Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[Crezth]

his teachings are consistent with libertarianism, he leaves it up to us to decide what to do, not the state.

right, and because the state is in no sense accountable to people and is in fact a malevolent sentient construct bent on taking objects from some people and giving them to others purely at random, this view makes perfect sense.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

On the other hand, when libertarians use the advantages given by birthright and the infrastructure provided by society to to achieve even a modicum of success, it was all by the sweat of their own brow.

 

[Berzerker]

right, and because the state is in no sense accountable to people and is in fact a malevolent sentient construct bent on taking objects from some people and giving them to others purely at random, this view makes perfect sense.

2 governments killed jesus, hows that for malevolence?

 

[Berzerker]

On the other hand, when libertarians use the advantages given by birthright and the infrastructure provided by society to to achieve even a modicum of success, it was all by the sweat of their own brow.

Most people dont begrudge taxes to pay for infrastructure, they just aint all that happy paying for liberalism

 

[Crezth]

2 governments killed jesus, hows that for malevolence?

Those damn stone golems. When will we ever defeat the governments?

 

[Angst]

Most people dont begrudge taxes to pay for infrastructure, they just aint all that happy paying for liberalism

Most people over here are plentily happy paying for """liberalism""".

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Jesus gave no damns about whether or not states should exist, considering he explicitly names the endgame as establishing a Kingdom of God. Dominionism may be pernicious, but anarcho-libertarian Christianity is just plain dumb.

And the fact that you even have access to publically funded education or infrastructure and that you haven't been permanently incapacitated by lead poisoning means that you are already the beneficiary of progressive policies.

 

[Antilogic]

What is the modern definition of "Christian" then? I do not think that what it means has evolved in any way. It has been corrupted, but I doubt any one can add any more value to it than how it started out.

The original meaning would not invalidate a system of welfare and taxation. If one rebels and feels like they are being taxed without representation of where their hard earned money is going, they can always attempt at revolt. I doubt that would fit the definition of Christian though.

If one wants to raise more money to help the poor then going outside the church and getting that money from the pockets of hard working people through an income tax would be more efficient or at least provide for more money than a small group of people who call themselves Christian. I doubt it would make the christian feel less of a christian.

It seems to me more of an issue with relying on other people as to not wanting to help people. There will always be people in need of help. And it does not even matter to me if the system is abused. I think that the christian viewpoint can be taken too far, because God really does not help those who help themselves. So thinking that one is too proud for help is also wrong. If the government can help people without forming a sense of entrapment, then welfare through state means is not wrong. Being a slave to the government can also mean unable to exist without it.

Wha? I see glimmers of that protestant mentality here as well as modern political talking points, but for some reason your post is incomprehensible to me. Maybe I'm too tired.

I don't necessarily think Jesus was a libertarian, or a liberal. We don't really know what his politics would have been, if he did indeed have any views at all. Jesus' focus was on personal behavior the kingdom of God, salvation, that sort of thing, not politics.

That said, I find it silly when liberal pundits say that since Jesus hung out with sinners, said to pay taxes, and healed sick people that he supported high taxes UHC and welfare or whatever absurd concoctions that liberals will come up with. Jesus didn't say "Government do this" he said "You do this."

I refuse to use the government to steal in order to help the poor. That is MY position. Whether Jesus would agree with me or not I guess I'll find out in heaven. But I don't think Jesus is going to judge me based on my political views so much as what I, personally, do for his kingdom. Politics were just not Jesus' concern.

I don't even know what you are meaning with the word liberal here, but it doesn't matter. So if Jesus said "you do this", and you can do it effectively via a government-run system, then why not vote for it? Sure, you refuse to do it, but is that a very Christian thing to do? You don't think he will judge you for impeding and advocating against programs that provide the very care he struggled to provide by himself?

Which involves theft.

I'm done with this thread. I have never seen any more laughably stupid arguments for "Jesus is a leftie" in my life. The reality is, none of you guys are demonstrating worship for Christ in this thread, but worship of the state.

None of us worship the state as much as you worship the market and Ron Paul.

 

[Angst]

edit nvm

 

[Arakhor]

That's without going into the whole "I don't worship Christ, but his father, God" bit.

"Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's", after all.

 

[Cutlass]

middle class working folk having to bargain with liberals for their own $$$

i can see why people would mock liberals

And yet the middle class stands to lose the most from a low tax regime that conservatives want.

It's called knowing where your self-interest actually lies.

A utilitarian working system is not the point of a laissez-faire system or libertarianism. It is merely a common argument in its favor. The more hard core libertarians are much less likely to argue from utilitarianism and more likely to assert that violations of the non-aggression principle are fundamentally immoral.

This is one of the worst parts of the libertarian belief as far as I'm concerned. People claim that libertarians are against violating non-aggression and yet a vast amount of the activities that they want government to stop doing is when government punishes or prevents aggression. So libertarians say non-aggression but want policies that will allow aggression to go unchecked.

 

[Angst]

None of us worship the state as much as you worship the market and Ron Paul.

I'd like to put out that I don't "worship" the state. It requires a certain amount of dedication and rituals to do such a thing. I'm not for or against it - I've earlier said that there's no such thing as too high or too low taxes, there's only ineffecient or insufficient redistribution. If it worked best at 0% or 100%, I couldn't care less and would just vote for the best. My relationship with the state is purely practical and I do not found my fervor towards a heavier tax burden upon a moralism of what is "right" other than what brings the most happiness to the world. Abstract ideals of ethics are a hideous thing - things like the ideal of laissez-faire entitlement in a world where you are basically shaped and served by your upbringing and luck - and that they could overshadow things like societal effeciency or happiness.

 

[Crezth]

This is one of the worst parts of the libertarian belief as far as I'm concerned. People claim that libertarians are against violating non-aggression and yet a vast amount of the activities that they want government to stop doing is when government punishes or prevents aggression. So libertarians say non-aggression but want policies that will allow aggression to go unchecked.

To be fair to the deluded sycophants, it's because they don't think of those things as aggression. How can it be, they argue, when you consented to give the snake oil salesman all your money in the first place?

 

[Cutlass]

To be fair to the deluded sycophants, it's because they don't think of those things as aggression. How can it be, they argue, when you consented to give the snake oil salesman all your money in the first place?

And this is a critical problem as well: A failed world view. There is also the belief that their actions affect no one but themselves. And so no one has the right to tell them they cannot do as they please. What it amounts to in practice is that those who would harm others, either deliberately or through simple indifference to the consequences of their actions, get a free ride at the expense of the rest of us.

In short, they reject the principle of do no harm.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And the fact that you even have access to publically funded education or infrastructure and that you haven't been permanently incapacitated by lead poisoning means that you are already the beneficiary of progressive policies.

I always wondered how many people are willing to extend the "you are a beneficiary of a practice, ergo you have an obligation to support it" line of reasoning beyond the state, or even to apply it to more selective practices.

I'm a beneficiary of an expanded military budgets and land wars in Asia. Do I have a responsibility to support those things?

 

[WindFish]

I'm a beneficiary of an expanded military budgets and land wars in Asia. Do I have a responsibility to support those things?

Yes you do.

 

[JollyRoger]

2 governments killed jesus, hows that for malevolence?

I'm sure he would have got a pardon in Texas.

 

[Antilogic]

I'd like to put out that I don't "worship" the state. It requires a certain amount of dedication and rituals to do such a thing. I'm not for or against it - I've earlier said that there's no such thing as too high or too low taxes, there's only ineffecient or insufficient redistribution. If it worked best at 0% or 100%, I couldn't care less and would just vote for the best. My relationship with the state is purely practical and I do not found my fervor towards a heavier tax burden upon a moralism of what is "right" other than what brings the most happiness to the world. Abstract ideals of ethics are a hideous thing - things like the ideal of laissez-faire entitlement in a world where you are basically shaped and served by your upbringing and luck - and that they could overshadow things like societal effeciency or happiness.

I don't either, but that hasn't stopped the accusation from being dropped every other thread I get involved in with GW.

To be fair to the deluded sycophants, it's because they don't think of those things as aggression. How can it be, they argue, when you consented to give the snake oil salesman all your money in the first place?

They have very queer ideas about what constitutes aggression and the transitive properties thereof.

Somewhat related, I have been talking with an off-line libertarian who claims that any individual should be able to make a rational decision on the information they have as to what risks they would undertake, what products to buy, etc. I said okay, but information doesn't spring out of nowhere--everyone in the world has imperfect information about what products they are buying and about decisions they make. So the libertarian responds that it is incumbent on the individual to discover, create, or pay for the information they need to make their decision, and thus there is a second layer of risk. Well, I respond, this costs time and money. Is there no room for the party with the information to disclose what is necessary for the deal? Or is there room for some sort of third party/government agency to develop that information and make it available? Nope, it's a market distortion or some other buzzphrase. So then I ask if it is okay for a snake oil salesman to hide or lie about the information he has--this is beyond simply avoiding disclosure. And as it turns out, it is, because all information is private property.

I could only shrug.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't either, but that hasn't stopped the accusation from being dropped every other thread I get involved in with GW.

It's called projection.

 

[Borachio]

You mean GW is in denial? That he really worships the state, but doesn't know it?