[mplawssix]

Ron Paul makes too much sense. I don't think he can become the president of US.

If Ron Paul supports usury , then surely he is very dangerous , although outwardly , he may promise to offer many good things. Check this.

###############
Ron Paul's "Austrian" Jewish Economics

Whether a currency is backed by gold makes no difference. As long as we pay interest, it is still Illuminati Jewish economics. The real alternative is interest-free currency.

http://www.henrymakow.com/austrian_e..._jewish_e.html

################

As we know, the Illuminati Jewish Money Power likes playing the Hegelian Dialectic game and controlling both sides of the conflict. Clearly, they will have their answer ready when their Fiat Empire comes to it's end.

That answer may be Austrian Economics. Here's why:

Murray Rothbard was a son of poor Jewish immigrants from Poland. Ludwig von Mises was a son of a wealthy Jewish financier family from what is now the Ukraine. When von Mises came to the US, he was set up with a grant from the Rockefellers.

Austrian Economics correctly identifies the manipulation of the money supply as the cause of the boom/bust, a.k.a business cycle. This is the little bit of truth necessary for the rest of the disinformation to have credibility. However, they completely ignore the wealth transfer through interest, which is of much greater significance.

THE GRIP OF INTEREST

Interest has always been the Money Power's main tool. They took power by creating wars, financing both sides, and having Governments go deeply into debt.

This is the key issue: interest is a wealth transfer from the poorest 80% to the richest 10%.

The global numbers are not known, but in Germany $1 billion per day is paid by the poorest 80% and extrapolated to the world this means the Plutocracy drain anywhere between $5 trillion and $10 trillion dollars per year.

The US Govt loses up to $700 billion per year in debt service. That's a TARP every year. All for money that was printed the minute it was borrowed. But Austrian Economics will 'fix' that problem: we'll be paying it for Gold-based credit instead.

To add insult to injury: the boom/bust cycle will not change, which is the basic case for gold. Gold has been the standard for a long time and it didn't stop the Money Power from creating asset bubbles and deflationary busts.

Even under a full reserve banking system it is quite easy to manipulate the volume in circulation when you control a large part of the World's gold reserves.

So all in all its fair to say that Austrian Economics is 'Jewish' Economics.

RON PAUL

All this has become relevant because of Ron Paul, of course. But Paul is not the man patriots think he is. In 2001, he said, There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.... The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation." -- Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/...orld-currency/

Paul says Gold will keep Government spending in check. He wants to cut Government spending, but is unable to explain how this would lead to different results than what we have seen in Greece: an imploding economy with a withering tax base and even higher deficits as the predictable result.

In the debate you see the Keynes-Austrian Dialectic: Spending versus Austerity. Both ignore interest, which is the hidden common ground.

People like Webster Tarpley and Paul Krugman want the Government to reflate the economy. This is correct, but the risk is it will kill the patient which is suffering from intolerable debt service levels as it is. They both skillfully avoid the monetary system itself, let alone interest. That's why they can't really put up a fight against the Austrians.
If the economy were reflated with either debt free money, or interest free credit the problem would be over instantly.

It is too bad Ron Paul has managed to hijack the Patriot Movement. His constitutionalism, his peaceful intentions (we'll have to see how they would work out in practice), his $1 trillion austerity drive combined with his modest demeanor have managed to convince many discerning and well meaning people.

His rise and the sycophantic worship that he receives is eerily similar to that of Barack Obama in 2008.

But as long as we don't understand money and the all importance of interest, people like Obama and Paul will continue to fool us with their Voodoo- and Jewish Economics.

CONCLUSION

During modern history the financiers behind the throne clearly subjugated Governments. They don't need the State. To them it is a competitor, a dangerous one too. They will use it as long as they can control it, but they are trying to consolidate their financial power in their World Government.

Social Credit is the best debt free currency I know of: it's a Greenback created by Govt, given to the people to spend into circulation, instead of Govt. In that way the money is located at the base of the supply line. People know where to spend the money better than govt.

Meanwhile, the gold versus fiat narrative is a distraction which allows them to sabotage all meaningful monetary reform. We need a debt-free, interest-free currency which would lead to political freedom and the put humanity back on the path to fulfilling its Divine destiny.

----------------------------------
Austrian Economists suffer when confronted with the interest issue. Here are two recent examples:
What Gary North is not telling you about Interest
Discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell

Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies

Mutual credit, the astonishingly simple truth about money creation
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...oney-creation/

The problem is not debt, its interest
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...-its-interest/

-------------------

[suiviouse]

Firstly, if you dont know who ron paul is, please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo


Secondly, to those who would like to see him in goverment in america, it just got one step closer:

http://www.ronpaul.com/

Why is he throwing up this strange sign suddenly during a fundraiser?

http://www.whale.to/b/image_hand_sign_ron_paul_04.jpg

And here he is throwing up the same sign as he just comes out of his car:

http://myshasta.info/tempest/liberty/RonPaul-Salute.jpg

Why is he making such a strange hand gesture coming out of his car?

[mplawssix]

Firstly, if you dont know who ron paul is, please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo


Secondly, to those who would like to see him in goverment in america, it just got one step closer:

http://www.ronpaul.com/

Thirdly , we need to Allah's wisdom behind declaring war on usury . Check these links.

#############
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-global-empire
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-free-currency

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ed-in-the-West
###############

How are you financing your engineering study in the British uni ?

[Lenny Hensley]

I hope that either Ron Paul wins or Rick Santorum wins. With Ron Paul, it's a win-win situation for America and Muslims. With Rick Santorum, it's a lose-win situation, where America loses and Muslims win. This is because Santorum has no viable plans for the economy, which will lead to the downfall of America and thus forcing it to pull out from its military commitments around the world. With Ron Paul, America would prosper but so would the rest of the world.

Either way, we have to realize that these are kuffaar and they do not have Islam's best interests in their heart. If they truly were able to do what they wanted, they'd remove Islam from America. بعضهم اولياء بعض against Islam.

[streMunford]

Either way, we have to realize that these are kuffaar and they do not have Islam's best interests in their heart. If they truly were able to do what they wanted, they'd remove Islam from America. بعضهم اولياء بعض against Islam.

Wrong.

Actually, nowadays they don't really care how amazing of a Muslim you are, how many masaajid you build, how many huffaz/ulema you produce, or how much salaat/salawaat/dhikr you perform. All they care about is that you don't impose your restrictions and ideals upon the rest of society, and don't threaten life/liberty/property based on your religion. Basically, don't acquire political power, and don't impose religious law - and you're golden.

If you don't understand those who oppose you and how they think in a nuanced way - you will never prevail.

[FEti0TUI]

Asalam 3leikoum wr wb,

If you are a USA citizen,please make sure to register Republican and endorse Ron Paul in the primaries. You can leave the Republican party the same day you vote for him and as a independent or Islamist or what ever you write as your party you can vote either way in the Presidential elections. Life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (aka the US Constitution) is an important way of life for a Muslim until we can help establish Allah's law on earth.

Barek Allah Feekoum,
Akhouk Yousef
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Muslim...289003?sk=wall

[discountviagraman]

Wrong. They don't have a "who cares" attitude towards the poor in society. Rather, they merely state that it is not the role of government to forcibly take wealth and property from some people and redistribute it to others. That in no way means that the poor shouldn't be taken care of. Many libertarians generous people and philanthropists, who care for the poor and needy ... Libertarians believe that individuals and private organizations should spend on the poor - instead of the government forcing people to do so.

Here's an example. Zakat is mandatory. So, the government could forcibly take 2.5% of our wealth and redistribute it to the poor. Now ... is sadaqa mandatory? If someone gave their Zakat, and took care of their dependents properly, are they blameworthy for not giving nafl sadaqa? What if the government forced you to give nafl sadaqa? Is that fair? Shouldn't the individual have the right to decide how much, and where to give his/her sadaqa?

Who ever said the role of government to decide and forcibly take wealth from some sections of society and redistribute it to others? I've been meaning to make a post on this, discussing the true Islamic concept of government, and the role that government plays in an Islamic system. Specifically, what things are the government *responsible* for - to the extent they may forcibly take money and wealth from the citizens to accomplish. For example, defending/expanding borders, enforcing law/contracts, etc ..

Jazakallah brother for your views,

May I pose a question then:

Here in the UK we have free healthcare (publicly funded health system), whilst in European nations it is very similar. However if there was a true Islamic system of governance anywhere in the world, then would the citizens of that nation receive free healthcare or not? Is it Islamically applicable to look after your peoples needs in this way? Would and Islamic form of governance be perceptive to the needs of the welfare of the populous or not?

Similarly; what would happen to the people who are out of work, because theres not enough jobs to satisfy demand? Would you let these people starve as we see in many 'Muslim' countries today?

[Creva4k]

bro i proper laughed when shaikh yousuf asked maneating lizard to read on the live session of the shariah program. i take it your on there? Its an amazing course mashAllah


He did win bro, 3rd place was enough, the first three are goig to be invovled in the next rounds as far as i know?

Perhaps you can enlighten me with an epxlanation of how the system works and what the significance of today was? As far as I can see it was a necessary step for ron paul to become president.

And even if the congress dislikes his policies, its a mass movement taht heavily favours the ummah. People will get swept away in his movementy and adopty his policies and inshAllah he will help transform the attitudes of many americans. Imagine all those people who because of ron paul, oppose interventionalism. i believe this can only be a good thing. All the money he is spending on ads and documentaries and talks, arguing the points taht muslims really need to be made

Yeah, that's me. Are you a 2nd semester student as well? What's your name.

Anyways, the Iowa Caucus doesn't officially have any affect on the process of nominating a presidential candidate. There is a lot of media attention surrounding it, however, because it is the first electoral event of the year, and so it is used as an indicator for what the rest of the election trail might look like.

So Ron Paul's strong showing does indicate that he's much more popular than last year. The problem is that the people he's mostly popular with can't vote him into becoming the Republican presidential candidate, as they are independents.

So, it is expected that he wont do as well when it comes time for the actual primaries.

[spineeupsenry]

bro can you explain exactly what these elections taht just happened actually were and what are their significance. And why were all the candidates repiblican?

[NumStulpata]

If Ron Paul supports usury , then surely he is very dangerous , although outwardly , he may promise to offer many good things. Check this.

###############
Ron Paul's "Austrian" Jewish Economics

Whether a currency is backed by gold makes no difference. As long as we pay interest, it is still Illuminati Jewish economics. The real alternative is interest-free currency.

http://www.henrymakow.com/austrian_e..._jewish_e.html

################

As we know, the Illuminati Jewish Money Power likes playing the Hegelian Dialectic game and controlling both sides of the conflict. Clearly, they will have their answer ready when their Fiat Empire comes to it's end.

That answer may be Austrian Economics. Here's why:

Murray Rothbard was a son of poor Jewish immigrants from Poland. Ludwig von Mises was a son of a wealthy Jewish financier family from what is now the Ukraine. When von Mises came to the US, he was set up with a grant from the Rockefellers.

Austrian Economics correctly identifies the manipulation of the money supply as the cause of the boom/bust, a.k.a business cycle. This is the little bit of truth necessary for the rest of the disinformation to have credibility. However, they completely ignore the wealth transfer through interest, which is of much greater significance.

THE GRIP OF INTEREST

Interest has always been the Money Power's main tool. They took power by creating wars, financing both sides, and having Governments go deeply into debt.

This is the key issue: interest is a wealth transfer from the poorest 80% to the richest 10%.

The global numbers are not known, but in Germany $1 billion per day is paid by the poorest 80% and extrapolated to the world this means the Plutocracy drain anywhere between $5 trillion and $10 trillion dollars per year.

The US Govt loses up to $700 billion per year in debt service. That's a TARP every year. All for money that was printed the minute it was borrowed. But Austrian Economics will 'fix' that problem: we'll be paying it for Gold-based credit instead.

To add insult to injury: the boom/bust cycle will not change, which is the basic case for gold. Gold has been the standard for a long time and it didn't stop the Money Power from creating asset bubbles and deflationary busts.

Even under a full reserve banking system it is quite easy to manipulate the volume in circulation when you control a large part of the World's gold reserves.

So all in all its fair to say that Austrian Economics is 'Jewish' Economics.

RON PAUL

All this has become relevant because of Ron Paul, of course. But Paul is not the man patriots think he is. In 2001, he said, There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.... The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation." -- Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/...orld-currency/

Paul says Gold will keep Government spending in check. He wants to cut Government spending, but is unable to explain how this would lead to different results than what we have seen in Greece: an imploding economy with a withering tax base and even higher deficits as the predictable result.

In the debate you see the Keynes-Austrian Dialectic: Spending versus Austerity. Both ignore interest, which is the hidden common ground.

People like Webster Tarpley and Paul Krugman want the Government to reflate the economy. This is correct, but the risk is it will kill the patient which is suffering from intolerable debt service levels as it is. They both skillfully avoid the monetary system itself, let alone interest. That's why they can't really put up a fight against the Austrians.
If the economy were reflated with either debt free money, or interest free credit the problem would be over instantly.

It is too bad Ron Paul has managed to hijack the Patriot Movement. His constitutionalism, his peaceful intentions (we'll have to see how they would work out in practice), his $1 trillion austerity drive combined with his modest demeanor have managed to convince many discerning and well meaning people.

His rise and the sycophantic worship that he receives is eerily similar to that of Barack Obama in 2008.

But as long as we don't understand money and the all importance of interest, people like Obama and Paul will continue to fool us with their Voodoo- and Jewish Economics.

CONCLUSION

During modern history the financiers behind the throne clearly subjugated Governments. They don't need the State. To them it is a competitor, a dangerous one too. They will use it as long as they can control it, but they are trying to consolidate their financial power in their World Government.

Social Credit is the best debt free currency I know of: it's a Greenback created by Govt, given to the people to spend into circulation, instead of Govt. In that way the money is located at the base of the supply line. People know where to spend the money better than govt.

Meanwhile, the gold versus fiat narrative is a distraction which allows them to sabotage all meaningful monetary reform. We need a debt-free, interest-free currency which would lead to political freedom and the put humanity back on the path to fulfilling its Divine destiny.

----------------------------------
Austrian Economists suffer when confronted with the interest issue. Here are two recent examples:
What Gary North is not telling you about Interest
Discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell

Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies

Mutual credit, the astonishingly simple truth about money creation
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...oney-creation/

The problem is not debt, its interest
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...-its-interest/

-------------------

You guys have such unrealistic expectations. Why do you even think that non-Muslims would not support usury? For American citizens, we have to choose between these candidates and it seem like Ron Paul's economic and international policy might be better for American citizens in the long run.

[Lenny Hensley]

Wrong.

Actually, nowadays they don't really care how amazing of a Muslim you are, how many masaajid you build, how many huffaz/ulema you produce, or how much salaat/salawaat/dhikr you perform. All they care about is that you don't impose your restrictions and ideals upon the rest of society, and don't threaten life/liberty/property based on your religion. Basically, don't acquire political power, and don't impose religious law - and you're golden.

If you don't understand those who oppose you and how they think in a nuanced way - you will never prevail.

Sorry, but there's a reason Allah tells us not to take non-Muslims as our protectors, guardians, and close friends.

Are you so naive to believe that Muslims and other minorities will be left alone? If free reign is given to the people, guess whose rights are compromised first and foremost? Too much freedom, especially to Americans, many of which are gun-toting, warmongering, Bible-thumping Islamophobes will result in lack of protection for minorities, such as Muslims. If you really want to be accepted by non-Muslim Americans as a fellow American, you HAVE to compromise your deen. Many Muslim American organizations have made compromises to the religion in order to appease the non-believers and yet Americans are still the most hated minority in the US (Atheists can complain all they want about being hated but they are far from a minority).

[suiviouse]

I remember a few years back all these brothers at masjid were passing out flyers and telling everyone vote obama vote obama now the same people got kicked like a soccer ball from democratic side to republican side and are saying vote ron paul. Then they will get kicked back and say vote democratic.

[Creva4k]

bro can you explain exactly what these elections taht just happened actually were and what are their significance. And why were all the candidates repiblican?

It's a pretty complicated process, but basically the caucus determines delegates for county conventions, where delegates are chosen for district conventions, where the delegates for the Republican National Convention are finally chosen. Those delegates then decide, along with delegates of other states, who to field as the party's candidate for presidency.

[NumStulpata]

I remember a few years back all these brothers at masjid were passing out flyers and telling everyone vote obama vote obama now the same people got kicked like a soccer ball from democratic side to republican side and are saying vote ron paul. Then they will get kicked back and say vote democratic.

Do you have a solution? It is easy to criticize and not give a solution. Who should we vote for?

[Creva4k]

I remember a few years back all these brothers at masjid were passing out flyers and telling everyone vote obama vote obama now the same people got kicked like a soccer ball from democratic side to republican side and are saying vote ron paul. Then they will get kicked back and say vote democratic.

Ron Paul will most likely not even make it to the actual presidential election. So the Muslims that vote will probably stick with Obama, as bad as he is.

[Fiipolera]

Blatantly Ron Paul will never win the nomination in the first place. The reasoning being that his policies adversely effect those that vote in these elections (i.e. Republicans). It would be nice if he won however, since he wants to close the Federal Reserve, pull troops out, etc etc and just leave everyone alone basically. But since most lobbyist groups will disagree with his policies, he will never get the backing and support he needs.

I think he's 76 right now too... it's probably the last time he'll run for nomination although he has a son who might run in the future (I am unaware of his political stances though). Quite frankly, the promises of Ron Paul are unlike any other American politicians- ever. And there's a reason for that- people who run with policies like his don't stand a chance of winning

[ronaldasten]

One of the most important things that Muslims and all freedom and peace-loving people need to call for is the destruction of the banks, Federal Reserve, IMF, etc. These institutions are the main purveyors of misery in the world. Every war, the destruction of entire ecosystems and indigenous people, the spread of immorality, you name it- these people have a hand in it.

If Ron Paul helps bring about the end of the bankers, then I hope he wins. But he probably won't, and if somehow he does, if he tries to do anything about the Fed, he will probably be assassinated.

[streMunford]

Jazakallah brother for your views,

May I pose a question then:

Here in the UK we have free healthcare (publicly funded health system), whilst in European nations it is very similar. However if there was a true Islamic system of governance anywhere in the world, then would the citizens of that nation receive free healthcare or not? Is it Islamically applicable to look after your peoples needs in this way? Would and Islamic form of governance be perceptive to the needs of the welfare of the populous or not?

Similarly; what would happen to the people who are out of work, because theres not enough jobs to satisfy demand? Would you let these people starve as we see in many 'Muslim' countries today?

1. Free healthcare is not "free". It is extremely expensive, and it comes straight out of the paychecks of people. It is also not fair. Let's say there is someone who does mujahada in his life to lead a healthy lifestyle. That person refrains from unhealthy food, exercises, etc ... Does the government have the right to force him to pay to subsidize the healthcare of someone else who is a smoker, has unhealthy eating habits, doesn't exercise, .. etc?

2. Why is it the responsibility of government to pay people's healthcare bills and monetarily support those who are unemployed? Aren't individuals in the society already responsible for their neighbors? What if someone has limited funds, their neighbor is in trouble and they want to help them out. Now, the government steps in and forcibly takes their money and decides to spend it on someone else. That money, with which someone could have helped their neighbor - to whom they have duties, is now gone and cannot be used to help one's neighbor.
On the issue of unemployment, why is the government responsible? Why isn't that person responsible for himself, and those whom Allaah has given responsibility to - his family, neighboors, etc .. ? Let's say there is someone who leads a financially responsible lifestyle, who builds savings for the future, and is leads a slim lifestyle so that he is not dependent upon anyone if there are periods of unemployment etc ... Why is he forced to subsidize, for example, someone else who was reckless with their finances and spent everything they had without saving for the future? How is it fair for anyone to be *forced* into subsidizing his recklessness? Sure, individuals should be generous and help others out when they are down - even if it was the result of their previously unwise decisions. But what right does the government have to reach into your pocket and give your wealth to someone else?

3. Even if the government is given the responsibility of healthcare, welfare, etc ... Shouldn't citizens be given the option to opt-out if they want? Essentially, anything one gives that is more than zakat is nafl sadaqa - right? If citizens want to allow the government to distribute their sadaqa on their behalf, fine - but what right does the government have to forcibly take it from everyone? Shouldn't people have the freedom to direct their funds allocated for sadaqa to whomever they want?

Is it the role of government to force citizens into philanthropy, or is it the role of scholars to encourage citizens to spend on those needier than them?

Does Islamic governance advocate socialism, and redistribution of wealth? Is it the responsibility of an Islamic Government to mitigate the risk of an individual's personal (wise or unwise) choices by taking from others?

Honestly, I don't know the answers to these questions. I need to make a thread, lol.

Note: All of the above talk about government taking from some people and giving to others is refering to that amount beyond the zakat level. Obviously the government has a responsibility to forcibly take zakat money and spend it on the needy/unemployed/etc... What im talking about is the government taking anything above the zakat amount and spending on the needy and the such. Also the problem is not government spending on the needy and deserving .. if the government has money from zakat, jizya, war booty, etc that's fine and great. My question is whether they can forcibly take wealth beyond that of zakat and decide for you on which needy persons to spend.

[discountviagraman]

1. Free healthcare is not "free". It is extremely expensive, and it comes straight out of the paychecks of people. It is also not fair. Let's say there is someone who does mujahada in his life to lead a healthy lifestyle. That person refrains from unhealthy food, exercises, etc ... Does the government have the right to force him to pay to subsidize the healthcare of someone else who is a smoker, has unhealthy eating habits, doesn't exercise, .. etc?

Free as to the point of delivery for example visiting the doctor, or going to the hospital, we are not PHYSICALLY paying in monetary terms. And also what is to say that a healthy living person wont be afflicted with bad health at some point in his life; going by your logic then all people who eat oily foods are not suitable to receive care and attention?

2. Why is it the responsibility of government to pay people's healthcare bills and monetarily support those who are unemployed? Aren't individuals in the society already responsible for their neighbors? What if someone has limited funds, their neighbor is in trouble and they want to help them out. Now, the government steps in and forcibly takes their money and decides to spend it on someone else. That money, with which someone could have helped their neighbor - to whom they have duties, is now gone and cannot be used to help one's neighbor.
On the issue of unemployment, why is the government responsible? Why isn't that person responsible for himself, and those whom Allaah has given responsibility to - his family, neighboors, etc .. ? Let's say there is someone who leads a financially responsible lifestyle, who builds savings for the future, and is leads a slim lifestyle so that he is not dependent upon anyone if there are periods of unemployment etc ... Why is he forced to subsidize, for example, someone else who was reckless with their finances and spent everything they had without saving for the future? How is it fair for anyone to be *forced* into subsidizing his recklessness? Sure, individuals should be generous and help others out when they are down - even if it was the result of their previously unwise decisions. But what right does the government have to reach into your pocket and give your wealth to someone else?

Brother the only way you will be able to enforce a philanthropic society (in the literal sense) is by monitoring peoples activities, and checking the status of everyone in the neighbourhoods; this is contradicting your point about not becoming too socialist or Marxist in the ideology of the governance.
We all know Shariah is a faith based system, where the value is upon implementing the Laws of Allah swt but how well would this work in real time? Would a rich neighbour who is on a 50k job financially support his neighbour who has just lost there job? What if they are not Muslim?

And no brother I am not saying the Government has a right to do anything with your or my money, but is there a viable choice in order to stop people from starving?

3. Even if the government is given the responsibility of healthcare, welfare, etc ... Shouldn't citizens be given the option to opt-out if they want? Essentially, anything one gives that is more than zakat is nafl sadaqa - right? If citizens want to allow the government to distribute their sadaqa on their behalf, fine - but what right does the government have to forcibly take it from everyone? Shouldn't people have the freedom to direct their funds allocated for sadaqa to whomever they want?

Is it the role of government to force citizens into philanthropy, or is it the role of scholars to encourage citizens to spend on those needier than them?

Does Islamic governance advocate socialism, and redistribution of wealth? Is it the responsibility of an Islamic Government to mitigate the risk of an individual's personal (wise or unwise) choices by taking from others?

Honestly, I don't know the answers to these questions. I need to make a thread, lol.

Do you really believe that people will give out of the goodness of there hearts to other neighbours who are poor, helpless and destitute? It will happen on a small scale, but the underlying issues will still be there; the prevention of actually becoming trapped in a poverty cycle has to be first,

From what I know of Islamic History there is some evidence to point toward that the early Khilafah did indeed have some sort of social welfare system, whereby taxes would be COLLECTED and distributed to different departments and this included welfare/ benefits.

[avodeinst]

check this video out, American soldier speaks out against american policies supporting Ron Paul and gets "cut-off".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzeowlqmBI