Relative Slavery

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
acropolis
I do not usualy respond to those your age directly, to me, you're about as useful as a green banna. No hard feelings, I have seven your age, give or take a decade.

A common misunderstanding establishes itself in all too many people your age. The truth is, there is no public charity.
Taking is not giving. Taking to give is not giving, it's taking.
Giving people, people who give (you may yet grow into one) do so from their own means. Advocating the taking from some and transfering it to others does not make you a giver. It may make you feel like you've helped someone, but you didn't. You haven't yet, and without a change soon, you never will.

It's not too late, for you.
Please reread the OP, and reconsider the way you are calibrating yourself.
Be your own man, don't slave yourself to others.

On this be very clear:
DO NOT CONTEND THAT WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
CONTEND ONLY THAT IT IS A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD
NOT A PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY TO EACH OTHER.

For every measure of responsibility there is a commensurate measure of authority.
Making personal-responibilities public establishes a commensurate public authority.
We are enslaving ourselves to each other.
We are being redefined from a nation of people endowed by their CREATOR with certain and inalienable rights into a nation of people endowed by EACH OTHER with therefore uncertain and alainable rights.

To consider anything that comes from other people a right,
one must fundamentally redefine a right.
Such a redefinition would fundamentally redefind America.

We are falling not flying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerSchweik
Upvote 0

childofGod1

Regular Member
Aug 21, 2010
2,036
319
✟18,710.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Can anyone possibly help this guy make sense out of himself?

WHO ON EARTH HAS CALLED FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY?

Take your Chicken Little "the sky is falling" rhetoric somewhere where it will work.

con·fis·cate (k
obreve.gif
n
prime.gif
f
ibreve.gif
-sk
amacr.gif
t
lprime.gif
)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates 1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority.

prop·er·ty (pr
obreve.gif
p
prime.gif
schwa.gif
r-t
emacr.gif
) n. pl. prop·er·ties 1. a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
d. Possessions considered as a group.

2. The right of ownership; title.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com


Can you explain to me how calling taxation confiscation of property is somehow related to Chicken Little? I'm just not sure I see the connection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerSchweik
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟12,793.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
acropolis
I do not usualy respond to those your age directly, to me, you're about as useful as a green banna. No hard feelings, I have seven your age, give or take a decade.

A common misunderstanding establishes itself in all too many people your age. The truth is, there is no public charity.
Taking is not giving. Taking to give is not giving, it's taking.
Giving people, people who give (you may yet grow into one) do so from their own means. Advocating the taking from some and transfering it to others does not make you a giver. It may make you feel like you've helped someone, but you didn't. You haven't yet, and without a change soon, you never will.

It's not too late, for you.
Please reread the OP, and reconsider the way you are calibrating yourself.
Be your own man, don't slave yourself to others.

On this be vey clear:
DO NOT CONTEND THAT WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
CONTEND ONLY THAT IT IS A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD
NOT A PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY TO EACH OTHER.

For every measure of responsibility there is a commensurate measure of authority.
Making personal-responibilities public establishes a commensurate public authority.
We are enslaving ourselves to eachother.
We are being redefined from a nation of people endowed by their CREATOR with ecrtain and inalienable rights into a nation of people endowed by EACHOTHER with therefore uncertain and alainable rights.

To consider anything that comes from other people a right,
one must fundamentally redefine a right.
Such a redefinition would fundamentally redefind America.

We are falling not flying.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I care only about reducing suffering, not about how it is done. I don't care about the virtue of giving, I only care about helping those who need it. A single hungry child suffers more than a wealthy person who a tiny fraction of his wealth.

There are no rights, there is no creator, there is just human suffering. I do not know which system offers the least suffering, but it is certainly not libertarianism.

You want to talk about a lack of freedom? What about the child born into poverty? In the libertarian nation, where money is the only way to freedom, this child does not go to school because his parents can't afford it, he doesn't receive medical care, he may not even eat most of the time. She will have no future, no hope of success, even if she survives to adulthood. Her life is worth more than your precious lucre. There is no guarantee with charity, which means that children will certainly slip through the cracks. They already do and there is no law against charitable giving. There are people who have billions of dollars, and yet there are still kids, some of whom I know personally in this school district, who don't have shoes that fit, who do not have winter jackets, who do not eat unless it is at school. That is morally intolerable. Public assistance can guarantee that they do get the material support they need, and their lives are more precious than any dogma related to the sanctity of private property or charity.
 
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟12,793.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
It's like talking to a stump.

It is pathetic how materialistic and self-absorbed the church has become, if it ever wasn't.

or 20somethings
The future is ours.

edit: I understand that it is pointless to argue with most people, and old people in particular, since for whatever reason it seems that they harden after a certain age and can no longer tolerate even the thought that they got it at all wrong, that there could even in theory be new information they aren't familiar with. But I enjoy bickering so I do it simply for the pleasure. Plus it's good to see what kind of arguments those who disagree are using, what data they use, etc. Though it seems in this particular neck of the woods most people just flippantly disregard that which they disagree with.
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'll let you answer yourself.
Aaprt from advocating that wealth be transfered from someone else to someone else,
what have you given.

It is my experience that those who give advocate that others give,
and those who advocate transfers don't give at all.
They're most likely advocating that they receive.

The main problem with taking in the name of giving is that it destroys giving.
No socio-economic system is sustainable without giving.
Taking in the name of giving destroys giving.

I'm not saying that taking in the name of giving has done no good,
I am saying that it does no net good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerSchweik
Upvote 0

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I love the implied boastfulness of libertarianism. The libertarian believes that only the strongest few deserve to be successful, and of course they themselves are more capable than most, so they will be successful. I always wonder how a libertarian would handle becoming disabled and losing their job. How could you continue to have social support systems when it's you who is unable to work and thereby prove your worth as a human? It must be like Marxists in the gulag, suffering under a system they cannot bring themselves to oppose.

Well I remember when my father injured himself on a carpentry job and was without work for 3 months. He was self employed and without medical insurance. We lived off of some saving, a pantry of food, and a great deal of charity from others. Not once during those three months did my father ask for money from the government to help him out.

We never forgot about the charity of others and afterwards gave graciously to those in need even though times were still tight.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟12,793.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
I'll let you answer yourself.
Aaprt from advocating that wealth be transfered from someone else to someone else,
what have you given.

It is my experience that those who give advocate that others give,
and those who advocate transfers don't.

The main problem with taking in the name of giving is that it destroys giving.
No socio-economic system is sustainable without giving.
Taking in the name of giving destroys giving.

I'm not saying that taking in the name of giving has done no good,
I am saying that it does no net good.

I volunteer on weekends and give money to local charities every month. I live in a single room. I don't own a TV or an iPod, or any electronic device beyond the phone and computer given to me by my father. I shop at thrift stores. Money does not give me pleasure, it is merely protection against suffering for me. I save enough to support myself if I lose my job or if my car dies, but beyond that I prefer to give it away. I don't tirelessly advocate for the poor, both in person in my state and online, simply to run my mouth. I wish I could have the self-discipline to give even more, but alas, I am also selfish, since all humans are. That's in part why I support public social support programs.
 
Upvote 0

brindisi

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2010
1,202
403
New England
✟2,127.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I understand that it is pointless to argue with most people, and old people in particular, since for whatever reason it seems that they harden after a certain age and can no longer tolerate even the thought that they got it at all wrong, that there could even in theory be new information they aren't familiar with. But I enjoy bickering so I do it simply for the pleasure. Plus it's good to see what kind of arguments those who disagree are using, what data they use, etc. Though it seems in this particular neck of the woods most people just flippantly disregard that which they disagree with.

Your youthful foolishness, and arrogance, is a modern day echo of Elihu. Not something to be proud of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerSchweik
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟12,793.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Well I remember when my father injured himself on a carpentry job and was without work for 3 months. He was self employed and without medical insurance. We lived off of some saving, a pantry of food, and a great deal of charity from others. Not once during those three months did my father ask for money from the government to help him out.

We never forgot about the charity of others and afterwards gave graciously to those in need even though times were still tight.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I also grew up relatively poor. Sometimes there wasn't enough food, sometimes I didn't get the medicine I needed. I sometimes had to buy food for the month with my paper route money. It wasn't the worst life, and my parents love me very much, but I knew the fear of uncertainty, of knowing that I can't get sick or we'll lose everything and it'll be my fault. I have seen my father almost lose it because he knows he can't properly protect his children. It is totally emasculating to be in that position, which is part of why I support government aid. Just because your dad get's hurt doesn't mean you, as a defenseless child, should have to go hungry or lack medical attention. I do not respect the man who puts his pride before the well-being of his kids, nor do I respect the man who puts his greed before that of other people's children.

It doesn't surprise me that you and your family would be generous, since poor people are more empathetic towards others, as has been shown by this study. The flip-side of those results is that the wealthy are less likely to empathize, and therefore less likely to give money to those who need it. No, it isn't fair that anyone should lose any money ever, but life already isn't fair. The best we can do is try to minimize suffering the best we can and try to make life as fair and equal for children at the very least.
 
Upvote 0

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Let me make this absolutely clear: I care only about reducing suffering, not about how it is done. I don't care about the virtue of giving, I only care about helping those who need it. A single hungry child suffers more than a wealthy person who a tiny fraction of his wealth.

There are no rights, there is no creator, there is just human suffering. I do not know which system offers the least suffering, but it is certainly not libertarianism.

You want to talk about a lack of freedom? What about the child born into poverty? In the libertarian nation, where money is the only way to freedom, this child does not go to school because his parents can't afford it, he doesn't receive medical care, he may not even eat most of the time. She will have no future, no hope of success, even if she survives to adulthood. Her life is worth more than your precious lucre. There is no guarantee with charity, which means that children will certainly slip through the cracks. They already do and there is no law against charitable giving. There are people who have billions of dollars, and yet there are still kids, some of whom I know personally in this school district, who don't have shoes that fit, who do not have winter jackets, who do not eat unless it is at school. That is morally intolerable. Public assistance can guarantee that they do get the material support they need, and their lives are more precious than any dogma related to the sanctity of private property or charity.

The problem is that we already provide a great deal of wealth to the government to fight the war on poverty. We give so much that every welfare participant could literally be given a 40 thousand dollar check! That should be the end of poverty as we know it but yet we still have poverty, why is that? Most likely it is because our government is woefully inadequate at dispersing the money and the resources needed to serve the needs of the poor. As Libertarians we desire to help the poor but also would like our resources to be used as effectively as possible.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
I have heard my father say things like "I'm too old to change" as if I'm suppose to just know it and accept it. Old folks do not like to change. Talk about Elitism, they must feel they have been around long enough to know everything and so cannot be argued with.

There is a post above that clearly reflects this know-it-all stance in place of its actual know-a-little reality:

"Your youthful foolishness, and arrogance, is a modern day echo of Elihu. Not something to be proud of."

Imagine how clueless one would be to call someone foolish and pretend after that they THEY are the arrogant ones in being foolish, while making an arrogant statement that someone is foolish instead of them.

At least it is here where everyone can see it...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If what you say is all true, young man, you will eventually be satisfied with your own efforts.
You will lose the desire to enforce others to do as you.
If what you say is all true, it is just a matter of time.
If it is not, that too will dictate your desires.

Jacob worked for his father-in-law, as a shepherd. The first year he was paid half of the sheep born a certain color. So, Jacob placed that color fleece along all the feeding troughs. The sheep soon began to associate that color with food. That color good, thought the sheep. So, they mated with that color ram. The result was that half the new borns that year were Jacob's color.
Every year Jocob's father-in-law would change the color of Jacob's payment. Every year Jacob employed this trick, and soon, he had more sheep than did his father-in-law.

But you see, all along the shepherd fed the sheep the same.
The color before the sheep at feeding had nothing to do with the shepherd's provision.
God's purposes are not as evident as we think they are.
His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts.
Don't get to thinking that we have all that much say so about the outcome.
Be smarter than a sheep.
 
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟12,793.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
The problem is that we already provide a great deal of wealth to the government to fight the war on poverty. We give so much that every welfare participant could literally be given a 40 thousand dollar check! That should be the end of poverty as we know it but yet we still have poverty, why is that? Most likely it is because our government is woefully inadequate at dispersing the money and the resources needed to serve the needs of the poor. As Libertarians we desire to help the poor but also would like our resources to be used as effectively as possible.

There are many reforms than can be made, principle of which would be switching to a single-payer health care system. But the solution is not to eliminate all forms of social support along with deregulating the private sector. There will always be those who cannot work, and therefore there will be people who will literally die because of preventable reasons within a libertarian nation. Charity isn't enough, it already isn't enough.
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We do not treat the poor with anything near the generocity you seem to think we do... I would agree that our current social safety net is far less effective than it should be, however reforming that system and replacing it with something that worked better would (over the short term) be more expensive... which means it's highly unlikely that we get a better system than what we have now.


The problem is that we already provide a great deal of wealth to the government to fight the war on poverty. We give so much that every welfare participant could literally be given a 40 thousand dollar check! That should be the end of poverty as we know it but yet we still have poverty, why is that? Most likely it is because our government is woefully inadequate at dispersing the money and the resources needed to serve the needs of the poor. As Libertarians we desire to help the poor but also would like our resources to be used as effectively as possible.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your youthful foolishness, and arrogance, is a modern day echo of Elihu. Not something to be proud of.

So you're going to criticize acropolis for reflecting the attitude that bricklayer initially showed him (contempt for people his age) and not criticize bricklayer for the same attitude? Goodness gracious.

Everything's a war with you hyper-rightwingers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
The problem is that we already provide a great deal of wealth to the government to fight the war on poverty. We give so much that every welfare participant could literally be given a 40 thousand dollar check! That should be the end of poverty as we know it but yet we still have poverty, why is that? Most likely it is because our government is woefully inadequate at dispersing the money and the resources needed to serve the needs of the poor. As Libertarians we desire to help the poor but also would like our resources to be used as effectively as possible.

Bet you couldn't get a good source on this to save your life.

Also, consider a charity is only required by law to give 10% of what it takes in the name of Charity. So, dollars spent on charity do not reflect accurately the dollars spent on poverty.

"Charity" is a huge profit-taking business in the US.

Lest we forget also: CHARITY is a tax-deductible contribution. So when money is given to a charity, a subsequent amount is subtracted from Federal Revenue Streams. I can see where some Libertarians might enjoy efficiency. I mean, WHO DOESN'T? OH OK, those that make money off of inefficiencies do not. But clearly it is a shared argument from the masses. I appreciate your stance by the way and like that you can allow yourself to be vocal about it even amongst so many Libertarians here that speak differently than you.

Charity is a funny thing in the US. It plays off of our desire to help one another. Certainly there are people here that want the freedom to choose Charities, which they have through the tax-deduction I mentioned above. Some act like it is convenient to forget this a lot. However, choosing needs doesn't serve them all. What you would have are Charities having to spend money advertising themselves so that people even know they exist in order to send contributions to. You end up with after that: Competing Charities. This results in further losses between the contributions and the needy at the end.

Sometimes, especially in this case, a straight pipe to the needy saves money and is the most efficient means of dispersal. Government should be used in this case. I do not want profits stolen off of the top, I do not want them having to spend money advertising for recognition, and I do not want them out-spending each other in a competitive fashion. Leave that to businesses...
 
Upvote 0