[Kman]

Only way to be economically independent is if you live completely self sufficient. Otherwise you depend upon your community and have to give back, including paying taxes, to make said community work.

Did I say I wanted total independance? no I didnt.... I want the state to run a few things like a justice system, roads and a few other things but other than that people should be free to use their money how they see fit, people shouldnt be forced to pay to the state to fund things like social security, healthcare and schools. All these things can be run much more efficiently by private organizations via voluntary payments or donations.

[SpecialOlympian]

I agree with Kman about removing social programs, but I don't think it goes far enough. It's oppressive and authoritarian that I can be legally forced to recognize government printed currency as payment for debts whether they be public or private. Legally, I should be able to deny cash transactions in favor of bartering without the fear that I will be jailed for doing so.

[Kman]

Legally, I should be able to deny cash transactions in favor of bartering without the fear that I will be jailed for doing so.

As far as im aware bartering is still legal in the US.

[PBVBROOK]

No surprise that DDM posts verses that do not apply to what we are saying.

I am weary of this. Until you decide to make a cogent argument I am not going to go over old ground.

[SpecialOlympian]

As far as im aware bartering is still legal in the US.

Bartering is legal, but it is illegal for me to not accept someone's money for any debt public or private. This is a clear infringement of my rights and locks me in to a system of currency created by the government specifically for the purposes of taxation. I could accept $450 worth of chicken and that would be untaxable. But I am required to participate in a system of currency that only serves to reinforce the government's strangle hold on the economy.

It's similar to how it was illegal to refuse coins minted by the king in merry olde England, except I can't melt down our current government's currency into useful, tradeable gold.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
13 ‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning. 14 ‘You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the LORD.
15 ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.

No surprise that DDM posts verses that do not apply to what we are saying.

What is it your saying the trumps the intent of the Bible?

[redcarpet]

There is a growing divide between liberals and Christians

That's rubbish, 90% or so of Americans are Christians and 'liberal' in the American usage.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
There is a growing divide between liberals and Christians

That's rubbish, 90% or so of Americans are Christians and 'liberal' in the American usage.

The November elections will show us just how Liberal America is.

[Todd D.]

The November elections will show us just how Liberal America is.

The single largest Christian denomination in America is Catholicism, and more than half of all Catholics vote Democrat, even with the Dems' view on Abortion alienating many. Previously, that number was in the 80th to 90th percentile (there's a reason that our only Catholic President was a Democrat, after all). African Americans and Hispanics have an incredibly strong Christian background (hence their strong opposition to Prop 8 in California 2 years ago), yet they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. This previous election, more Christians voted Democrat than Republican, and that's a fact.

I don't know about 90% of Christians overall being "liberal", since an overwhelming number of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists vote Republican, but I do know that the mainline Christian denominations have a strong history of voting Democrat.

As far as what the Bible says about the United States' current public policy, you're really looking in the wrong place to support OR refute Progressive taxation. As a concept, that didn't even exist until the late 18th Century. Plus, as PBVBROOK noted, the entire concept of a secular government was alien to the audience Scripture (particularly OT scripture, but to a certain extent NT as well) was aimed at, since the priests were part of the local government.

Personally, I do disagree with PVBROOK's assessment that Christian theology mandates compulsory state-funded welfare programs, but I'm equally opposed to DDM's view that this somehow violates Christian theology. Social Justice, however, is a concept that all Christians should strive for.

[PBVBROOK]

Personally, I do disagree with PVBROOK's assessment that Christian theology mandates compulsory state-funded welfare programs, but I'm equally opposed to DDM's view that this somehow violates Christian theology. Social Justice, however, is a concept that all Christians should strive for.

Let me clarify. I do not believe that state-funded welfare programs are mandated but I certainly believe that a Christian is more than justified in supporting them. I was primarily objecting to DDM's outrageous position that liberals are un-Christian.

Were it possible to ensure that people we not hungry and abandoned without state intervention I would be thrilled. This does not appear to be the case. I see little movement toward this goal for purely altruistic reasons. Failing the kinds of economic policies and business practices that ensure there are an abundance of jobs, and that these jobs offer a good living wage I am of the opinion that government must step in. I believe that Christians 'ought' to support this government intervention because there is no available alternative.

[Negotiator]

I believe one should judge the quality of a society by how it treats their weakest members.

A country without a welfare state, to me, doesnt qualify as a society any more.

It focusses on preserving the wealth of the overly rich and wealthy so much, that it even allows to kill the poor to maximize this protection.

Such a country also knows no freedom. Its not a democracy, because the people dont rule. Its a plutocracy, because the rich rule. People can be bullied into doing anything by the threat of losing their existence.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
There is a growing divide between liberals and Christians

That's rubbish, 90% or so of Americans are Christians and 'liberal' in the American usage.

it should read this way...

That's rubbish, 90% or so of Americans are Marxist Christians and 'liberal' in the American usage.

[PBVBROOK]

DDM, you wouldn't know a real Marxist if he staged a revolution in your closet.

How would you ever survive if you met someone who you could not label away? Are you aware that people can not all be put in neat little boxes? I understand why one would want to put people into about three categories. It requires so little brain power to sort them out.

[Todd D.]

I do not believe that state-funded welfare programs are mandated but I certainly believe that a Christian is more than justified in supporting them. I was primarily objecting to DDM's outrageous position that liberals are un-Christian.

I agree with this. A Christian should strive to best serve those that are the weakest. If they feel that is best achieved through a welfare state, I may disagree, but I can't claim that it's un-Christian.

[Negotiator]

The only alternative to a welfare state is random charity, which cannot be guaranteed to work. If the rich and wealthy all turn completely greedy tomorrow, the poor and unemployed will starve to death. I utterly fail to see how anyone in their right minds can think random charity is a better solution than having a welfare state.

We all live in industrialized countries and have access to all kinds of luxuries. Also, we produce more than enough food so much of it is actually just thrown away. So how come that millions in the USA are hungry on a regular basis, because they cannot afford food ? And here in germany this has already started, too. Its just stupid.

[DanDaMan]

The only alternative to a welfare state is random charity, which cannot be guaranteed to work. If the rich and wealthy all turn completely greedy tomorrow, the poor and unemployed will starve to death. I utterly fail to see how anyone in their right minds can think random charity is a better solution than having a welfare state.

I can't see how a welfare state's TAKING (stealing) in the name of Social Justice is the long term answer when that foundation is one of theft, envy, coveting and judging one person more deserving than another.

This is why a strong Christian foundation or similar religious foundation is needed.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

[SpecialOlympian]

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

Why do they need to be stronger if their competition has been hobbled? Sounds like a good deal for the weak guys.

* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

Again, sounds like you're doing the little men a favor by taking down the competition.

* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

Can't hurt.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

I think you've already hurt the idea of brotherhood by having class distinctions.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.


Why do they need to be stronger if their competition has been hobbled? Sounds like a good deal for the weak guys.

Quote:
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.


Again, sounds like you're doing the little men a favor by taking down the competition.

You're not doing them a favor by lowering the standard of excellence.
All you do is make everything poorer in quality and achievement.
Which is understandable coming from the losers of the world.

Quote:
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.


Can't hurt.

Sure it does. Take Cuba for example... the entire nation is poor and a slum because there are no rich people to help spread any wealth.

Quote:
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.


I think you've already hurt the idea of brotherhood by having class distinctions.

You remove a woman's desire for big shiny stones on their fingers and necks and you may solve that problem.
Until then you live in a dream world.

[SpecialOlympian]

You're not doing them a favor by lowering the standard of excellence.

That's just Libertarian rhetorical nonsense. If you were never going to achieve that level of excellence anyway then how is one adversely affected by lowering the standard?

Sure it does. Take Cuba for example... the entire nation is poor and a slum because there are no rich people to help spread any wealth.

You're saying we need to send rich people over to practice socialist methods of redistribution?

You remove a woman's desire for big shiny stones on their fingers and necks and you may solve that problem.

Are you saying class conflict derives from competition for marriageable women? As has been the case for centuries, people do not often marry outside of their class.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
You're not doing them a favor by lowering the standard of excellence.


That's just Libertarian rhetorical nonsense. If you were never going to achieve that level of excellence anyway then how is one adversely affected by lowering the standard?

Because then everyone is stuck living that losers lifestyle.

Quote:
Sure it does. Take Cuba for example... the entire nation is poor and a slum because there are no rich people to help spread any wealth.


You're saying we need to send rich people over to practice socialist methods of redistribution?

No. I'm saying the entire nation is a slum because redistribution allows for no improvements in the society. It's an eternal slum.

Quote:
You remove a woman's desire for big shiny stones on their fingers and necks and you may solve that problem.


Are you saying class conflict derives from competition for marriageable women? As has been the case for centuries, people do not often marry outside of their class.

Yes. Competition for women with the biggest tits is always at the top of our list.