Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

The Genesis passage most certainly does not clearly explain that it had anything to do with homosexuality. Sodom had already been deemed worthy of destruction before the Angels were sent to rescue Lot and his family, and see if they could find enough righteous me to spare the city based on Abraham's request. The fact that the men of the city tried to rape the angels does not mean that homosexuality was the sin that condemned them. Even if their attempted rap (which I as I said happened after the city was already scheduled to be destroyed) was the reason for the destruction, gang rape is something very different from consentual sexual relationships. The special seriousness of the sin may have been based on the fact that the were angels, rather than the fact that they appeared male. Perhaps more importantly, it could have been base don the fact that the were guests. It is important to note that none of Jesus's four references to he Sodom and Gomorrah in the gospels mentions anything sexual. Three of the four explicitly tie their judgement to their failure to welcome strangers. Customs of hospitality was a very big deal in ancient cultures.


The association between the Sin of Sodom and homosexuality did not arise until the middle ages. Jewish sources related it to their treatment of the poor and of foreigners long before that.
 
Ah yes, I remember this tale. The bloke sends out his daughters instead doesn't he? So that the men of Sodom could have their way with them instead of the angels.

Strange tale!
 
The Genesis passage most certainly does not clearly explain that it had anything to do with homosexuality. Sodom had already been deemed worthy of destruction before the Angels were sent to rescue Lot and his family, and see if they could find enough righteous me to spare the city based on Abraham's request. The fact that the men of the city tried to rape the angels does not mean that homosexuality was the sin that condemned them. Even if their attempted rap (which I as I said happened after the city was already scheduled to be destroyed) was the reason for the destruction, gang rape is something very different from consentual sexual relationships. The special seriousness of the sin may have been based on the fact that the were angels, rather than the fact that they appeared male. Perhaps more importantly, it could have been base don the fact that the were guests. It is important to note that none of Jesus's four references to he Sodom and Gomorrah in the gospels mentions anything sexual. Three of the four explicitly tie their judgement to their failure to welcome strangers. Customs of hospitality was a very big deal in ancient cultures.


The association between the Sin of Sodom and homosexuality did not arise until the middle ages. Jewish sources related it to their treatment of the poor and of foreigners long before that.

Here is the passage in question.
Genesis 19:1-25 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:
13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.
14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.
17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.
18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:
19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:
20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.
21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.
22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.
24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

The bit in bold clearly shows that they wanted to have sex with them. There are two terms used in the Bible to describe sexual activity, one "to uncover their nakedness" and the other is "to know". In Genesis 5 we see that "Adam knew his wife and she conceived" Showing how they use the term for sexual activity. The fact that Lot offered his daughters instead of the men that turned up showed that their desire was sexual activity an the men of Sodom had the gall to complain about how Lot was judging them. We have a similar situation in the book of Judges.
Judges 19:22-30 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

In this situation again these men of Belial wanted to have sex with a man who had come into a house, but this time instead of not stopping and doing the women like in Sodom, they raped the woman basically until they all had their way with her. The only difference between the two situations is that the men of Sodom would not stop until they got what they wanted, which was sexual activity with the men until they were blinded by the angels, and the fact that the men of Belial did allow themselves to fulfil their sexual wants with a woman. If you read chapter 20 of Judges you see that the rest of the nation went to war against the tribe of Benjamin, where this took place and eventually punished those who were responsible. Both of these passages show what happens when sexual lust get control of a group of people and how God deals with, by punishing those who commit such sins against God.
 
This is a massive derail of the thread. I've been threatened with all sorts of sanctions for fun-loving derailment in the gay marriage thread.

Apparently derailment is immoral. Is it immoral or not?
 
I was just pointing out that the Bible promotes collective care for the poor - then others derailed it into fifty shades of gay.
 
AFAICT, King David is the only ruler presented in the Bible that has any type of legitimacy from God, and he certainly collected taxes. I don't know if he used that money to help the poor, though, so because there's no evidence* that King David used taxes for progressive reasons, it stands to reason that we can say that God approves of taxes**, but maybe not of gov't social programs

*that I know of
**and whatever they were spent on
 
Does it stand to reason that God approved adultery and murder too? Or that he did nothing when his son raped his daughter? That David was a man after God's own heart doesn't mean he was perfect, it meant that he had a close relationship to God and wasn't afraid to be accountable for his mistakes.

Although I think some taxation is justified, this is a weak argument.
 
Of course it's a weak argument, there're few legitimate rulers ever really mentioned in the Bible. However, I think it's pretty clear from the text that David's adultery was tutted, but the taxes never were. There's little (no?) text condemning the waste of the tax income, nevermind the initial collect.
 
hello world stop talking about teh ghey k
I don't really think the Bible explicitly teaches libertarianism, or any other political ideology for that matter.

Sure. The issue is merely that libertarianism is completely inconsistent with Christian morals as outlined in the OP. I don't care about your political alignment, but if you are a Christian you should treat the poor right and not hold up a moral shield of Christianity every time you get into a debate.

Oh, taxation is constitutional surely. But I just can't think of a good moral defense of the practice.

Believe me, I'd actually like nothing more than to find one, so I can worry about taking the time to explain why things like defense, courts, exc. are a good thing for the state to be spending money on, and things like healthcare, bailouts, and drug wars are not. But I can't really rationally defend it anyway. Yes, its constitutional, but that doesn't make it moral. I don't really object to the practice entirely at this point, I'd be more than happy to get a strict constructionist government and I can live with the inconsistency, but its still inconsistent.

What about Christian morals. A good moral reason as any, as outlined in the op.

Yeah, I agree. Let's be clear, I don't think Jesus preached right-wing Republicanism and I think the Patriot's Bible is pretty clearly blasphemous. I equally think that its wrong to read "Blessed are those who help the poor" as "Blessed are those who charge high tax rates on other people to help the poor" and say that Jesus somehow justified social democracy.

Jesus wanted Christians to help the poor regardless of what kind of government he lived under. Equally absurd as the idea he actually justified taxation by saying Christians should pay is that Jesus justified monarchy by mentioning Caesar. Jesus' was more concerned with starting the Christian Church and how Christians are to live than he was about politics or about what laws Christians should impose on other people.

In case, anyone forgets this I don't think Jesus said social democracy is wrong. I do think there may be other parts of the Bible that can be used for political purposes, although even then they are few and their application is debatable (The most overt is using Genesis 9:6 to justify the Death Penalty, which I happen to agree with but I don't think that's a catch-all "Chrstians MUST support the death penalty" type verse.) But I don't think Jesus himself said one thing about politics. Jesus was concerned with far greater and more important things. And I don't think "Give to the poor" necessarily justifies a huge tax rate.

Unless the rest of you people are justifying theocracy:eek: I thought you guys wanted to keep theology and politics separate? I mostly do, but most of you guys want to take that even further than I do when it comes to social issues. Yet when it comes to the economy its "Blah blah blah theology."

I'm sorry, but I never saw Jesus say "When someone asks for your neighbor's coat, steal it and give it to him." And that's the way I view the social democrat state. If you disagree, find some other reason other than "Jesus said" because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything Jesus said. "Thou shall not steal" ends this debate for me:p

Don't care about the specific political ideology. Choose any for what I care. There are merely some ideologies that work with Christianity. Some don't. I could restate my OP's points, but I'll leave it to you to read it so I won't need to. (They're right there.)
 
Moses would be the first ruler whose legitimacy derived from God. He was followed by Joshua and various judges, who led various portions if Israel but never really came close to a monopoly on legitimate use of force.


The first King of Israel was actually Abimelech, son of Giddeon. (Giddeon was probably the most powerful of the judges. He is presented as a righteous man at first, but after he refused to be named king he made himself an Ephod like that of the high priest "which became a stumbling block." It seems that he may have tried to usurp the authority of the high priest and performed divination.) He tried to murder all of his brothers to secure his rule. The one surviver, his youngest half-brother Jotham, is best known for his Parable of the King of Trees in Judges chapter 9. This is often taken to be an attack of the wicked Abimelech in particular, but it seems to me that it has a stronger anarchist message than that. The basic message seems to be that no good man would want to be a ruler, and that those who do wish to rule over others are incapable of ruling well and very likely to abuse their power and cause great damage in order to maintain it.


The first king if Israel whom God granted legitimacy was Saul. It should be noted though that this was after the Israelites demanded it, in order to be like other nations. This displeased the prophet Samuel, and God Himself says that in making this demand they were rejecting God Himself as their only true king. He tells Samuel to appoint a king (who would levy taxes, conscript soldiers, etc.) as punishment for this sin.

God later tells Samuel to anoint David as he had previously anointed Saul, and says that David will be the next king rather than Saul's son. David and his son Solomon after him are generally portrayed positively in the bible and in Jewish sources in general, even though both of them commit some grievous sins. It may be worth noting though the the Samaritans consider the kings to be wicked men who did not follow God.



God did grant legitimacy to the Priesthood, but he did not grant them anything like monopoly on the legitimate use of force. They were responsible for collecting Tithes and redistributing them (Progressively) to to those who did not hand landed property to support themselves. (The Levites themselves were a big part of this, as it was forbidden for them to own any land, but tithes also went to other paupers including non-Israelites dwelling in the land.) The bible is full of claims that the people need to pay their tithes or else they are stealing from God Himself, but it does not appear that there was anyone authorized to use force against those who refused to pay tithes.

God also instituted Gleaner's Rights. Property rights were defined in such a way that the gleaners were not considered theirs, but the landowners who tried to stop others from taking that portion of their harvests (and any courts that sided with them) were considered robbers. This very much helped the poor. In fact, God promised that there would be no truly poor Israelites if they followed the commandment, and that it would serve largely to support sojourners who moved to Israel to escape poverty in their homelands.
 
Jesus was all about doing God's will, it had nothing to do with socialism or redistribution or Big government/Small government. Liberals and Conservatives both have issues with giving honestly.

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.
 
I cannot find any references to taxes and David in the Bible! :lol:

I agree that Moses is presented as a leader, but it's somewhat of a sharia thing. The conspicuous consumption of the religious rule was at a level that would be disparaged by many, many people today. But that's under sharia.

I was thinking more of a king, a secular leader (though divinely approved). Not so much tithe, but taxes.
 
Of course it's a weak argument, there're few legitimate rulers ever really mentioned in the Bible. However, I think it's pretty clear from the text that David's adultery was tutted, but the taxes never were. There's little (no?) text condemning the waste of the tax income, nevermind the initial collect.

I'd have to parse the text but IIRC God seems to condemn Solomon indirectly for excessive taxation. Although that's more an argument for a minimal state than a non-state.

The adultery is far more clearly wrong than the taxation, I agree. However, 1 Samuel 8 seems to imply that compulsory taxation was never really God's plan. It seems like something that God would have preferred not to happen. That doesn't mean that its sinful to collect taxes, merely that it is less than God's ideal situation. Its kind of like suggesting that since an ideal situation wouldn't have a police force that a police force is therefore wrong. Not necessarily. Ideally there would be no crime, but if there's crime, I mean, you know, its not the police (Unless they do something else they aren't supposed to) that are doing wrong, but the criminals.

Ideally Israel could have run without a state but they stopped relying on God.

While I don't think the Bible out and out endorses libertarianism, I do think the political persuasion does have some Biblical defensibility. I think Israel was a special situation due to being God's Chosen Nation, but even so, there are some libertarian leanings in it:

The Old Testament never allowed for a draft, even if the nation was threatened.

There is an argument to be made that Old Testament Israel sometimes legalized prostitution. The argument is complex and I'm not certain that its right, but the fact that it is ambiguous and that there is no point in the Old Testament that explicitly bans the practice (Let alone assessing a death penalty for it, like many things back then) is interesting. The argument is laid out well here

Note that this is a complex argument and I'm not certain that its right. However, this was also the Holy Land, so even if the practice was illegal there does not mean that it should be illegal in non-theocratic countries.

Two other verses, one from the Old Testament, one from the new (I got these from this article)

Proverbs 3:30 – "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."

1 Peter 4:15 – "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters."

Do I think this is an absolute, unchallengeable argument? No. It could be argued that individual behavior should be distinct from what you think the state should do. But this is to implicitly recognize libertarianism anyway, or at least part of it. Parts of both liberal and conservative philosophy imply that you should live a certain way, and use government to bring others along. For liberals it is (Note: I'm generalizing) to force people to give to charity, help the poor, help people get food stamps, pay for the older members of the generation to retire, subsidize college, exc. For the conservatives it is things like not having sex, not using porn, not using drugs, not using "Obscenity." All sorts of things. The ulterior logic for both is this, I consider this moral, therefore, the state should make you do it. The Bible, however, suggests not being a busybody in other people's matters, so using the Bible excessively to defend a hardline moral stance that punishes victimless crimes is fundamentally lacking.

Are there other arguments? Of course, again, I did not make the claim that the Bible is explicitly a libertarian book. The Bible's main purpose is to show us how we relate to our God, not how we relate to the state. Nevertheless, this does not mean the Bible has absolutely nothing to say on temporal matters.


I will note that I didn't really address the economy here. I think the Bible is more concerned with social issues than the economy, and for good reason, the Bible virtually ingores the state when possible and focuses on how we should relate to God, and other people. When it does talk about the state, it talks about how we should relate to it, not how it should relate to us. The Bible never really endorses any action by any state that is not Israel, and even in Israel's case, originally the Law was supposed to be enforced without a state. It was only because of man's lack of faith that the state was ever needed.

Nevertheless, the argument that liberal welfare is needed solely because of the fact that Jesus tells us to give to the poor is simple to refute Biblically. Thou shall not steal. Forced charity is a form of stealing. That we should pay taxes does not mean we should use the government to take tax money from other people. Thou shall not steal. Thus, if your only argument for a big government that redistributes wealth based on the Bible are Jesus' mandates to take care of the poor, I will note that people who don't own anything cannot give to the poor. You can't give to the poor if the government does it for you. Jesus never once says to forcefully take wealth from someone else to give to the poor. Nor does any other part of the Bible.
 
Taxation is not stealing as outlined in the OP. Please get the concept of taxation/property before making such simplistic claims. Your right to property does not exist without the state; without it, you would have no property.

I do not care to promote social democracy in particular, but your post still fails to address how libertarianism is compatible with Christianity - libertarianism as a system does not help the poor. It is not its point to do so. Its point is to capitalize on opportunities, and that pretty much rules out charity as a libertarian moral value unless in the case of utilitarian self-promovation, which isn't particularly Christian as a virtue either.

Also, using this concept of "theft" of yours - a concept which is inherently moral in the libertarian moral system - to counterargue a Biblical position does nothing but hurt your argument.
 
hello world stop talking about teh ghey k

Sure. The issue is merely that libertarianism is completely inconsistent with Christian morals as outlined in the OP. I don't care about your political alignment, but if you are a Christian you should treat the poor right and not hold up a moral shield of Christianity every time you get into a debate.



What about Christian morals. A good moral reason as any, as outlined in the op.



Don't care about the specific political ideology. Choose any for what I care. There are merely some ideologies that work with Christianity. Some don't. I could restate my OP's points, but I'll leave it to you to read it so I won't need to. (They're right there.)

I was actually more attacking social conservatism than social democracy in that post, but this is absurd. Your argument is that if I believe in helping the poor and less fortunate (Which I do, strongly) that I should do so by using the government to force the fortunate to surrender their wealth.

I'll help the poor in my personal life and not justify thievery guised under "Christianity" thank you.

Moses would be the first ruler whose legitimacy derived from God. He was followed by Joshua and various judges, who led various portions if Israel but never really came close to a monopoly on legitimate use of force.


The first King of Israel was actually Abimelech, son of Giddeon. (Giddeon was probably the most powerful of the judges. He is presented as a righteous man at first, but after he refused to be named king he made himself an Ephod like that of the high priest "which became a stumbling block." It seems that he may have tried to usurp the authority of the high priest and performed divination.) He tried to murder all of his brothers to secure his rule. The one surviver, his youngest half-brother Jotham, is best known for his Parable of the King of Trees in Judges chapter 9. This is often taken to be an attack of the wicked Abimelech in particular, but it seems to me that it has a stronger anarchist message than that. The basic message seems to be that no good man would want to be a ruler, and that those who do wish to rule over others are incapable of ruling well and very likely to abuse their power and cause great damage in order to maintain it.


The first king if Israel whom God granted legitimacy was Saul. It should be noted though that this was after the Israelites demanded it, in order to be like other nations. This displeased the prophet Samuel, and God Himself says that in making this demand they were rejecting God Himself as their only true king. He tells Samuel to appoint a king (who would levy taxes, conscript soldiers, etc.) as punishment for this sin.

God later tells Samuel to anoint David as he had previously anointed Saul, and says that David will be the next king rather than Saul's son. David and his son Solomon after him are generally portrayed positively in the bible and in Jewish sources in general, even though both of them commit some grievous sins. It may be worth noting though the the Samaritans consider the kings to be wicked men who did not follow God.

I've actually heard it discussed whether or not Solomon went to heaven or not (I think he did, but I've seen it debated.) I've never seen anyone deny that David was a man after God's own heart though. How did the Samaritans consider David wicked? Did they have a different Old Testament?


God did grant legitimacy to the Priesthood, but he did not grant them anything like monopoly on the legitimate use of force. They were responsible for collecting Tithes and redistributing them (Progressively) to to those who did not hand landed property to support themselves. (The Levites themselves were a big part of this, as it was forbidden for them to own any land, but tithes also went to other paupers including non-Israelites dwelling in the land.) The bible is full of claims that the people need to pay their tithes or else they are stealing from God Himself, but it does not appear that there was anyone authorized to use force against those who refused to pay tithes.
This is interesting.

God also instituted Gleaner's Rights. Property rights were defined in such a way that the gleaners were not considered theirs, but the landowners who tried to stop others from taking that portion of their harvests (and any courts that sided with them) were considered robbers. This very much helped the poor. In fact, God promised that there would be no truly poor Israelites if they followed the commandment, and that it would serve largely to support sojourners who moved to Israel to escape poverty in their homelands.

This is an interesting argument in fact. A theoretical counterargument would be that this was the Holy Land (Which is also the reason almost no Christians believe America should punish homosexuals with the death penalty) but it may also be that God (Or perhaps just all ancient cultures) thought of property rights differently than we do. Of course, most people don't farm anymore, but your LVT might be a close equivalece to property rights. I'm not unopen to this type of thing. I think its definitely a better tax than income (Income tax gives government way too much information on its citizens and is itself an unjustifiable form of surveilance. It also reqauires prisons, whereas land and property taxes don't, the worst thing that happens is you lose the land/property, which wastes less of the other taxpayers' money as well.)

I haven't really settled yet on what kind of taxation I support yet. How much is something I'm closer to establishing, but I'm still not quite sure. I'd want it to be as low as possible after trimming all of the unnecessary stuff off.
Jesus was all about doing God's will, it had nothing to do with socialism or redistribution or Big government/Small government. Liberals and Conservatives both have issues with giving honestly.

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.

This proves that the conservatives are more moral (At least on this issue, if we start talking about foreign policy I'll shake my head at them and be like "What the heck?":p) Conservatives are willing to give from their own funds to help the poor, liberals think it is everyone's responsibility except their own.
 
I was actually more attacking social conservatism than social democracy in that post, but this is absurd. Your argument is that if I believe in helping the poor and less fortunate (Which I do, strongly) that I should do so by using the government to force the fortunate to surrender their wealth.

That is not my argument. My argument is, however, that libertarianism is incompatible with Christian morals.

I'll help the poor in my personal life and not justify thievery guised under "Christianity" thank you.

1 It is not theft and the claim has been debunked so many times

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.

This proves that the conservatives are more moral (At least on this issue, if we start talking about foreign policy I'll shake my head at them and be like "What the heck?":p) Conservatives are willing to give from their own funds to help the poor, liberals think it is everyone's responsibility except their own.

WTH are you talking about. It's my responsibility to care for the poor. That's why I actually do it by actively fund government programs.
 
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.

I'm not insulting people who call for a strong, balanced state, frankly as much as I don't like your ideology, if I have to choose between your vision and the neocon vision I'll take yours, your at least helps some people at the expense of others while the neocon vision helps nobody except the ruling class.

I don't hate your views. I disagree with them. Let that just be clear.

To claim that the government should tax heavily, regulate heavily, and provide for the poor is fine. I disagree with it, but feel free to make your case.

However, to claim that the Bible supports these things is simplistic.

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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom