|
Post by rick on May 5, 2010 7:40:54 GMT -5
Jesus is God. God gave us the 10 Commandments, one of which is Thou Shalt Not Steal. Now God is telling us that a person has a God-given right to private, personal property and that He thinks it is a serious sin for someone (or the government) to take by force from someone else what doesn't belong to them and give it to someone else. Do you think as a Christian that you are obeying God's will if you steal money (take by force and against their will) from your rich neighbor to give to your poor neighbor who doesn't have healthcare because you decided that it is moral for you to steal from someone who can obviously afford to help your neighbor? Jesus called individuals, not government to take care of widows and the poor and the less fortunate. God loves a cheerful giver, not a begrudging giver, and Jesus did not tell Ceasar to take forcefully from some people and to give to other people. No, He told individuals, not governments to take care of the poor. And He never used force to enforce those commandments - he left it up to us as individuals to give freely and with a grateful heart towards Him for what He did for us. Jesus would never force someone to believe in Him or accept Him, nor would He call for anyone else to use force to make sure his disciples gave to the needy. No, he leaves it up to us and we will be held accountable to Him for that. But in no way would he sanction government action which is contradictory to His Holy Commandments and make an exception for extortion as long as there is a majority vote. When we delegate to the government to steal from your rich neighbor and give it to your poor neighbor, that is still theft which God abhors and is evil and sinful. Just because a majority votes to steal what other people have doesn't make it right in God's eyes. You should help your neighbor and not permit the government to force me to help your neighbor. Government should not be in the business of charity at all. It is immoral and despicable to use evil means to obtain good ends. Christians should act lawfully and in accordance with God's will and they are not justified in helping someone else if they break one of God's laws to help that person. This is why socialism is evil. Walter Williams wrote a great article on this notion: capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3814
|
|
|
Post by valpo76 on May 5, 2010 23:33:06 GMT -5
This argument loses credibility immediately when you base it on something "god said." However, I'll ignore that weakness in the argument and address some other issues I see here. How do people get rich? Generally through educating themselves and then doing well in some realm of business, correct? If that is true, let's consider where one's ability to pursue an education and make profits via business comes from. Is it not true that most people in the US are educated, at least in part by a public school system that is funded ENTIRELY by TAXES? Is this a right or is it also a "government-run charity" that should be shut down because of the "stolen funds" that are used to operate it? I know I wouldn't be where I am right now (in grad school, getting an MBA at a PUBLIC university), if it weren't for the educational services provided by the government.
If you don't like that example, let's consider some of the government (tax) funded benefits we all receive that allow us to conduct business and amass personal wealth:
1) The judicial system. The court system allows our economy to operate by enforcing contract law, criminal law, and civil law. Each of these three areas is absolutely necessary to conduct business and profit personally.
2) Public roadways. Where would our country be at this point if our government did not provide for basic ground transportation via the public road system? It would be incredibly difficult to engage in commercial activity if we had to walk everywhere.
3) Law enforcement and public safety (fire/paramedics). If the government didn't provide these basic public safety services, the personal wealth that you seem to consider a "right" would not be possible.
4) Military. We probably wouldn’t exist in our current situation if it weren’t for the TRILLIONS of dollars our government spends on protecting us from outside invaders, let alone be able to operate businesses and prosper economically.
(List list could go on and on for pages)
I have only identified a short list of other "government charities" that allow for the building up of personal wealth. Rest assured there are many more I have left off the list. I have a hard time understanding why your logic has no problem accepting these benefits that are paid for by tax dollars when they benefit the wealthy in their attempt to get rich, but have such a difficult time accepting the use of those same dollars to help others out in a way that you don't necessarily benefit from. If we took your argument at face value, there would be no need for government (it’s funded by TAXES isn’t it?) at all because any service they provide would be illegal (but would it really be illegal if there was no government? There is an interesting thought game for you). This issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you appear to think. Additionally, the fact that "god said" not to steal is irrelevant to this argument because in all likelihood your god doesn't exist. I do believe stealing is wrong, but if I were to provide you a service, let’s say give you a haircut, and then demand that you pay me the agreed upon price for me to render that service, is that stealing? That’s all the government does. It taxes us based on a known and agreed upon set of conditions and renders services in return, without much limitation on how much of each service you can choose to benefit from.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on May 6, 2010 5:21:02 GMT -5
This argument loses credibility immediately when you base it on something "god said." However, I'll ignore that weakness in the argument and address some other issues I see here. How do people get rich? Generally through educating themselves and then doing well in some realm of business, correct? If that is true, let's consider where one's ability to pursue an education and make profits via business comes from. Is it not true that most people in the US are educated, at least in part by a public school system that is funded ENTIRELY by TAXES? Is this a right or is it also a "government-run charity" that should be shut down because of the "stolen funds" that are used to operate it? I know I wouldn't be where I am right now (in grad school, getting an MBA at a PUBLIC university), if it weren't for the educational services provided by the government. If you don't like that example, let's consider some of the government (tax) funded benefits we all receive that allow us to conduct business and amass personal wealth: 1) The judicial system. The court system allows our economy to operate by enforcing contract law, criminal law, and civil law. Each of these three areas is absolutely necessary to conduct business and profit personally. 2) Public roadways. Where would our country be at this point if our government did not provide for basic ground transportation via the public road system? It would be incredibly difficult to engage in commercial activity if we had to walk everywhere. 3) Law enforcement and public safety (fire/paramedics). If the government didn't provide these basic public safety services, the personal wealth that you seem to consider a "right" would not be possible. 4) Military. We probably wouldn’t exist in our current situation if it weren’t for the TRILLIONS of dollars our government spends on protecting us from outside invaders, let alone be able to operate businesses and prosper economically. (List list could go on and on for pages) I have only identified a short list of other "government charities" that allow for the building up of personal wealth. Rest assured there are many more I have left off the list. I have a hard time understanding why your logic has no problem accepting these benefits that are paid for by tax dollars when they benefit the wealthy in their attempt to get rich, but have such a difficult time accepting the use of those same dollars to help others out in a way that you don't necessarily benefit from. If we took your argument at face value, there would be no need for government (it’s funded by TAXES isn’t it?) at all because any service they provide would be illegal (but would it really be illegal if there was no government? There is an interesting thought game for you). This issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you appear to think. Additionally, the fact that "god said" not to steal is irrelevant to this argument because in all likelihood your god doesn't exist. I do believe stealing is wrong, but if I were to provide you a service, let’s say give you a haircut, and then demand that you pay me the agreed upon price for me to render that service, is that stealing? That’s all the government does. It taxes us based on a known and agreed upon set of conditions and renders services in return, without much limitation on how much of each service you can choose to benefit from. I like your list... of basic services. I have no problem with a government using my tax dollars to provide basic services. As for everything else, they can stay out of the way! But thats just my Libertarian view on it.
|
|
|
Post by valpo76 on May 6, 2010 6:24:04 GMT -5
That of course is the question that must be debated. Where should the line be drawn. Some people obviously believe that healthcare is an issue in this country that needs to be addressed by the government. I don't necessarily agree that tax dollars should be used for that purpose either, but it's worth a good hearty debate rather than one party cowering and yelling at the top of their lungs that "taxes are essentially theft! Stop redistributing my wealth! Jesus said so!". There is no reason this shouldn't have been debated much more fully before a decision was made. Unfortunately the Republicans in Congress clutched on to this half ass notion of any new government service being a "sin" and refused to even have an intelligent discussion. That's the problem I see here. To suggest that all taxes are theft and violate one of the ten commandments is downright foolish and uneducated. If it weren't for tax funded services provided by the government, there'd be no wealth to be had in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on May 6, 2010 6:41:33 GMT -5
That of course is the question that must be debated. Where should the line be drawn. Some people obviously believe that healthcare is an issue in this country that needs to be addressed by the government. I don't necessarily agree that tax dollars should be used for that purpose either, but it's worth a good hearty debate rather than one party cowering and yelling at the top of their lungs that "taxes are essentially theft! Stop redistributing my wealth! Jesus said so!". There is no reason this shouldn't have been debated much more fully before a decision was made. Unfortunately the Republicans in Congress clutched on to this half ass notion of any new government service being a "sin" and refused to even have an intelligent discussion. That's the problem I see here. To suggest that all taxes are theft and violate one of the ten commandments is downright foolish and uneducated. If it weren't for tax funded services provided by the government, there'd be no wealth to be had in the first place. I agree. I think if the Republican Party wants to maintain any relevancy and draw in voters, it HAS to start focusing on fiscal policy and move away from the religious base. There is a pretty large base of moderate thinkers out there who would lean Republican if the views of the party weren't centered upon their religious beliefs being "right" and anyone else's "wrong." I am a fiscal conservative. I have conservative views on most things, but I also understand that just because I don't agree with abortion doesn't mean that everyone else has to disagree with it too. I don't like that my only alternative to free spending Democrats is a party that believes that their religious views are what everyone in this country should have to live by. As long as trying to teach our country "morals" remains at the forefront of the party, they will continue to lose relevancy and remain a non-choice for many Americans that otherwise share their views on many issues.
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 6:45:50 GMT -5
This argument loses credibility immediately when you base it on something "god said." However, I'll ignore that weakness in the argument and address some other issues I see here. How do people get rich? Generally through educating themselves and then doing well in some realm of business, correct? If that is true, let's consider where one's ability to pursue an education and make profits via business comes from. Is it not true that most people in the US are educated, at least in part by a public school system that is funded ENTIRELY by TAXES? Is this a right or is it also a "government-run charity" that should be shut down because of the "stolen funds" that are used to operate it? I know I wouldn't be where I am right now (in grad school, getting an MBA at a PUBLIC university), if it weren't for the educational services provided by the government. If you don't like that example, let's consider some of the government (tax) funded benefits we all receive that allow us to conduct business and amass personal wealth: 1) The judicial system. The court system allows our economy to operate by enforcing contract law, criminal law, and civil law. Each of these three areas is absolutely necessary to conduct business and profit personally. 2) Public roadways. Where would our country be at this point if our government did not provide for basic ground transportation via the public road system? It would be incredibly difficult to engage in commercial activity if we had to walk everywhere. 3) Law enforcement and public safety (fire/paramedics). If the government didn't provide these basic public safety services, the personal wealth that you seem to consider a "right" would not be possible. 4) Military. We probably wouldn’t exist in our current situation if it weren’t for the TRILLIONS of dollars our government spends on protecting us from outside invaders, let alone be able to operate businesses and prosper economically. (List list could go on and on for pages) I have only identified a short list of other "government charities" that allow for the building up of personal wealth. Rest assured there are many more I have left off the list. I have a hard time understanding why your logic has no problem accepting these benefits that are paid for by tax dollars when they benefit the wealthy in their attempt to get rich, but have such a difficult time accepting the use of those same dollars to help others out in a way that you don't necessarily benefit from. If we took your argument at face value, there would be no need for government (it’s funded by TAXES isn’t it?) at all because any service they provide would be illegal (but would it really be illegal if there was no government? There is an interesting thought game for you). This issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you appear to think. Additionally, the fact that "god said" not to steal is irrelevant to this argument because in all likelihood your god doesn't exist. I do believe stealing is wrong, but if I were to provide you a service, let’s say give you a haircut, and then demand that you pay me the agreed upon price for me to render that service, is that stealing? That’s all the government does. It taxes us based on a known and agreed upon set of conditions and renders services in return, without much limitation on how much of each service you can choose to benefit from. There are legitimate functions of the federal government outlined in our Constitution. Some folks actually believe that God's view is pertinent when discussing the morality or immorality of government action. Scripture does make reference to the role of government so for those who care about that, my thesis includes God's view. For atheists and others who falsely believe that God and Christians have no place in politics or the affairs of the state, this false dichotomy and flawed understanding of the so-called separation of church vs state, I'll leave the religious aspects out of my thesis and just look to the Constitution and our Founding Fathers for an explanation of the proper role of government and we will discover that there is no role for charity or direct transfer payments and welfare programs. Certainly we should all be willing to pay taxes for the legitimate and Constitutional functions that our federal government provides. I am not arguing that we should not pay any taxes. That is absurd. However, we should not have to pay for any charitable purpose of our federal government. Milton Friedman summarizes the Constiutional role of the federal government very well. He says, Our Founding Fathers were skeptical of big government and were very careful to make sure the role of government was limited to the protection of rights, not the provider of benefits. Again, our federal government was designed to be a protector of rights, not a provider of benefits. The federal government has gotten too big for its britches and is going beyond what our forefathers intended it to be. It should not go beyond the specifically enumerated powers. And charity has no place in our federal government. The Constitution was written to protect the citizens from an overreaching government and the founders wanted to assure that government was kept in check as to what it could and could not do. In no way was the Constitution a document outlining what handouts it would give to some by forcefully taking from others. The Constitution specifically says that anything done beyond what is specifically enumerated should be left to the states and to the people. Here is what a few of our country's forefathers said about this:
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 8:01:21 GMT -5
I would argue that people received a much better education before there were public schools. But it's up the the states to decide, not the federal government. These are legitimate functions of government. We should all be willing to pay taxes for these. I never said or implied any of this. There is a proper role for the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. It should not do what it is not authorized to do. Many of these socialist programs will one day be challenged in the Supreme Court. That many of them have become the acceptable norm does not mean they are lawful or constitutionally legitimate. I am sorry you believe that in spite of all of the evidence in nature that God does exist. No that would be free-market capitalism, the very thing that has made this the greatest country on the face of the earth, the very place people all over the world envy, many of whom risk their life to come here legally. Free-market capitalism is based upon voluntary, not coercive, transactions between individuals. If I agree to pay what you charge for a haircut and you give me a haircut, I am obligated to pay you. If I don't I am breaking the law and the government has the right to see that you are given adequate compensation for your service. I either go to jail or pay up. That's where government legitimately steps in and uses it legitimate power to force me to pay up. All government action is coercive. But it must act lawfully and within it's authorized powers. No that's not all the government does. When the government takes money from us to do what we say it should do based upon the law, the constitution, it MUST do it. Those authorized powers are specifically enumerated and all citizens should pay for those protections. But when the government wanders from it's proper role and decides to become a charitable organization and give money that it has not earned or raised (they force the people through taxation to give charity), it must be stopped. This is immoral. Just as Walter Williams points out in his article, Why Socialism is Evil, if I go down to my rich neighbor's house, force my way in and look around at all of his extravagance and force him him to give me his money so that my other poor neighbor who I think needs help can be given what I think is only fair, and I forced him to give me his money, I would be rightly arrested despite my good intentions. Yet, when the government does the same thing, it is acceptable. No it is not! It then becomes legalized theft. Thou shall not steal applies also to governments who usurp their lawful powers and force one taxpayer to give to another. This is not only immoral, but unconstitutional. God loves a cheerful giver, not a begrudging one. We delegate to government the things we cannot individually do for ourselves (or prefer not to do and to delegate to others) to protect our God-given rights guaranteed in the Constitution. So rather than take up arms against foreign enemies, we the people ALLOW the government, with our permission, to have a standing army. The same applies to personal property protection, that's why we delegate and authorize certain people to have government jobs (we are their bosses, not the other way around) such as a police force. The same thing applies when other people infringe on our rights. We delegate to government to set up a court system to ensure justice has been served for the good of all. But we should not delegate to government our personal responsibility to give to others in need. That's our job. Jesus did not tell government to take care of the hungry, the poor, widows, etc. We as individuals should do that. And the government shouldn't force me to give via transfer payments to other taxpayers. Transfer payments, unlike all other legitimate payments to government, involves taking money from some people and giving it directly to other people, i.e. charity. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find this enumerated, and for good reason!
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 8:54:15 GMT -5
Morals, right and just actions, should not be taught and are not relevant? What planet are you on? So let's just teach immorality. Then we can all have fun like the democrats and be as corrupt as we want.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on May 6, 2010 8:57:45 GMT -5
Morals, right and just actions, should not be taught and are not relevant? What planet are you on? So let's just teach immorality. Then we can all have fun like the democrats and be as corrupt as we want. So you think its the government's job to teach morals? "Small government" indeed.
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 9:02:31 GMT -5
Morals, right and just actions, should not be taught and are not relevant? What planet are you on? So let's just teach immorality. Then we can all have fun like the democrats and be as corrupt as we want. So you think its the government's job to teach morals? "Small government" indeed. I never said that. You mentioned the republican party, not the role of government. Remember? Don't stray from your original statement.
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 9:05:52 GMT -5
As Walter Williams says: It is good and noble to reach into your own pocket to help the less fortunate, but when you reach into someone else's pocket to help the less fortunate, that is despicable and worthy of condemnation. This is nothing more than making the government a common thief legally stealing from others.
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 9:08:01 GMT -5
Government Isn't The Only Answer To Helping Needy Get Health Care www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=504749 Assisting the needy in health care is a "moral imperative" — not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi. If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period. The Founding Fathers vigorously debated the role of the federal government and defined it in Article I, Section 8 — spelling out the specific duties and obligations of the federal government. Most notably, these included providing a military for national security, coining money, establishing rules for immigration and citizenship, establishing rules for bankruptcy, setting up a postal system, establishing trademark and copyright rules, and setting up a legal system to resolve disputes. Charity is not there. Government "charity" is simply less efficient than private charity. Every dollar extracted from taxpayers, sent to Washington and then routed to the beneficiary loses about 70 cents in transfer costs — salaries, rent and other expenses. The Salvation Army, by contrast, spends 2 cents in operating costs, with the remainder going to fundraising and the beneficiary. It achieves this, among other ways, by relying on volunteers to do much of the work. After Hurricane Katrina, private companies including Home Depot and Wal-Mart provided basic needs, such as water and shelter, faster than did government. What were their motives? Generosity? Positive public relations — a form of selfishness? What about the issue of moral hazard? Does government welfare distort behavior and cause people to act irresponsibly? In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson launched a War on Poverty. Anti-poverty workers went door-to-door to inform women of their "right" to money and services — provided the recipients were unmarried and had no men living in their houses. Out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed. In 1960, before the War on Poverty, out-of-wedlock births accounted for 2% of white births and 22% of black births. By 1994 — three decades after Johnson began his "war" — rates had soared to 25% and 70%, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on May 6, 2010 9:09:48 GMT -5
So you think its the government's job to teach morals? "Small government" indeed. I never said that. You mentioned the republican party, not the role of government. Remember? Don't stray from your original statement. All right... since you want to split hairs, let me clarify the pretty obvious intent of my original statement: As long as the Republican Party is more interested in trying to teach morals, through their ideas of how the government should function, they will continue to lose relevancy and remain a non-choice for many Americans that otherwise share their views on many issues.
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 6, 2010 9:12:57 GMT -5
No Justice, No Peace! It is unjust for the strong arm of government by force to confiscate the money we need for our own families from our paychecks just to give to other people to pay for their health care, something which they could and should pay for themselves. It is immoral to tear down the wage earner and extract forcefully from him/her and transfer what he/she earned and what belongs to him/her to those who did not work for or earn the forcefully extracted benefit. When the government does this it enables the blood-sucking parasites to benefit from the sweat and hard labor of others and they don't have to pay it back. This represents the evil of socialism. What gives the government the right to do what any individual would be put in jail for doing? If I broke into your house and forced you to give me your money I would be put in jail; when the government does it, it is no different. Simply put, it is legalized theft. We are not going to stand for this tyranny. Americans have always looked evil tyrants in the face and fought, in many cases to the death, to keep people like Obama and other socialists from taking away our liberty and freedoms. If the socialists keep trying to force their will on to the majority of Americans, there will be another revolution in this country. The Marxists have awakened a sleeping giant and if they know what is good for them, they should back off. Americans will not stand for this kind of thuggery and tyranny. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on May 6, 2010 15:12:14 GMT -5
I never said that. You mentioned the republican party, not the role of government. Remember? Don't stray from your original statement. All right... since you want to split hairs, let me clarify the pretty obvious intent of my original statement: As long as the Republican Party is more interested in trying to teach morals, through their ideas of how the government should on, they will continue to lose relevancy and remain a non-choice for many Americans that otherwise share their views on many issues.[/b] I really am hesitating to jump into this discussion but feel compelled to add a couple of things. Generally, the republican party is painted as the party of the rich and greedy who just want to be left alone by government and the heck with the poor. It is clearly the tactic of the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton group and one that is simply not fair or correct. This discussion has covered many things but the most important in my view is that republicans are neither greedy or unmoved by the plight of the poor. It is a general tenant of the conservatives that the government is not the answer. Private industry and organizations are the answer. The notion that now the federal government can fix health care, by, in most likelihood, taking it over, is to ignor all of the past attempts of government to fix things. The opposition to government involvement has nothing to do with not caring. It has everything to do with being responsible. Please point ot a single federal program that has performed as projected. Presently, the three riches counties in America are in the suburbs of Washington D.C. No wonder, as the government is growing at a rapid rate and paying what most of us would consider a pretty nice wage. Social Security is a prime example. We are forced to contribute while the net result in payback is poor, to say the least. In the meantime the plan is billions of dollars in the red and a trust fund? Give me a break. The reuslt of such over spending is either higher taxes or run away inflation. Is run away inflation good for the poor?? Fiscally responsible, socially concious government is a nice idea. It just hasn't ever happened and finally some of us feel that if we don't learn from our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. Statistically republicans are more generous than democrats and no doubt this is because democrats assume that government is taking care of that for them. Al Gore's tax returns, while in public office, showed a guy making millions while giving something like $1200 a year to charitable causes. So, is there room for government to be useful in our society other than providing for the national defense? Of course. As mentioned earlier, the highway system is a good example of pulling the separate nature of the states together for the good of all. Companies like Walmart and Target rely heavily on the highways and could not provide products as cheap as they do without proper transportation. We all benefit, particularly the poor, via lower prices and that is good. Finally, the role of governemt is also to establish a society where we live in a civil way. Laws are past for all sorts of things generally related to proper behavior etc. This is a good and necessary role of government. We who would like less government and those of the left who want "government out of our bedrooms" as an example, need to look back a few years to see the role of government and the courts as establishing a civilzed society and one that now, we couldn't imagine being any other way. Let me point out a few examples. Do you know where the term "rule of thumb" came from? Well, it is from long ago in English law. Under this rule a husband could not be punished for beating his wife provided that the stick he used was no bigger than his thumb! In the 20's we gave women the ability to vote. As recently as the 70's some states held that a women had no rights unless provided by her husband. We have rules against animal cruelty and even after those laws were established, children were not protected. It s well within my lifetime that children were considered property and how a parent disaplined was nobodys business. Today we have laws to protect children from such abuse. So the government, at a national level, has provided protection for animals, children, wives, minorities and others. I doubt any of us would find these involvements troubling or intrusive. Still, we are faced with the idea that republicans are trying to "teach morals", and by doing so we miss the point. Most likely this attitude is based on their opposition to abortion. Sure they are opposed to it. Think about it. A moment before a perfectly viable fetus is born a women has a choice to kill it. A moment later, after birth, it is murder. So, the most vulnerable has no protection under our laws. This isn't about morals, it's about being civilized. Protecting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. Forget religion, focus on living in a civilized manner. We protect everyone else, including the rights of the condemned criminals and animals, yet this one area remains off limits, the domain of the "ultra conservative nut cases". I think not.
|
|