A vote for Sanders is a vote for Sanity

[Audacious]

Inconsistency is a thing too. I don't know the why one should be for forcibly taking people's stuff on one hand and for charity on the other.

You call it "taking people's stuff", I call it "making sure people don't needlessly die".

Also: Jesus literally says to pay taxes, so I don't think God has much of a problem with using taxes for things like health care, food, roads, subway systems... et cetera.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Inconsistency is a thing too. I don't know the why one should be for forcibly taking people's stuff on one hand and for charity on the other.

So you would agree that money taken from me and given to our military is theft from me, forcibly taking my money to hand it out to military, right?

Basically you're against absolutely all taxation and the use of that money by the government for anything, is that right?

 

[Audacious]

So you would agree that money taken from me and given to our military is theft from me, forcibly taking my money to hand it out to military, right?

Basically you're against absolutely all taxation and the use of that money by the government for anything, is that right?

All those evil socialist roads.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You call it "taking people's stuff", I call it "making sure people don't needlessly die".

I don't know that theft is a moral reason for anything. I'm also not sure about your definition of "needlessly dying" or the nuances of how you get from forcibly taking people's stuff to achieving the goal of preventing "needless death."

Also: Jesus literally says to pay taxes,

I would actually argue the exact opposite (I also wouldn't use that as a reason to not-pay taxes since he was talking about Rome).

You're undoubtedly talking about this instance:

Luke 20:25 So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."

People normally think that because the coin has Caesar's image on it, then Jesus is saying (1) it belongs to Caesar and (2) so you should give it back to him when required. But I think that misses what's happening. Jesus pointing out the image on the coin with the inscription “Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus” would have pointed out that Jesus' opponents were committing idolatry by having this image of a so-called god in the temple - the house of their God. According to Josephus, Pharisees had committed acts of treason against Rome for similar things in the past, such as tearing down the Roman eagle (eg. War 33). Jesus' move in pointing out the image on the coin was to make his opponents (the scribes and priests who should have known better) look like fools and win the opinion of the crowd.

Any Law-aware Jew listening to Jesus say, "give to God the things that are God's," probably wouldn't have missed the point when he recalled this from the Law:

Deut 10:14 The heavens – indeed the highest heavens – belong to the Lord your God, as does the earth and everything in it.

Or the various Psalms and other writings that recall this law, such as:

Psalm 24:1 The Lord owns the earth and all it contains,
the world and all who live in it.

So, assuming we look at Jesus is his historical context of 1st century Judaism, and he believes that everything on earth belongs to God........then what belongs to Caesar? Obviously - nothing. His audience would doubtlessly have understood it that way, and in fact we have direct evidence that's exactly what they heard:

Luke 23:2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar..

So I would argue that Jesus told them not to pay the tribute tax to Caesar. His opponents thought they could trap him by forcing him to say to pay the tribute tax to Caesar, since going against the tax would have been sedition against Rome and punishable by death. But if Jesus had given into Caesar's tax, he would have lost the crowd, as the Jews of the 1st century hated Roman rule and the tribute taxes they imposed on the Jewish people. Jesus not only didn't fall for it, he instead upped the ante by making the scribes and priests out to be idolaters, and won the favor of the crowd by encouraging sedition against Rome by advocating against paying the tribute tax. The crowd would probably have loved the message.

Luke 20:26 Thus they were unable in the presence of the people to trap him with his own words. And stunned by his answer, they fell silent.

Of course they were stunned - Jesus was confronting both Jewish and Roman authority and the crowd was on his side.

 

[Yekcidmij]

So you would agree that money taken from me and given to our military is theft from me, forcibly taking my money to hand it out to military, right?

Basically you're against absolutely all taxation and the use of that money by the government for anything, is that right?

Generally, no. I think there are collective goods and services that are common to everyone and provided by the government - collective defense and law enforcement are among those things. But that doesn't change the fact that taxation is forcibly taking people's resources. I think the purpose of government is to secure the natural rights of it's citizens, and so taxes that are necessary to achieve those ends are necessary. Taxes that don't go toward securing those natural rights are immoral and unnecessary.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I don't know that theft is a moral reason for anything. I'm also not sure about your definition of "needlessly dying" or the nuances of how you get from forcibly taking people's stuff to achieving the goal of preventing "needless death."



I would actually argue the exact opposite (I also wouldn't use that as a reason to not-pay taxes since he was talking about Rome).

You're undoubtedly talking about this instance:

Luke 20:25 So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."

People normally think that because the coin has Caesar's image on it, then Jesus is saying (1) it belongs to Caesar and (2) so you should give it back to him when required. But I think that misses what's happening. Jesus pointing out the image on the coin with the inscription “Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus” would have pointed out that Jesus' opponents were committing idolatry by having this image of a so-called god in the temple - the house of their God. According to Josephus, Pharisees had committed acts of treason against Rome for similar things in the past, such as tearing down the Roman eagle (eg. War 33). Jesus' move in pointing out the image on the coin was to make his opponents (the scribes and priests who should have known better) look like fools and win the opinion of the crowd.

Any Law-aware Jew listening to Jesus say, "give to God the things that are God's," probably wouldn't have missed the point when he recalled this from the Law:

Deut 10:14 The heavens – indeed the highest heavens – belong to the Lord your God, as does the earth and everything in it.

Or the various Psalms and other writings that recall this law, such as:

Psalm 24:1 The Lord owns the earth and all it contains,
the world and all who live in it.

So, assuming we look at Jesus is his historical context of 1st century Judaism, and he believes that everything on earth belongs to God........then what belongs to Caesar? Obviously - nothing. His audience would doubtlessly have understood it that way, and in fact we have direct evidence that's exactly what they heard:

Luke 23:2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar..

So I would argue that Jesus told them not to pay the tribute tax to Caesar. His opponents thought they could trap him by forcing him to say to pay the tribute tax to Caesar, since going against the tax would have been sedition against Rome and punishable by death. But if Jesus had given into Caesar's tax, he would have lost the crowd, as the Jews of the 1st century hated Roman rule and the tribute taxes they imposed on the Jewish people. Jesus not only didn't fall for it, he instead upped the ante by making the scribes and priests out to be idolaters, and won the favor of the crowd by encouraging sedition against Rome by advocating against paying the tribute tax. The crowd would probably have loved the message.

Luke 20:26 Thus they were unable in the presence of the people to trap him with his own words. And stunned by his answer, they fell silent.

Of course they were stunned - Jesus was confronting both Jewish and Roman authority and the crowd was on his side.

Except that Romans 13 directly corroborates that Jesus was telling us to pay tribute to whom tribute is due.

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Romans 13, the Libertarian's most hated chapter in the Bible.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Generally, no. I think there are collective goods and services that are common to everyone and provided by the government - collective defense and law enforcement are among those things.

So you are a collectivist then - a communist.

But that doesn't change the fact that taxation is forcibly taking people's resources. I think the purpose of government is to secure the natural rights of it's citizens, and so taxes that are necessary to achieve those ends are necessary. Taxes that don't go toward securing those natural rights are immoral and unnecessary.

So here you are equivocating. First you say that taxation is still forcibly taking people's resources (you earlier called it theft but now you're equivocating) and then you go on to explain how this theft is moral because you think it is moral in your own opinion whereas those other taxes that you in your opinion don't agree with are immoral and unnecessary.

Just so I'm clear. Because this is the same responseI get from every Libertarian and as a Christian it's easy for me to see that it's confirmed that Libertarianism is anti-Biblical.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

All those evil socialist roads.

How about that socialist health department, telling businesses how to do things. Most libertarians never seem to complain that they can trust pretty much anything they eat and it's because there are laws in place and a regulating agency that we trust in to keep us safe. Of course, if pressed, they will probably want the market to decide which food services succeed and fail - so if one place sells food that sickens or kills enough people the market will dictate that they will fail as people will use their competitors. That way you don't have nanny government ruining the capitalist casino that is the "market".

 

[Yekcidmij]

Except that Romans 13 directly corroborates that Jesus was telling us to pay tribute to whom tribute is due.

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Romans 13, the Libertarian's most hated chapter in the Bible.

I take this to mean you have no argument against Jesus' comment on the tribute tax since you can't deal with the passage in question or it's historical context. I have no problem with Romans 13 or Jesus' comments on the tribute tax. It's you who assume they're both talking about the same thing even though such an interpretation is unwarranted by the context. It should also be pointed out that traditionally Paul was executed by the Roman authorities. So I'm not sure his generality is applicable in every instance since it appears he himself didn't follow it on every occasion.

So, back to the passage you can't handle. Apparently Jesus' comments on the tribute tax are your most hated chapters since you can't get around an interpretation that considers the historical context of Jesus' words.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Most libertarians ....

I don't know what most libertarians think or do. I'm not sure why you feel the need to collectivize. Maybe you feel the need to start building straw men? Who could say if I agree or disagree on things with "most libertarians". I'll wait and see how most libertarians respond to ramblings against them...

 

[Yekcidmij]

So you are a collectivist then - a communist.

lol...the rhetoric is amusing.

So here you are equivocating.

Someone needs to check the definition of equivocation.

First you say that taxation is still forcibly taking people's resources (you earlier called it theft but now you're equivocating)

Taxes that forcibly take other people stuff for purposes other than securing their natural rights are theft. Why else would you take someone else's stuff if not for the necessity of securing liberty? I don't know how that's equivocation. Maybe you could try to accuse me of special pleading, but given my axioms it doesn't seem that's going to hold up well either.

It's you who believes that it's ok to violate people's natural rights through taxation. That is theft as far as I can tell.

and then you go on to explain how this theft is moral because you think it is moral in your own opinion whereas those other taxes that you in your opinion don't agree with are immoral and unnecessary.

It's not about taxes that "in my opinion I don't agree with" but taxes that go for purposes other than securing the citizen's natural rights. There could be taxes I disagree with, but never-the-less go toward securing the natural rights of the citizens and so are necessary. I don't believe I said there's no room for disagreement.

Just so I'm clear. Because this is the same responseI get from every Libertarian and as a Christian it's easy for me to see that it's confirmed that Libertarianism is anti-Biblical.

I don't know about every libertarian. I'll let your collective straw man speak for itself.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I take this to mean you have no argument against Jesus' comment on the tribute tax since you can't deal with the passage in question or it's historical context. I have no problem with Romans 13 or Jesus' comments on the tribute tax. It's you who assume they're both talking about the same thing even though such an interpretation is unwarranted by the context. It should also be pointed out that traditionally Paul was executed by the Roman authorities. So I'm not sure his generality is applicable in every instance since it appears he himself didn't follow it on every occasion.

So, back to the passage you can't handle. Apparently Jesus' comments on the tribute tax are your most hated chapters since you can't get around an interpretation that considers the historical context of Jesus' words.

I also think it's funny and a little insulting that someone waves around Romans 13 like I haven't thought about it - but I've thought about Jesus' comments on the tribute tax enough to go against a common interpretation and give very specific reasons. I must have just forgotten there was this Paul guy...

In any case, I really wanted to add that even if you don't believe the tradition that Paul was executed in Rome, there are still the passages about him being arrested and thrown in prison. So either Paul's comments in Roman's 13 were some general, behavioral instructions for the church in Rome or Paul was a hypocrite since he was arrested for not-submitting to authority. And so were Peter, James, John, Jesus' bother., Jesus, etc...

Indeed, if someone doesn't pay taxes, does bad, or refuses to submit to government, then they can expect government to act against them, as Paul said. This much seems obvious. But Paul's instruction seems to be general, not specific, since he offers some constraints to this behavior such as "do good." Which implies that if you have to "do bad" to submit to an authority, then Paul's general instruction for submission might not apply. And Paul would chiefly to be devoted to God, not human authority, otherwise he wouldn't have been arrested. What do you think Paul would suggest you do if a human government tried to do something immoral? Or something against God's commands (it's not like this hasn't happened in history before)? Paul's on behavior indicates these answers to me - you do the right thing, as Paul, the other disciples and Jesus did, not necessarily what a governing authority tells you to do.

I'm also not sure how Paul's comments could be strictly interpreted in a Federal Republic, or other democratic system. If government authority instructs one way, would I be allowed to vote another? Wouldn't that be not-submitting to governing authority? Or would the actions of people like Martin L. King be wrong according to Paul? Or should the northern abolitionists have just submitted to the governing authorities? Or were the colonists wrong in fighting for their independence?

It seems that in Rom 13, Paul is offering general instructions on behavior for the church in Rome, which was functioning under the nose of an imperial dictatorship. Not only that, but he is probably speaking to the Roman church returning to Rome after the Jews had been expelled under Claudius (also see Acts 18:2), and a Rome which was probably rife with anti-tax sentiments (Tacitus, Annals 13:50-52). Paul's general instructions are best understood against this backdrop to that audience.

 

[Denadii]

Full article: Should Progressives Back Sanders?

Excerpt:

Sanders is not just a “lesser evil.” His proposals and policies are good on some key issues such as economic inequality, health-care, education, and the judicial/criminal system. His ideas on foreign policy suggest a substantial shift away from interventionism and militarism.

In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step toward breaking the strangle-hold of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street and reactionary lobbies such as AIPAC and the NRA.

About the author:
Rick Sterling has been an organizer and activist for about 45 years. He currently works with Task Force on the Americas, Mt Diablo Peace & Justice Center and Syria Solidarity Movement.

I'm sure glad you did not really say that. Sanders....Hmmmmm Now there's a piece of work.

 

[Dirk1540]

One of the major problems with government taking from person A to give to person B is that there are so many corrupt hands in the pot that person B only receives 30 cents for every dollar that was taken from person A.

 

[Calminian]

....You're undoubtedly talking about this instance:

Luke 20:25 So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.".....

No, there's more than that.

Rom. 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.​

It's pretty much impossible to argue against paying taxes. Very biblical. The problem is not taxes, but the governments role. In Scripture it's very limited. Protect the innocent, punish the wicked.

 

[Calminian]

One of the major problems with government taking from person A to give to person B is that there are so many corrupt hands in the pot that person B only receives 30 cents for every dollar that was taken from person A.

Exactly. Government should have no role in charity. That's the job of citizens. The more government is involved, the less money that actually goes to charity.

 

[pat34lee]

Exactly. Government should have no role in charity. That's the job of citizens. The more government is involved, the less money that actually goes to charity.

And the more strings that are attached to it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It's pretty much impossible to argue against paying taxes.

I think I recall specifically saying I wouldn't use that instance by Jesus to argue generally against paying taxes. Yes, I did say that, you may have missed it. And I wouldn't use that instance to argue in general against paying taxes because I think it was a particular thing to do with Roman taxation, Roman oppression, idolatry, and apocalyptic/messianic Judaism at the time. I don't think this scenario is always and everywhere applicable to everyone.