"Economics #1" Response

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient person. Every single human being has some sort of need that needs to be met, whether it is the need for food or the need for fiscal stability. To meet these needs in society, any country that wants to be successful must establish an economy. There are two kinds of “extreme” economies: The laissez-faire (or capitalist) style economy, such as the one endorsed in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, advocates minimal governmental interference in economy. In other words, people should be allowed to use their own capital, whether it is their ideas or their money, to increase financial gain in a competitive, free marketplace. On the other hand, Communist economies, as well as Communism’s diluted sister-economy, socialism, advocate “[a]n economic system in which the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government” (Noebel, 354). In fact, Marxists view socialism as “the transitional phase between capitalism and communism” (Noebel, 354). While socialist approaches to economy can be found in both certain Christian and Secular Humanist groups, the most Biblically-oriented economic approach is free capitalism (see Proverbs 31; Isaiah 65:21-22; Jeremiah 32:43-44; Acts 5:1-4; Ephesians 4:28). Documentary director Michael Moore states that “Socialism is democracy. And socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism.” While the of democracy and unity that Mr. Moore claims socialism represents may cause one to view socialism in a friendlier light, it is important to understand that Mr. Moore is approaching democracy and religious unity from the faulty worldview of Secular Humanism.

David A. Noebel explains that “Secular Humanists do not agree about the ideal economic system although most support socialism in one form or another” (Noebel, 369). Specifically, the majority of Secular Humanists embrace interventionism, which is “[p]olitical activity undertaken by a state to influence aspects of the economy usually in order to uphold certain moral values” (Noebel, 370). Unfortunately, the term “moral values” loses its meaning when used within Secular Humanism; since Secular Humanism uses man as the ultimate standard of right or wrong, morality is subject to evolutionary change. Therefore, interventionism creates an economy that will never be truly consistent. As such, the Secular Humanist approach to economy is an untrustworthy system, as well as the socialism it endorses.

Working from a secular dependence on a socialist economy, Michael Moore declares, “[s]ocialism is democracy.” While the promise of democracy through socialism sounds like a worthy ambition, David Noebel points out:

 …the Humanist conception of democracy differs significantly from more commonly held attitudes. For Secular Humanists, democracy extends far beyond the realm of government…Secular Humanists’ motivation for the application of democracy to all of life is to change relationships…the process of democratization entails a process of equalization. (Noebel, 331-332). The truest definition of democracy that most people espouse is not a process of equalization; rather, it comes from the Greek roots demos (“people”), and kratia (“power”). Demokratia’s English translation is, “the people hold power.” In addition, the idea of democracy was primarily created to describe a government in which the people have a voice in national leadership—not to describe social relationships, or even be synonymous with economy. Democracy’s “power to the people”-based definition could even be used to justify an economic approach that contains less socialism and government interference. Also, the secular idea of democracy and its properties of equalization, if logically followed, become a set of dehumanizing forces that stifles individual talents—aspects which can never be “equal” from person to person.

The atheistic viewpoint from which Mr. Moore approaches the topics of socialism and democracy causes his argument to collapse, given his mention of the great religions’ connection to socialism. Obviously, a worldview that denies a higher spiritual power cannot peacefully coexist with a worldview that does—at least not for any significant period of time, or for any greater good. Therefore, the synonymous relationship that Moore builds between socialism, an economic theory most highly endorsed by Secular Humanism, cannot truly be “Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism,” as he says.

The secular bent from which Michael Moore extols socialism ultimately renders it incompatible with the Christian worldview, or any other religious worldview. Specifically, the high governmental influence that socialism calls for contradicts the Christian worldview because of its emphasis on the government over the church and the family. Essentially, while socialism may initially appear as a lovely picture of future peace, it robs Man of the role of stewardship that God has given him. By granting the government the power to make the final decision on economic issues, such as prices, socialism gives citizens an excuse to live in ignorance about proper resource management. In conclusion, socialism is neither synonymous with the true spirit of democracy, nor religion—rather, it is a secular attempt to create an “earthly heaven” through the government, rather than relying on God’s provision.