on identifying genuine widows, concluding with "If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows." (1 Timothy 5:16, emphasis mine).
From this, we see that even within a Church system, God doesn't say "you're all responsible for that needy person". No, He says if someone's needs can be met by their own family, that's their family's job. The Church must be free to provide for "real" widows. But notice, we need to distinguish between real widows and, as the earlier context of 1 Timothy 5 tells us, those who are idle, gossips, busybodies, and even promiscuous. Failure to distinguish "burdens" the Church, and actually negatively affects the effort to help the genuinely needy.
It's important to note that while individual congregations did pool their resources, even this was voluntary. One chapter after we read of the congregation in Acts 4:32-35, we read the account of Ananias and Sapphira, who also sold some of their land and laid the proceeds at the feet of the Apostles. However, unlike the others, Ananias and Sapphira lied about how much they sold the land for, keeping some of it back for themselves. As a result, Peter says to Ananias "...Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4).
Notice, Peter's accusation is not "you shouldn't say your possessions are your own". Quite the opposite. While the land remained, Peter says it was his own. And after it was sold, Peter says the money was in his own control. The sin was not owning the land, or owning the money for which it was sold. The sin was in lying about it, specifically lying to God.
A similar scenario can be seen in 2 Corinthians 9, where Paul reminds the Corinthians of a gift they had pledged to provide, encouraging them to have it ready. But Paul notes, "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7).
From this, we see a principle that is repeated throughout Scripture: God does not see as man sees. God sees the heart. Thus, the identical deed can have radically different moral applications. If you give to a charitable cause because you have to, or even because you think you have to, that's not a good deed, that's an obligation. God loves a cheerful giver. Thus, each one must give as he has purposed in his heart. If that means you're happy to live your entire life as if everything you own ultimately belongs to the Church for distribution to the needy, then all glory be to God, He will reward you. If that means you sell some property, but only give some of the proceeds to the Church, so be it, as long as you're being honest about it. Now, there does come a point where you need to seriously consider the state of your heart. If God loves a cheerful giver, the total inability to give cheerfully is a problem. But the principle here is that whatever you own, you own, and are not in any way obligated to give.
But all of this is within a Church context. This is important, first of all because the government should never interfere with Church business. According to our brother Paul, "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4).
This tells us that the role of the state is actually to protect the Church, not replace it. We are supposed to pray for the government so that we may lead peaceful and Godly lives. The state is not supposed to step in and say "alright guys, all that talk about giving cheerfully, that's over now. We're telling you exactly how much you must give to each charitable cause." No, charity is our job. We pay them taxes for their peacekeeping roles, but you'll never find anywhere in the Bible that places any burden on the government to actually be providers. They can stop thieves. They can prosecute cheats. They can enforce honest and fair business practices. But the closest thing you'll find to food stamps in the Bible are verses like Leviticus 23:22, which dictates that the corners of (pre-Christian Israeli) fields must remain unharvested so the poor and the foreigner could come and get it.
So, welfare programs are actually beyond the legitimate purview of government. But for sake of argument, especially since these systems do exist, and could be seen as maintaining peace and justice within a land, let's just say they are legitimate. Looking back at the system God expects of His Church, is it unimaginable He would expect a similar system from the state? If God commands that "whoever will not work, neither will he eat" in a Church context, what will He think of supporting those who will not work at the expense of the tax payer? If God says "let not the Church be burdened...", why would we imagine He says "let the state be burdened instead"? And if the able bodied are given certain work requirements in order to receive food stamps, what would God say to those who rebuke such requirements by complaining about single mothers? Are all cases so blended? Is the situation so simplistic that you have a choice between 8 villains and one victim?
As we have seen, the Bible takes a more nuanced approach. It allows for the private ownership of property, and places no limit on it. The Biblical command to the rich is not "give up your riches in a vain attempt to eradicate poverty". Quite the opposite, Scripture says "Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy." (1 Timothy 6:17). So if you're rich, the only command is to trust in God, remembering riches are fleeting. But as long as you do so through honest means, there is no limit to how rich you can be. Wealth caps, tax brackets, and other means of wealth "redistribution" are artificial, foreign to Scripture, and actually quite dishonest.
But more importantly, while the Bible places no caps on the wealth we may obtain, it also places no caps on the wealth we may give. The rule here is that each of us should give as our heart, not our government, dictates. As we have seen, this can lead us to forego all our worldly possessions for sake of providing for others. And so this leads us to the question... why don't we?
For me, the answer is because I'm happy to give as I purpose in my heart. Now, in line with Matthew 6:1-4, I have neither desire, nor obligation, to tell you how much that is. However, I will tell you it is significantly shy of 100%. But I'm a Christian, and a Free Market Capitalist. It is entirely consistent for me to give as much as I want to give, and keep what I want to keep, because I strongly believe the principles discussed in this article.
But how many Communists do you know who will voluntarily reduce themselves to Communism? How often do the Socialists, who often say "I'd gladly pay more taxes...", actually do so? To put it in Biblical terms, "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:14-18).
Communists and Socialists, while they will hopefully fail to enforce their views upon society, are entirely free, within a Capitalist system, to live consistently with their own views. Capitalism allows, but does not mandate, the accumulation of wealth. Once you've paid your taxes, you can give more to the government. The mechanisms are in place! If you'd rather give directly to a specific cause, nothing stops you. It is entirely legal for you to do so. If you say you want to give more, then as long as you give what you purpose in your heart, as the saying goes, "shut up and put your money where your mouth is".
But why must we give anything in the first place? This is "the problem". The real problem. Wealth can be created, and theoretically, it is impossible for mankind to reach the "maximum", whatever that may be. But wealth is still limited. Resource management is not like a computer game, where you can just switch to creative mode and spawn in whatever you need at the time. Rather, when Adam rebelled against God by taking the forbidden fruit, God told him "...“Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”" (Genesis 3:17-19).
And so we see, long before Rockefeller became the first billionaire, long before Henry VIII first sat on his throne, even long before the first coin was minted, mankind had to work for our food, and it wasn't even especially easy. That was the case before anyone became rich, and it would be the case if the entire world adopted Communism, because when all is said and done, there are two things we can't do: Eat money, and beat God.
And so we see, in one sense, neither the 8 richest men in the world, nor the single mother, are the problem. In another sense, the 8 rich men, the single mother, and even the baby she cradles, are the problem. Why? Because of our sin. We all sin in different ways, but the wages for all of them is death.
But here's the beautiful truth. God is a cheerful giver, and He has purposed in His heart to give us everlasting life. As Paul writes, "For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”" (Romans 4:3-8).
Notice, to him who does not work. That's not referring to manual labor. It's not talking about toiling under the burning sun, or anything like that. No, it's saying you don't have to do anything to eat the bread of life! It's freely offered to us by our Heavenly Father, because the work has been done. And so in all of this complaining about the price of eggs, I have to wonder, why are people so resistant to receiving the one thing in this life that genuinely is free? Give a man a food stamp, he'll eat for a day. Give a man the Gospel, he will live for eternity.
AI usage
AI was used in the following ways during the production of this article:
1. Chat GPT made several suggestions for how to phrase the problem with using a single sympathetic example to cover a broad group of potential welfare recipients in this section. These suggestions were blended together with my own words.
2. When asked to come up with an alternative phrase for "Billionaire boogie men", Chat GPT suggested "Monopoly men of doom", which I refined to "monopoly monsters" in this paragraph.
3. Upon being sent a draft, Chat GPT highlighted the beginning of this paragraph, and suggested a smoother way to rephrase it.
Expand to see my original phrasing.
4. Chat GPT was asked to refine the chart to make it more readable. It also suggested giving examples rather than a simple yes/no answer.
5. Upon being sent an early draft, Chat GPT suggested rephrasing "This is where the Socialist narrative falls apart" to "This comparison exposes a fundamental flaw in the Socialist worldview" in this paragraph.
Comments