Up here also there has been a debate about, for example, who pays for medical treatment for asylum seekers while their claims are processed? Like, the Federal Government? the Provinces? does the balance sheet take precedence over collective compassion? These are all searching issues.Taxes are the easiest to sort. You should only be taxed for what you will receive in service.
Well, I'm Canadian... my views on this are certainly not Canadian I suspect. We could cover the bill until they can pay taxes... future taxation of those individuals would need to be at an increased rate to cover the cost of past treatment.Up here also there has been a debate about, for example, who pays for medical treatment for asylum seekers while their claims are processed? Like, the Federal Government? the Provinces? does the balance sheet take precedence over collective compassion? These are all searching issues.
Collective compassion...new expression to me.Up here also there has been a debate about, for example, who pays for medical treatment for asylum seekers while their claims are processed? Like, the Federal Government? the Provinces? does the balance sheet take precedence over collective compassion? These are all searching issues.
Give us your money to pay for someone who has nothing to do with you... or else.Collective compassion...new expression to me.
I'm assuming it means taxation for social programs?
We had a prior president refer to this as voluntary contributions.
Both sound awesome and optional.
Vounteeing at gunpoint.
It always baffles me how traditional growth areas such as Calgary and Alberta generally are targeted either in intention or practically by politicians in other parts of Canada with plans for higher taxes - and bureaucracy - in order to curb profit margins and make them more 'Canadian'. But then when the burden of costs for programs and welfare becomes higher and higher, the same politicians will wish that the growth of Calgary and Alberta should not be impeded, so that more wealth can continue to be generated. Is this "conservative"? is it "libertarian"? I don't know, but it seems that a lot depends of the geography of where the commentator is.Well, I'm Canadian... my views on this are certainly not Canadian I suspect. We could cover the bill until they can pay taxes... future taxation of those individuals would need to be at an increased rate to cover the cost of past treatment.
Alternatively, third party organizations and citizens could assist if they so desired.
Of course not as you're his guardian. You currently speak for him. There will come a point where you no longer have any claim over him though.
I guess some ppl would go to the Old Testament passages about being helpful towards the strangers within one's borders. Just as strangers had - sometimes - been compassionate towards Israelites in hours of need.Collective compassion...new expression to me.
I'm assuming it means taxation for social programs?
We had a prior president refer to this as voluntary contributions.
Both sound awesome and optional.
Vounteering at gunpoint.
Sure, but they can choose not to. That's up to them. As I said before, in the end, we will all stand before God.Are not children always obliged by God to honor their parents, no matter what age they are?
I personally have a hard time compartmentalizing Christianity... to me, it's tied to my political outlook. However, I can agree with your comment.
Unlike in Europe with the EU, NAFTA does not have the same comprehensive provision for free movement of people, which means that Mexicans don't have the same rights as US citizens. So many US citizens have the idea that it's very good for US corporations to go to Mexico and take advantage of cheap labor and lower dues, while Mexicans should have considerably less privileges than Americans.And if you don't like it, go to jail or back a candidate to run on tax and social program reform.
It's kinda hard to get some people to vote against Santa Claus/Uncle Sugar.
I do agree about the primacy of spreading the Gospel.One thing that helps me is to remember that not only do humans (and that means me too) make mistakes.... But in addition, we do not have total knowledge.
While I think a libertarian tending governing is typically good, I have to remember I don't have perfect understanding of all things, but only those things Christ gives to me.
He didn't say we should change the government even.
Paul. Paul addressed this. And so did Peter. We are not to change society by politics, revolution, etc., but instead by something vastly more powerful and effective -- by spreading the gospel.
He didn't say we should change the government even.
Paul. Paul addressed this. And so did Peter. We are not to change society by politics, revolution, etc., but instead by something vastly more powerful and effective -- by spreading the gospel.
But if he is obliged then it follows that I have a God-given right to his honor and therefore a God-given claim upon him.Sure, but they can choose not to. That's up to them. As I said before, in the end, we will all stand before God.
So, I'm a Christian Libertarian... just wondering if there are others on here who share the same political outlook as I?
If you don't understand the philosophy of liberty, I'd recommend checking out:
Wikipedia states:
"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1]Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership."
Libertarianism - Wikipedia
Was it not Gods intention that His people would be self governing with only Him as King. Yet, Isreal requested governance... and it wasn't a positive thing to God, in fact, He viewed it as a rejection of Himself.
"I will call on the Lord to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the Lord when you asked for a king" 1 Samuel 12:17
No. There is a difference between what one should do, and what one has to do.But if he is obliged then it follows that I have a God-given right to his honor and therefore a God-given claim upon him.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a specialist in going around the world telling people and governments what to think and what words mean (he does have his good points also); but it seems also that there are similarly plenty of people around who use labels, including Christian sounding ones, and then proceed to try to tell people what they ought to mean and speak on their behalf.I wonder who the people are deciding what Libertarians think and don't think as a group?
Broadbrush painting is sloppy.
I wonder what these people decide are thoughts and positions held by all Conservatives and all Liberals?
So I watched both videos...Ok, Tetra. To begin my personal evaluation on libertarian political viewpoints, I'm going to lay out two thought provoking (and short) videos that, for me, seem to sum up the basic differences. The first video is by a little gal (Julie Borowski) who presents a contrast between liberatarians and conservatives, and within that same video she provides a comparison between two examples of possible libertarians, one of which might be a "christian" type versus a "secular" type. So, here is this first video (it's 2 minutes long, roughly--short and sweet):
So, with her basic comparison in mind between basic Conservatives and two types of Libertarians, and without dissecting the things Robert Nozick has laid out, I now present the view of Baptist minister, Albert Mohler (as it is given in a group discussion among some other Christian leaders). While I'm not Baptist per say, and definitely a little bit more moderate in how I view politics, I do find his evaluation(s) about Liberatarianism something to think about, and I keep in mind that Baptists have historically been heavily involved in supporting another political issue which is related, i.e. the separation of Church and State. Let's here what Mohler has to say (6 minute video):
So, rather than being a Libertarian, I guess I'm a kind of Conservative who is supportive of proactive social welfare made by the Church.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
We can tell people about Him, we have no ability to force Him onto others.
We can only choose to make Him Lord over our own lives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?