It occurs to me that some of us seem to be starting from the assumption that, since it was good for people (i.e. the Christians of Acts 4) to do a thing voluntarily (i.e., have all things in common), then it is would also be good for a majority to impose a somewhat similar arrangement involuntarily.

Others don't share that assumption.

It is not enough to show that what the early Christians did was good. (All agree that giving away one's own money is good.) To reason from Acts 4 to state socialism, one would have to show two things:

1) that the voluntary economic arrangement of Acts 4 is good AND

2) that imposing such an arrangement upon the unwilling is also good.

Acts 4 does not address item 2. That is why one can never determine from Acts 4 which political party deserves one's vote.

Kent