Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Mahatma Gandhi on Socialism.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BondiHarry" data-source="post: 57875120" data-attributes="member: 281154"><p>The church I attend does just fine financially yet it levies not even a penny in obligatory payments. The charities I support serve their missions yet they levy not even a penny in obligatory payments. I'm just curious why statists think government in its legitimate purposes (those that God specifially gives it) would not be funded by voluntary contributions. </p><p> </p><p>In my study of the Bible I haven't come across how God expects government to be funded and paying taxes to whom taxes are due is mentioned so I presume that is authorized by God as a means to raise the revenue to cover the costs of Godly government. 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. If you don't want those protections you pay nothing and take your chances. That way there is no 'involuntary' transfer of wealth although I fail to see how the police, courts and military constitute a transfer of wealth as you suggest as those are very different from the welfare state programs which clearly transfer wealth from one man's pocket to another man's pocket.</p><p> </p><p>As for the 'anarchist' suggestion, I know that God is in control so where you see anarchy unless government is involved I see order. It's like this statist zeal to have the government oversee the redistiribution of wealth and I have to ask why? God says He will reward the good steward and take from the bad steward what little he had yet statists apparently don't think this will do and men should help God in this matter. I would much rather have our perfect and holy God in charge than any group of imperfect and often corrupt men in charge.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BondiHarry, post: 57875120, member: 281154"] The church I attend does just fine financially yet it levies not even a penny in obligatory payments. The charities I support serve their missions yet they levy not even a penny in obligatory payments. I'm just curious why statists think government in its legitimate purposes (those that God specifially gives it) would not be funded by voluntary contributions. In my study of the Bible I haven't come across how God expects government to be funded and paying taxes to whom taxes are due is mentioned so I presume that is authorized by God as a means to raise the revenue to cover the costs of Godly government. 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. If you don't want those protections you pay nothing and take your chances. That way there is no 'involuntary' transfer of wealth although I fail to see how the police, courts and military constitute a transfer of wealth as you suggest as those are very different from the welfare state programs which clearly transfer wealth from one man's pocket to another man's pocket. As for the 'anarchist' suggestion, I know that God is in control so where you see anarchy unless government is involved I see order. It's like this statist zeal to have the government oversee the redistiribution of wealth and I have to ask why? God says He will reward the good steward and take from the bad steward what little he had yet statists apparently don't think this will do and men should help God in this matter. I would much rather have our perfect and holy God in charge than any group of imperfect and often corrupt men in charge. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Mahatma Gandhi on Socialism.
Top
Bottom