Liberals, why do you believe people are entitled to the work of others?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sean611

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2012
965
150
Missouri
✟20,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why do people who want to eliminate taxation and government think they will get utopia not Somalia?

LOL, Somalia is a failed socialist state and it is what happens when a socialist state fails, you cannot lay that one on libertarians, anarchists, or anybody but socialists. Try again.
 
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,007
6,087
North Texas
✟118,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, your statement is again incorrect as a matter of law in the U.S. and unpersuasive philosophically.

The very idea of majority rule concerned the framers and founders as they understood majority rule could trample the rights and property of people and become "tyranny of he majority." So, they expressly and specifically sought to limit majority rule with the existence of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As I said before, the justification of a consensus or majority rule exists is not a sufficient reason, not legally or philosophically.

So, let me this straight. If a "Robin Hood" bill is proposed, scrutinized, reviewed, edited and eventually passed in both the House and Senate, and then signed by the President that's not enough to mandate it?
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So, let me this straight. If a "Robin Hood" bill is proposed, scrutinized, reviewed, edited and eventually passed in both the House and Senate, and then signed by the President that's not enough to mandate it?

As a matter of law, majority rule is not sufficient to validate a statute as lawful. (I do not address your comment of "mandate it" as I have no idea what this phrase means in terms of the legal dialogue). The statute does, after all, have to comport to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which were conceived to, in part, limit majorly rule. As long as the Constitution has persisted in the U.S., majority rule was not enough to validate a statute as lawful.

Philosophically, majority rule is not sufficient.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My goodness. Misinformation strikes again. SCOTUS never gave corporations personhood for campaign contributions. This is a factually incorrect statement and has no basis in the facts or decision of the case Citizens United v FEC. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
I stand corrected in my wording. I don't see the difference between campaign contributions and campaign ads, etc.. They are both funding a campaign.
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations......
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[21] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[22]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

No court before this one ever included for profit corporations under the First Amendment freedom of speech.This change has given such a huge advantage to candidates that are back by corporations because they are the ones with the huge amounts of money to spend. That is why corps. were jumping up and down with joy and we have seen so many more campaign ads everywhere.
 
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,007
6,087
North Texas
✟118,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
As a matter of law, majority rule is not sufficient to validate a statute as lawful. (I do not address your comment of "mandate it" as I have no idea what this phrase means in terms of the legal dialogue). The statute does, after all, have to comport to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which were conceived to, in part, limit majorly rule. As long as the Constitution has persisted in the U.S., majority rule was not enough to validate a statute as lawful.
My question has nothing to do with majority rule, and I'm assuming there is no violation of the Constitution in the scenario.

Furthermore, I never once argued majority rule, I merely worded the same thing three different ways. My definition of mandate is what I am assuming yours is in this post:
This is perhaps a commendable belief but your mere belief really isn't sufficient to mandate another individual take care of another individual.
which I am assuming is meaning requiring under law.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Please do not use the Scriptures to justify taking from those who earned to give to those who do not in exchange for votes and political power. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves is charity. Caring for those who can take care of themselves but choose not to is indulging laziness. Taking from those who produce to give to those who have not earned it is called theft.

Sorry, your request not to use scriptures will be ignored. Consider how David felt entitled to aid and comfort from Nabal, who tried to refuse but was thwarted by his wife. Consider how Gideon punished the leaders of Succoth when they refused to feed his army that was weary while pursuing the Midionites. This shows us that if we as a nation vote through our representatives to collectively provide a safety net for people in key ways it is not theft to tax those who have to help those who do not. David was not a thief, and neither was Gideon.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
We have never tried free-market health care in the U.S., only the crony capitalism that ensures big insurance stays alive and thrives (see Obamacare). I would wager that a competitive health care marketplace and health insurance marketplace would drive costs down.

Private education is leaps and bounds ahead of public education in the states. Public education is (mostly) horrible here in the states.
Public education in MANY other countries is awesome! Of course, you guys pay your teachers borderline poverty rates...
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
LOL, Somalia is a failed socialist state and it is what happens when a socialist state fails, you cannot lay that one on libertarians, anarchists, or anybody but socialists. Try again.
What it failed from isn't the issue.

If taxation is inherently theft, so you cease to have any taxation you then cease to have any government. That's not how Somalia got to where t is, but Somalia is where you'll get if you follow the logic through.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My question has nothing to do with majority rule, and I'm assuming there is no violation of the Constitution in the scenario.

Furthermore, I never once argued majority rule, I merely worded the same thing three different ways. My definition of mandate is what I am assuming yours is in this post:
which I am assuming is meaning requiring under law.

My comment of "mandate" was made to another post, a post made by another poster, in a context having nothing to do with law, democracy, representative government, consensus, etcetera.

My point was entirely a philosophical one, as the post I was responding to was not making a legal point or observation as far as I could tell.

So tell me what exactly is your point? Is your point taking the income earned by one and giving it to another permissible and justifiable? If so, why?
 
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

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
As a matter of law, majority rule is not sufficient to validate a statute as lawful. (I do not address your comment of "mandate it" as I have no idea what this phrase means in terms of the legal dialogue). The statute does, after all, have to comport to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which were conceived to, in part, limit majorly rule. As long as the Constitution has persisted in the U.S., majority rule was not enough to validate a statute as lawful.

Philosophically, majority rule is not sufficient.
Just a reminder: the conversation is not intrinsically about the United States. The people can, of course, amend the constitution. Unless that is somehow a god.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just a reminder: the conversation is not intrinsically about the United States. The people can, of course, amend the constitution. Unless that is somehow a god.
Just a reminder, I have made a non-legal, philosophical argument. And the context between of the dialogue between myself and the other post demonstrates the choice of law was of the U.S.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Public education in MANY other countries is awesome! Of course, you guys pay your teachers borderline poverty rates...
This is borderline poverty?
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.asp
According to the article below from 2013 England pays better than most OECD members and yet they are paid approximately $10-15,000 dollars less a year than US primary school teachers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...aries-than-those-in-most-other-countries.html
What do the teachers make where you live?

Also, give examples where the public sector of government is more efficient than the private sector of business.
The prison system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Cost.E2.80.93benefit_analysis
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
This is borderline poverty?
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.asp
According to the article below from 2013 England pays better than most OECD members and yet they are paid approximately $10-15,000 dollars less a year than US primary school teachers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...aries-than-those-in-most-other-countries.html
What do the teachers make where you live?
huh. Apologies. I've seen MUCH lower numbers (starting teachers making well under 30Gs).
STARTING teachers making about 55Gs where I live....and end at just over 100.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
huh. Apologies. I've seen MUCH lower numbers (starting teachers making well under 30Gs).
STARTING teachers making about 55Gs where I live....and end at just over 100.
No worries, there is so much conflicting information out there.
Where my daughter lives in an US east coast wealthy, small town, primary school teachers are making on the average of $90,000 a year. But I live in a very small, rural town, where people don't make a lot of money and our teachers make about $40,000 to start. So there is a wide spread depending on the town even.
 
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

interpreter

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
6,309
157
76
Texas
✟7,377.00
Faith
Anglican
Please do not use the Scriptures to justify taking from those who earned to give to those who do not in exchange for votes and political power. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves is charity. Caring for those who can take care of themselves but choose not to is indulging laziness. Taking from those who produce to give to those who have not earned it is called theft.
But socialism is based on scripture. The Bible tells us that the early Church, following the teachings of Jesus, sold all their possessions and gave all the proceeds to St. Peter to redistribute. And the death penalty was imposed on those who failed to comply. That is socialism to the max.
Most Christians today would agree that the socialism practiced by the early Church was too extreme, but the mild socialism practiced by the US is acceptable and it is probably pleasing to God because it helps the poor and also pays for our superior weapons that bring hell and death to the enemies of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,625
51
✟312,524.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
No worries, there is so much conflicting information out there.
Where my daughter lives in an US east coast wealthy, small town, primary school teachers are making on the average of $90,000 a year. But I live in a very small, rural town, where people don't make a lot of money and our teachers make about $40,000 to start. So there is a wide spread depending on the town even.
Comparing salaries is a always a messy business.

It needs to take into account other working conditions (it's easy to pay teachers more if you make them do more face to face hours or increase class sizes, but that knocks down the quality of the teaching and learning), the median salary, the status of the profession, the cost of living, ...

I'm a teacher, 10 years experienced, and quite happy that what I'm paid is enough for my needs I'm very committed to what I do, not for the money but because I care about making as much difference as I possibly can for the disadvantaged kids I teach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible tells us that the early Church, following the teachings of Jesus, sold all their possessions and gave all the proceeds to St. Peter to redistribute. And the death penalty was imposed on those who failed to comply.
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied about what they were giving to God's people. They didn't have to sell it to give and they didn't have to give it all, it was theirs at their disposal. But they said that they were giving it but didn't.
This is very much like the Pharisees law of Korbin which Jesus taught against because the person with the money would say that they were giving to God so they couldn't care for the parents, when in fact they still had it to do whatever they wanted to with 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

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied about what they were giving to God's people. They didn't have to sell it to give and they didn't have to give it all, it was theirs at their disposal. But they said that they were giving it but didn't.
This is very much like the Pharisees law of Korbin which Jesus taught against because the person with the money would say that they were giving to God so they couldn't care for the parents, when in fact they still had it to do whatever they wanted to with it.
So the early church was socialism with capital punishment! Huzzah!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.