Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[GhostWriter16]

2 I'm pretty happy to pay taxes as the state manages redistribution of wealth much better than me. I do not have the wealth to fund a social program. The state does. My state, an entity which is an extension of me, can make tax-subsidized services to the poor in my name. Lastly, it actually helps contrary to your softline apology of helping the poor; because charity has never worked as a system to give poor relief. That's why the social liberal states rose in the Western world. There's simply no other functioning way to provide for the weak.

It can only be your state if they take solely from you. Since they take from other people, presumably at least some of whom do not consent to pay into it, you cannot make this claim.

And while some government gives a lot of money to the poor, almost all government gives a ton of help to the rich. America spends more on corporate subsidies than it does on welfare for the poor. America bails out companies that fail, which distorts the process. And the US protects oligopies in certain businesses, for instance, gambling, only big businesses are allowed to participate.

Remove the restrictions and the minimum wage laws (Wages will rise dramatically if the poor can actually compete and the rich don't have an automatic bailout if they fail) and the poor will do fine.

 

[Angst]

The problem is that you don't understand the non-aggression principle. A Thai slaver is violating the non-aggression principle by forcefully enslaving another human being. (If a child is the victim it can be assumed to be a violation of the NAP even if force wasn't technically used because children understandbly and rightfully have limits on their ability to consent.) A capitalist who hires workers for a mutually benefitial wage is not.

Meh, man. Screw the nap. It doesn't matter; I used the slaver for rhethorics: Child workers aside, this "mutual benefit" nonsense was disproved one hundred years before your birth; again a reason why government had to step in to help diminish the powers of the capitalists. The circumstances the empoverished experienced during laissez-faire were inhuman, and these circumstances were plentily supported by the upper class in power, state or not.

The Bible says to help the poor. Yes. Telling government to do it for you is passing the buck. Feel free to have that ideology, or not, for whatever reason, but its YOUR job to help the poor. On judgment day, its not going to help when you say "I tried to tax the rich to help the poor." On judgment day, if I do all I can to help the poor, but advocate for the free market, God is not going to judge me for doing that unless I were being malicious about it, which is unlikely if I was trying to help the poor in my personal life.

You are actively supporting and promoting an ideology which hinders the lesser fortunate to prosper or giving them access to wealth. So if gay is a sin, see you in Hell.

The state's right to extract a certain fee to recognize your property does not give them the right to take an unlimited amount of it to give to someone else. In anarcho-capitalism, with no state monopoly on force, a voluntary government which recognizes your property could do these things. But in a statist society, the state must rightfully have limitations on what it can take, or else you get tyranny.

In anarcho-capitalism, corporations will rise as new states with you having no ability to choose the CEOs, as you have today. It would be even worse than the corporate powers today and would be remiscent of ancient warlords.

And again, you do not tell me how taxation is inherently a thing I do not want. You seem to understand a state as something external when it is really a set of institutions in extension of yourself.

 

[Angst]

It can only be your state if they take solely from you. Since they take from other people, presumably at least some of whom do not consent to pay into it, you cannot make this claim.

Let me rephrase then, because you're unable to connect the simple implications of the state being the extension of myself: A democratic state is the institutional extension of its people.

And while some government gives a lot of money to the poor, almost all government gives a ton of help to the rich. America spends more on corporate subsidies than it does on welfare for the poor. America bails out companies that fail, which distorts the process. And the US protects oligopies in certain businesses, for instance, gambling, only big businesses are allowed to participate.

You are only telling me how America fails which is irrelevant to me. Most of it only tells me how a low tax system and a high focus on corporate power hurts the poor. Tell me how Denmark bails out everything and does not help its poor. I mean, seriously, forget this libertarian politics thing you're doing. Tell me with Christian eyes how Denmark as a country isn't better at being morally good than the excuse of a welfare system America has.

Remove the restrictions and the minimum wage laws (Wages will rise dramatically if the poor can actually compete and the rich don't have an automatic bailout if they fail) and the poor will do fine.

Do you know your history? Look at laissez-faire hundred and fifty years ago: The poor experienced your system, they suffered.

 

[King Kalmah]

To address your opening post in the thread.I'm positive Jesus preferred suggested donations as opposed to forced taxes.And yes I do gain more pleasure from donating a few dollars to cancer then paying taxes since Sales taxes are forced.Yes how does the government know better then me how to use the funds?

I mean they can't even fix the problems they have let alone cure cancer.What if I want my money to go to cancer research instead of bailing out greedy bankers and stupid people who put money into companies that failed them....?

I think donations are key to living in a good society...even though industrialists like Carnegie only donated money to better their image among the public they still gave more money to the public(then the taxes of that era could have generated) and bettered the public through their donations/generosity.I think nowadays it would be even harder to make the same impact with taxes then through donations since there are more billionaires/millionaires among us then ever before...

 

[Angst]

Yes how does the government know better then me how to use the funds?

When has charity worked?

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Lord Joakim- the state is a form of majority-ruled tyranny. Only the absurd would claim it is an extension of the people who don't want it. (And yeah, the majority probably do want it.)

Denmark may well be better than America. America spends its money on bases in over 100 countries, bails out the rich when they fail, which destroys the free market, conducts crony capitalism by specifically, manually helping the wealthy businesses over the poor ones, rewarding the lazy who are unwilling to work (No, not all people on welfare are lazy, but I've heard of people actually admitting it and I'm sure that those who admit to it aren't the only ones) waging wars on peaceful drug users, wiretaps its citizens, can now indefinitely detain without a warrant or trial (I don't know if Obama has actually done this yet, he says he doesn't intend to, but he now can and even if he's honest the next President can and likely will use the provision). Being better than America does not by default mean being the better country. Frankly, I am happy living in America and have no intention to leave the land I was born in but that hardly makes my country better than yours by any objective criterion.

I will also note that I never said you were going to Hell. Jesus says he is the only way to Heaven but if you do think Jesus is your path into Heaven I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. I'll let God do the judging.

I am otherwise finished with this conversation. You have yet to actually prove my ideology wrong Biblically. All you claim is that "Government is good because it helps the poor" arguing that government transfer of wealth is somehow good because the majority mandates it (Its like having two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner is what it is) arguing that it is a transfer of yourself (I reject this logic. The US state has no relation to me whatsoever other than the fact that it is currently my overlord via force. I haven't even voted in its elections, although doing so would not be a condoning of it, only a choice between various evils.)

If you want to actually argue, fine. Use the Bible, even use secular logic, fine. Although this thread is specifically about Chrstians, or the teaching in Jesus specifically.

The state is not part of me, voting for higher taxes is not charity, and I reject your absurd conclusion until you can prove it to me.

 

[King Kalmah]

When has charity worked?

Umm how did the Library of Congress start?

oh yeah a man named Thomas Jefferson donated all his books to start up the library.Last time I checked the Library of Congress is home to more books then any other library(including Denmark) on the face of the Earth.

Also look into Carnegie's contributions to society...

I think me and ghostwriter are more on the same page here...sucks that you and me had such crappy upbringings tho...

 

[Crezth]

Conservatives(at least the religious ones) are generous in opening up their personal wallets and giving to charity(far more than Liberals) but when it comes to policies, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure policies favorable toward the poor don't happen.

Liberals are just the opposite. They want policies that help the poor but when it comes to open up their own wallet for Charitable giving, they suck at it.

What are you basing this off of? I can name at least one considerable counter-example off of the top of my head: Warren Buffett.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I at least have some respect for those people because they are actually practicing what they preach. If I were wealthy I would give a lot of money to charity, and pay my workers good wages, but that would be my decision as a wealthy person. Society shouldn't be telling me what I have to do with my resources.

The problem with the democratic institution of the state is it allows punishing the successful if you have a majority.

The state should be limited, shackled, and forbidden from going beyond the most basic duties because it is inherently corrupt.

 

[King Kalmah]

The state should be limited, shackled, and forbidden from going beyond the most basic duties because it is inherently corrupt.

Dude I'd quote that in my signature,but I'm too stupid to make it work in my signature...

Anyway I love that idea...maybe we can use the Foxcomm robots from the "EU general Strike" thread to administer our laws and act as representatives since robots cannot be corrupted....

Imagine robotic senators programed to just dish out the laws and argue using only rational arguing points and not backed by the highest bidder...however even the robots could be hacked...

eh the future sucks...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Let's worry about the present. In America that means using the constitution as a weapon and interpreting it as strictly as possible.

 

[Crezth]

Society shouldn't be telling me what I have to do with my resources.

Why not? The only reason - I repeat, the only reason - that you have any resources at all, is because society exists.

 

[Archbob]

What are you basing this off of? I can name at least one considerable counter-example off of the top of my head: Warren Buffett.

One exception is not the rule. There are many statistics that show conservatives give more than Liberals. Religion plays a strong factor. Even if you discount tithes, religious people donate more than Non-religious people do.

Why not? The only reason - I repeat, the only reason - that you have any resources at all, is because society exists.

That's not all true. Without our standard form of government, humans naturally go back to tribal formats or Lord and servant formats of social structure where there are Kings and Lords, Knights, and Peasants. He could be one of the Lords or Knight, in which case, he'd be better off than he is now. The strong win out, the weak lose without an organized government.

 

[King Kalmah]

Why not? The only reason - I repeat, the only reason - that you have any resources at all, is because society exists.

Pfft....give me a seed and plot of soil and I can live without your society....

last time I checked society didn't ask me if I wanted to be apart of it...

Society can go suck a lemon since that is all they have,,,,

 

[Crezth]

One exception is not the rule. There are many statistics that show conservatives give more than Liberals.

I am well aware of exceptions and rules, I just want to see the statistics that "show" that conservatives give more than liberals.

Pfft....give me a seed and plot of soil and I can live without your society....

Your seed and soil are mine. I kill you. Game over.

 

[King Kalmah]

I am well aware of exceptions and rules, I just want to see the statistics that "show" that conservatives give more than liberals.



Your seed and soil are mine. I kill you. Game over.

life is no game...besides you and what army?....

EDIT and no I get my seeds from my harvest(seeds grow from plants not Home Depot like your Elitist masters have you brainwashed to believe)

 

[Archbob]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Like I said, religion is the main factor and religious people tend to be conservative.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

and

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

 

[Crezth]

Ah, I see. I had heard that that book was overhyped, but I admit to not really knowing. Food for thought.

 

[JollyRoger]

They count charity as giving to the building funds of their church. It is a load of crap.

 

[Old Hippy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Like I said, religion is the main factor and religious people tend to be conservative.



Quote:
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

and


Quote:
People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

totaly agree,
As a 'heathen' Christian, I volunteered today at the local church along with about 120 others (per week) and yet these Christian values have not made a darn bit of difference during the last 2000 years

so the question for me is should i blame the Australian government for not doing enough to provide the resources necessary to fix the problem or the Christian ideals for stuffing up what seems to be a good idea, of helping the poor and hungry and homeless, the old and lonely, the junky and alcoholic or the 18 year old orphan just out of state care and on the streets after years of abuse by uncaring foster parents

it's all very well proclaiming conservative Christian values, but as Dc Phill likes to say
"and hows that working?..."