• 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. Sean611

    Sean611 Lutheran (LCMS)

    952
    +118
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  2. SnowyMacie

    SnowyMacie Well-Known Member

    +5,930
    United States
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    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?
     
  3. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,486
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  4. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +9,850
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  5. SnowyMacie

    SnowyMacie Well-Known Member

    +5,930
    United States
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    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.
     
  6. Paul of Eugene OR

    Paul of Eugene OR Finally Old Enough Supporter

    +1,830
    Baptist
    Married
    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.
     
  7. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    Some people have claimed that all taxation is theft.
     
  8. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,994
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    Public education in MANY other countries is awesome! Of course, you guys pay your teachers borderline poverty rates...
     
  9. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    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.
     
  10. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,486
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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?
     
  11. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    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.
     
  12. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,486
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  13. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +9,850
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    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?

    The prison system.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Cost.E2.80.93benefit_analysis
     
  14. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,994
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    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.
     
  15. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +9,850
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  16. interpreter

    interpreter Senior Member

    +130
    Anglican
    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.
     
  17. Larnievc

    Larnievc Well-Known Member

    +2,401
    Atheist
    Married
    UK-Labour
    You were the one linking luck with the incompetent.

    I called you on it.

    Claiming I changed the subject is disingenuous of you.
     
  18. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,981
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    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.
     
  19. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +9,850
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  20. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,994
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    So the early church was socialism with capital punishment! Huzzah!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...