• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by ChristJudgeOfAll, Aug 5, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ChristJudgeOfAll

    ChristJudgeOfAll Well-Known Member

    902
    +214
    Protestant
    Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

    Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

    No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

    What am I missing?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,418
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    idk what you're missing, but you might want to go back and look at the OT rules regarding gleaning of the fields, think about how that compares to a modern welfare system, and then try to see how that jives with your claim that one man being entitled to the fruits of another would cause society to cease its forward progress.
     
  3. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,967
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  4. morningstar2651

    morningstar2651 Senior Veteran

    +2,265
    Pagan
    Single
    US-Others
    I don't.
     
  5. Avid

    Avid A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

    +659
    Baptist
    Married
    We have heard the analogy of Robin Hood. However, that historic character did not take from people who produced, to give to people who would not or could not. Robin of Locksley, the historic character, was righting wrongs done by theft and graft, which is NOT what is being discussed here. We are discussing the modern version of this, where people referencing Robin Hood are more the Sheriff of Nottingham, and his henchmen, than a band of merry men utilizing the cover of the forest for protection from government tyranny.
     
  6. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,994
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    I believe we are obliged to take care of those around us. You are looking at it the wrong way. You are only considering what you are losing instead of what you could be giving.

    I think that's a bad attitude to have towards money in cases of charity.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. KitKatMatt

    KitKatMatt stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal

    +1,562
    Agnostic
    Single
    We must ALL do what we can to help society as a whole. That's kind of the whole point of being in a society.

    I can't do much directly because I am not skilled for it, but I am working and totally willing to pay extra taxes to fund socialized healthcare, food programs, water treatment to provide people with clean drinking water, housing, schooling, public transportation, access to public information, etc.
     
  8. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    I don't accept the modern western hyper-individualistic premise on which the question is based.
     
  9. Grizzly

    Grizzly Enemy of Christmas Supporter

    +1,610
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes - it's the premise I also have fault with. Some people don't see that the reason they are able to produce fruits is in a large part due the fact that we have a functioning society. They see their own work and efforts, sure, but they don't see the larger role our society has in making that happen. Right now we live in a society that has roads, bridges, electricity, clean water, and other such things that allow for commerce to flourish. We also live in a society where the rule of law is strong, and we don't have to build walls around all of our houses and hire small armies to protect our lands and businesses from bands of roving thugs (as they have to do in some third world countries). All the "ground work" to make businesses flourish comes from operating a society that keeps law and order, and also keeps the poor at a level financially by which they are still participants in the economy. And that requires taxes.
     
  10. Maren

    Maren Veteran

    +1,596
    Seeker
    Private
    I agree about it being a flawed premise. To take the premise in a different direction, why should I pay to support people who are "less successful" (in the terms of the OP) such as firemen, policemen, or military members?

    The true arguments here are benefits to society -- we support police, military, fire departments, etc. because they help protect us and their property. We support schools because they both educate us and our families, but also make other citizens educated (and better able to participate in the political process), as well as making society more prosperous as they are able to work and generate income. We provide welfare and unemployment to help people return to being productive members of society and, if you want to be cynical, because it is cheaper to give them food and housing than to put them in jail after they steal because they have nothing to eat and no shelter.

    Now, you can argue how effective some of these programs are but, the fact remains, the reasons we "take from the rich" is to improve society -- and there are clear benefits to every program we have to "give to the poor"; the real argument is about the various programs, such as if they are needed, and are they working in a way to meet the goals the program was set up to accomplish.
     
  11. Oafman

    Oafman Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

    +4,042
    Atheist
    Private
    UK-Labour
    Successful people are rightly rewarded. They obtain wealth, and the luxuries and power that come with it. This acts as an effective incentive for everyone who has the right opportunities, to try to better themselves.

    But it is only possible for successful people to succeed when society provides them with a stable foundation on which to do so.

    If there is a large enough proportion of the population who are desperate and starving, prepared to do anything to survive until tomorrow, then anarchy is inevitable. So civilised societies ensure that everyone has at least the bare minimum to survive.

    Why wasn't the childhood development of these successful people stunted by a curable disease? Because civilised societies ensure that healthcare is available to everyone, so curable disease is not widespread, whether in successful or less successful people. Everyone benefits, not just the most poor, who 'have not paid' for this healthcare provision.

    Successful people can only flourish in successful economies. And a successful economy needs an educated population and workforce. So civilised societies ensure that every child gets a good education, not just the children of those who were successful.

    All of this is why those who are successful have a moral responsibility to support these foundations, because they are what made their success possible, and will make the success of others possible in the future.
     
  12. Armoured

    Armoured So is America great again yet? Supporter

    +13,799
    Catholic
    Married
    Why do the "more successful" think they're entitled to the work of the less successful without adequate compensation?
     
  13. Larnievc

    Larnievc Well-Known Member

    +2,401
    Atheist
    Married
    UK-Labour
    What you are missing is that the equation is not [effort in] equals [economic status].

    [effort in]+[luck]equals[economic status].

    Luck is a huge force multiplier in this case.

    Such progressive methods such as taxing the rich reduce the effects of luck.

    I was able to go to uni only because my government put up the money in the form of grant.

    Now I pay a slightly higher tax rate because of my income and the size of my house.

    What is so wrong with giving something back to a society that has supported me to get where I am, today?
     
  14. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,300
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    It is not a good comparison at all. The poor had to work to glean the fields. The fields were not gleaned for them by the owner of the field and delivered to them. A welfare system based upon the gleaning of the fields would require the recipient of welfare to work for their welfare benefits. Can anyone tell me why our government does not want that to be the case? Wouldn't it give the recipient a sense of accomplishment that is currently denied to them? Wouldn't it give them more of a sense of ownership rather than being left with a sense of being a burden upon society. Then no one could claim they were not contributing to society. wouldn't we be able to increase their benefits by doing so as we could rid ourselves of numerous bureaucrats and pay out less to private firms to do the jobs we could have them doing? Instead of being wards of the state they would be paid employees of the state and no one could begrudge them what they received for the work they did.
     
  15. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,300
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    How does being forcibly made to contribute to the welfare of another person in any way equivalent to brotherly love( charity) ? You are accusing someone of having a bad attitude toward apples when he says he doesn't like oranges.
     
  16. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,300
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    Luck is the excuse of the incompetent.
     
  17. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    You think you would have done as well if you'd been born in Mogadishu?
     
  18. Armoured

    Armoured So is America great again yet? Supporter

    +13,799
    Catholic
    Married
    So what company are you CEO of?
     
  19. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    No. Work-for-the-dole schemes have been tried.

    They end up making people resentful, make it harder to get back into real employment, and undermine real jobs.

    But that's what it's really about? You being jealous that somebody gets something?
     
  20. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,486
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    This is perhaps a commendable belief but your mere belief really isn't sufficient to mandate another individual take care of another individual.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...