Socialism, for example, clearly does not help the poor: it just makes everyone poorer. It can spring from envy, not charity. It can instill dependency, not self-respect. And charity is not something anyone can delegate to an institution. A state cannot feel love and cannot be redeemed. Only a human being can. Sometimes, an over-weening welfare state can actually remove the capacity of many people to be personally generous by taxing their worldly goods before they have a chance to give them away
Of course the elephant in the room here is socialism, and it is that way because of the misrepresentation of our current system by the likes of Beck, and others, for personal gain. But this isn't the first time in our history such ridiculous accusations have been made, and I don't think we are worse for the wear, but sometimes I wonder.
With that said, yes and of course an overwhelming welfare state can suck the innovative life out of a people. But to say that's where our Country currently stands, like Beck and many others do, because there is a Democrat in office is disingenuous at best.
I agree with Sullivan when he says.
My own view is that there should be a collective and strong safety net for the poor, combined with, for Christians, a very powerful, indeed binding, injunction to give and give generously to others, and to take a personal interest in the needs of others. There's a balance here, in other words, between social justice and statist redistributionism.
If that safety net for the poor is considered socialism, then yes, I too am a socialist. But I have hope, that most reasonable people do not think that to be true.
Click here for entire post from The Daily Dish.