Mahatma Gandhi on Socialism.

[Archaeopteryx]

Bondi harry,

Reading some of your responses I get the impression you are an anarchist** but then you go on to say that the government should exist and that it has legitimate functions that can be supported by taxes. The money for those programs you consider legitimate are just as equally taken from people "involuntarily". The arguments you make are eroding the very foundations of your other statements. Are you being covetous of another persons wealth when you support tax funding for the military?

QFT. A point I've been trying to get across for quite some time.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I would financially support the legitimate functions of government whether there was a tax or not. Frankly, I'm sufficiently fed up with statists that I wouldn't mind having the basic functions of government be subscriber services. If you want police, court and military protection you would sign up and pay for it.

Why wouldn't we just get rid of the state all together then? People can voluntarily pool their money for things without a government. Personally I would love to see the state abolished I'm simply trying to work with what is already here and the reality that the state isn't going to disappear any time soon.

If we are going to have a state we should at least insure that it is used for good such as helping the poor, health , etc, rather than using it to kill people (war, death penalty, etc).

To me "statist" has little to do with programs that help the poor and sick. It has a lot more to do with weapons, armies, and police. Thats how a state enforces it's rule. Of course I also connect limits on free speech, religious discrimination, and things of that nature as statist as well. Using the wealth of the nation to feed starving babies doesn't even show up on my statist radar though.

 

[BondiHarry]

Why wouldn't we just get rid of the state all together then?

When men become holy we could, until then we need government to wield the sword against evil doers and ensure justice is done.

People can voluntarily pool their money for things without a government

True, and be able to keep God's commands to us not to covet, not to steal and not to be a busybody in other men's matters as well. It is when men decide to break these commands and use coercion to force their neighbor to do their bidding that the problems creep in.

If we are going to have a state we should at least insure that it is used for good such as helping the poor, health , etc, rather than using it to kill people (war, death penalty, etc).

Yet in that thinking you are dismissing the role that God gave government and adding what God didn't authorize government to do and breaking the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Perhaps you should consider that there was a reason God gave governemnt so little authority ... government tends to mess up even the simplest of things. State involvment to help the poor and needy has often exacerbated their problems, not helped them. The entitlement programs the government has erected is bankrupting the United States and so on. What you want government to do just proves to me that there is a way that seems wise to men but the end thereof is death.

To me "statist" has little to do with programs that help the poor and sick. It has a lot more to do with weapons, armies, and police. Thats how a state enforces it's rule. Of course I also connect limits on free speech, religious discrimination, and things of that nature as statist as well. Using the wealth of the nation to feed starving babies doesn't even show up on my statist radar though.

Wealth doesn't belong to the nation, it belongs to individuals (actually it belongs to God and He is the one who will redistribute it, rewarding the good steward and punishing the bad, MEN do not have the wit to do this).

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why wouldn't we just get rid of the state all together then? People can voluntarily pool their money for things without a government. Personally I would love to see the state abolished I'm simply trying to work with what is already here and the reality that the state isn't going to disappear any time soon.

If we are going to have a state we should at least insure that it is used for good such as helping the poor, health , etc, rather than using it to kill people (war, death penalty, etc).

To me "statist" has little to do with programs that help the poor and sick. It has a lot more to do with weapons, armies, and police. Thats how a state enforces it's rule. Of course I also connect limits on free speech, religious discrimination, and things of that nature as statist as well. Using the wealth of the nation to feed starving babies doesn't even show up on my statist radar though.

I find your post somewhat inconsistent. You say you would love to abolish the state but then you want to use the state to do all the things you consider good. You complain about government abuse of power when performing duties that others find important but you are disdainful of, but don't seem to want to limit governmental power if the government is doing the stuff you want done. What I would be tempted to conclude from this is that you wish that government was the instrument of your own personal will and if given half a chance you might happily accept the position of dictator.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Wealth doesn't belong to the nation,

If people reap the benefits of the nations laws , road, police protection and so on they have a duty to pay taxes. If they want to totally drop out and live in a monastery that might be different though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When men become holy we could, until then we need government to wield the sword against evil doers and ensure justice is done.

And to do that the government must resort to what you have called, on many occasions, 'government looting' and 'theft'. But you refuse to acknowledge this. You refuse to accept that the terms you use to condemn healthcare can equally be used to condemn that which you claim is the 'sole moral purpose' of state force.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

You say you would love to abolish the state but then you want to use the state to do all the things you consider good.

Yes. IF there is going to be a state it should be used for good in so far as possible. I tend to think there will be a state rather or not I want one. If that is the reality I will try to make the best of it by lobbying the government to focus on programs that are actually helpful and trying to convince others. Thats how democracy works.

You complain about government abuse of power when performing duties that others find important but you are disdainful of, but don't seem to want to limit governmental power if the government is doing the stuff you want done

Who wouldn't want the government to do the things they consider helpful rather than harmful? I was pointing out that this is no different on my part then it is on the part of the person I've been discussing things with. We simply have an honest disagreement over which functions we consider "legitmate".

What I would be tempted to conclude from this is that you wish that government was the instrument of your own personal will and if given half a chance you might happily accept the position of dictator.

You might as well say the same about everyone else here as well then. I've seen some pretty strong opinions on what the government should do from a good number of the people here. I tend to see that as a basic necessity of democracy though. People need to understand things and then fight for what they consider to be the truth. If they don't whats the sense in even having a democracy? Just let a king run everything and the people wont have to worry about having views of their own.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If people reap the benefits of the nations laws , road, police protection and so on they have a duty to pay taxes. If they want to totally drop out and live in a monastery that might be different though.

The people are the nation not the government. The government is the servant not the master.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The people are the nation not the government. The government is the servant not the master.

I agree but the people can decide if they want to have tax funding for healthcare or not . They do this through the democratic process. Just as the people have decided they want to spend billions on weapons of war and use tax money to fund it. I would like to change that though so I try to convince others that this isn't the solution.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Are there programs that you believe should be funded through taxation? If yes is that a secret wish to be dictator on your part?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes. IF there is going to be a state it should be used for good in so far as possible. I tend to think there will be a state rather or not I want one. If that is the reality I will try to make the best of it by lobbying the government to focus on programs that are actually helpful and trying to convince others. Thats how democracy works.

Who wouldn't want the government to do the things they consider helpful rather than harmful? I was pointing out that this is no different on my part then it is on the part of the person I've been discussing things with. We simply have an honest disagreement over which functions we consider "legitmate".

You might as well say the same about everyone else here as well then. I've seen some pretty strong opinions on what the government should do from a good number of the people here. I tend to see that as a basic necessity of democracy though. People need to understand things and then fight for what they consider to be the truth. If they don't whats the sense in even having a democracy? Just let a king run everything and the people wont have to worry about having views of their own.

I prefer a Republic. Government needs to have rules and limits. If you wish the rules and limits to apply for things that you do not want the government to do, then, to be fair, you must accept the same rules and limits for those things that you would like government to do. For those that are only interested in accomplishing their personal goals, people that believe that the ends justify the means, rules and limits are merely tools to use against their opponents and can be disregarded when not convenient.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I prefer a Republic.

I was using the term democracy in a broader sense that would include our form of democratic republic and isn't limited to direct democracy. In this democratic republic the people even have the power to change the rules via amending the constitution. I think it's good that it is so hard to do so though because that helps insure that people will have time to think things out rather than doing it on the spur of the moment or leaving it up to our elected officials. It's always good to ponder major decisions like that over time before enacting them. Make sure both sides can be heard first.

you must accept the same rules and limits for those things that you would like government to do.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying I don't have a right to support say national health-care because you think it would be against the rules? What if the rules are changed or is it wrong to change them?

 

[KarateCowboy]

If people reap the benefits of the nations laws , road, police protection and so on they have a duty to pay taxes. If they want to totally drop out and live in a monastery that might be different though.

Those are all services that the people hire the government for. Property belongs to individuals, and the government works for them. It is not the other way around. Especially with modern technology it is becoming easier and easier to only pay for the services you use. The government really has no excuse.

 

[Xenocide]

was mahatma ghandi a christian? did he live in texas? did he know about guns? i don't think so. quit talking garbage

 

[lordbt]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying I don't have a right to support say national health-care because you think it would be against the rules? What if the rules are changed or is it wrong to change them?

Rules in this context are limitations on government power. So you have to ask yourself 'why should government power have limits in the first place.' The answer should be obvious, but in case it is not, we limit government power because we understand and accept the concept of individual rights. That leads to the next question which is 'what limits (rules) should be placed upon government?' If you accept the concept of individual rights, the proper role of government should be to secure those rights. After all, you dont need to establish a government to violate your rights, there are plenty of people out there willing to do that on their own. You establish government to protect you from those types of people, not to become one of those types of people.

So, to rephrase your original question into a more general one, "Do you have the right to support a government action that violates the rights of others?" No. You do not.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Grasping the after wind,

In one of your post you asked me if I was being inconsistent. I responded right away in a fairly defensive and dismissive manner. I was thinking about it again throughout the day though and I think there may be some truth to your assertion.

Deep down I know that anarchism (especially of a socialist variety) is the ideal. I also know that the state probably wont ever be reformed for the simple fact that it's based on coercion and force of arms. At the same time I feel that I have no power to bring about this ideal and instead end up focusing on band aids that I think might be a little more easy to bring about. I guess you could call it a type of harm reduction. That is however a rather defeatist mind set. What is right is right regardless of the probability I think I have of bringing it about.

I'm really going to have to think some more about this , study, and pray on this issue more.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Is taxing people and using it fund the military a violation of peoples rights?

I don't see why it's a violation of a persons rights to support program "X" (X being the ones I might like better) through tax funding if it is democratically agreed upon when it isn't to support program "Y" (Y being whatever programs you feel are "legitimate" or should be funded).

You establish government to protect you from those types of people, not to become one of those types of people.

How does government protect the poor from exploitation by the rich? Heck how does it protect 99% of Americans from the 1% that control over 40% of the wealth. Wouldn't they still have a disproportionate say over the direction of the economy or the country in general even if we did further limit the power of government? What would prevent a few corporations from monopolizing everything and paying people low wages? Money is power and drastic inequalities of wealth also lead to massive inequalities of power and influence. The state isn't the only source of power, control, and exploitation out there. It's simply one among many.

 

[Umaro]

Do you understand that wealth is not a static quantity? That productive work creates NEW wealth yet it is productive work you statists want taxed. Do you not understand that you have no right to the bread of another man's labor?

If we're going with productive work creates new wealth, and that every man is entitled to the wealth he creates and nothing else, then the government has a duty to tax the rich, who have been taking the wealth the working class has been creating.

The working class is roughly 80% more productive than it was 30 years ago, but wages are only ~8% higher. The owners though have seen their pay increase 240%, which is far higher than their productivity. If anyone is taking the bread of another mans labor, it's those at the top.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The working class is roughly 80% more productive than it was 30 years ago, but wages are only ~8% higher. The owners though have seen their pay increase 240%, which is far higher than their productivity. If anyone is taking the bread of another mans labor, it's those at the top.

Taking into account inflation and the rising cost of a large number of the goods people rely on that 8% would probably end up being not that much of a raise at all. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually ended up being less when everything is taken into consideration. I know I only get raises when insurance prices go up and then the raise is just enough to cover the increase so it's not really an increase of wealth on my part at all. I'm still making 5 dollars an hour less than I did 12 years ago. Each new job I got paid a little less. From talking to other people I get the feeling this is pretty common.

 

[paul becke]

Yes, all true but do we follow God's wisdom in these things or do we follow mans?

I think they should have paid far closer attention to God's word rather than substituting man's wisdom on how to do things.

Alas, it is you who are overlooking God's word, and substituting man's wisdom.

Jesus went out of his way on a number of occasions to point out that his listeners, notably the more worldly, monied members of the religious / political Establishment, continually and very wrongly interpreted natural virtues as supernatural ones; when in fact, the very term is self-explanatory.

Worse, still, they do so at the expense of the supernatural counterparts of such natural virtues, the supernatural virtues being inspired by the grace of the Holy Spirit, selfless love, the active ingredient in all the virtues.

There are very few people who would prefer not to work. "Do not the tax-collectors/robbers/heathen do as much?" is probably what Jesus would say, as he said on a number of occasions regarding the natural virtues. It is a wicked sin dating back to early biblical times to blame the poor for being poor, allegedly not seeking or accepting employment; when the truth is tha the general public are dependent on the monied people to provide work for them providing a living wage; instead of which, again on the most medacious of grounds, they have been assiduouly "outsourcing" the jobs abroad.

Even the Church, itself, has failed down the centuries to stress, as Jesus and his Evangelists did, that Ambition is a singularly pernicious vice, and I think it's fair to say that, as a result, it has now become a tacit part of the canon of Christian virtues! The only proper ambition for a Christian is to lead a devout life. In doing this he will automatically be an exemplar of conscientious application in his work, always doing it, not to please his employer, but for the glory of God.

As for the redistribution of wealth being a no-no for Christians, you seem to be totally unaware that the left is only trying to redress the worst excesses of the redistribution by the rich of God's bounty, which was/is intended for all his children. How is it you do not see the plank in the eyes of the rich, yet deplore the speck in the eyes of the poorer folk?