Libertarianism and

[apothanein kerdos]

Alright AK

I can see we will just have to disagree on this matter. However the one thing I did want to take a shot at is what you said about Solomon. The entire nation of Israel based their entire system of laws on the law of Moses. The fact Solomon was even king is because God set up David as king and Solomon inherited the throne. All Solomon knew about how to run a government was from the law of Moses, so to say you can separate the two when refering to Old Testament Israel makes no sense. Where did Solomon come up with his "rules in general?" They are based on the law of Moses.

I can say that it is Biblical to kill all idolaters, homosexuals, witches, etc. to put sin out of our land, and return America back to faith in God. There is actually wisdom in doing just that, since we see from the Old Testament example what such wicked people do to a society.

I doubt you will accept that answer, but that is how I see it.

You're trying to make a straw-man argument. If you can prove Solomon meant "Mosaic law" then you have a case, and no longer have to support government welfare. The problem is, at the point David was made king, Mosaic law lost its value. How so? Mosaic law was written under the assumption that there would be judges and prophets to run the land, not kings. Likewise, Solomon specifically says "ruler." This applies to ALL RULERS. You cannot ignore that fact. The book of Proverbs was not written for Mosaic law but instead is a book of wisdom for all people. Solomon wrote this not just for the Jews, but for everyone. There is no escaping this fact, unless of course you want to make a strawman argument to get out of the facts.

Bottom line, the government is to help out with the poor.

To me, I am not making a straw man argument. The very fact Israel had a king was because God set up a kingdom. The law even makes provision for rules of conduct for a king. From the law of Moses, Deuteronomy 17:14-20

14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me:

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose. One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: for as much as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: netiher shall he greatly multily to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be when he sitteth upon the Throne of his kngdom, THAT HE SHALL WRITE HIM A COPY OF THIS LAW IN A BOOK, OUT OF THAT WHICH IS BEFORE THE PRIESTS THE LEVITES.

19 IT SHALL BE WITH HIM, AND HE SHALL READ THEREIN ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE, THAT HE MAY LEARN TO FEAR THE LORD HIS GOD, TO KEEP ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW, AND THESE STATUTES, TO DO THEM;

20 THAT HIS HEART BE NOT LIFTED UP ABOVE HIS BRETHREN, AND THAT HE TURN NOT ASIDE FROM THE COMMANDMENT, TO THE RIGHT HAND, OR TO THE LEFT: TO THE END THAT HE MAY PROLONG HIS DAYS IN HIS KINGDOM, HE, AND HIS CHILDREN IN THE MIDST OF ISRAEL."

You stated that at the time David became king, Mosaic law lost it's value. These scriptures, directly out of the law of Moses proves that to be incorrect. The law was set up with God's full knowledge Israel would become a kingdom.

You also said the law was written under the assumption the land would be run by judges and prophets. These verses again prove you wrong. It was set up to be run by judges, and kings. Israel and or Judah was blessed as they followed the law of Moses and came under curses as they disobeyed. This is not a straw argument. It is a fact.

The strawman comes into play when you try to equate Solomon's advice to Mosaic law. You missed that point.

You made some statements that were obviously incorrect concerning the law of Moses during the time of the kings, yet you are still trying to claim I am making a straw man argument in saying that the laws dealing with how the government should deal with the poor are from the law of Moses. Perhaps if you gave us the specific ordinances from the Bible that says it is the responsibility of the government to care for the poor, we could look at them together and make a determination on this matter?

Reading comprehension.....that's all I have to say about that. As a further hint...I supplied about 13 verses that dealt with the role of the government in caring for the poor.

[apothanein kerdos]

Secondly, most of these do not even deal with the kings of Israel and Judah but instead the general references. Take for instance Psalm 37:14 which states only the wicked would deny and strike down the poor. If a government does nothing to help the poor then it automatically becomes wicked according to Psalm 37:14. Psalm 82 is refering to judges and how they are to treat the poor. Proverbs 14:31 states that no matter who we are, if we ignore the poor, we are wicked. If our government is to ignore the poor, then it would equally be evil. What about Provers 19:17? Proverbs 22:16 (which is a slam against Capitalism)? Proverbs 28:3 is addressing a ruler in general...not refering to any kinds of any kingdoms, but simply stating that a person who is in authority over the land that oppresses (that is, ignores) the poor is like a flood that destroys crops. Proverbs 28:27 woudl also apply to the government. Same as Proverbs 29:7. What about Proverbs 29:14 which states if a king treats the poor fairly, his throne will be secure? This is ONLY for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? If so, I guess we might as well remove Proverbs from the Bible seeing as how it no longer applies. Both Isaiah 3:15 and 10:2 reserve judgement for the Israeli rulers for not taking care of the poor. Isaiah 32 states that a righteous ruler will help the poor. In fact, all of Isaiah refers to how the comming Messiah will establish His kingdom and the poor will be sheltered. We, as CHristians, are to live as if though Christ has brought His kingdom in full (the moden prayers states for His will to be done on earth). If that is the case, we want to see EVERYTHING changed for God, that includes the government. We should support programs that help the poor. Do I really need to prove this case further?

I already explained how they are not part of Mosaic law. I won't repeat myself. If you can't keep up with the discussion, that is your problem and not mine. The verses, specifically in proverbs, are simple truths, not laws. For it to be Mosaic law it would have to be declared as such, a quotation from the law. Or it would state, "As the law dictates." As it is, there are simple notations, facts of governing.

I can't help but think you're stalling for something....you're having me repeat what we've been debating. I have no problem with debating you on this, but I will only do so if you can keep up with the discussion and remember all the points made. I HATE having to repeat myself.

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm going to respond to horizon first simply because it's shorter:

I don

[Marnie]

Actually as I said earlier, in general I agree with your post. I also took it you did not agree with all areas of libertarianism. I am not sure what category you can put me in, but I do not think you are a satanist or a money grubbing hedonist.

You read and comprehend, thank you. I do enjoy your down to earth reasoning. AK makes good points, the problem is, we have to wake up and deal with the real world. Call me a sell-out, but I have learned how to use the system to my advantage, and therefore ultimately to the Kingdom's advantage. Some people don't get that...and that is frustrating.

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm going to respond to horizon first simply because it's shorter:

Lenin, Castro, etc. All of them were the heads of the movement. Look up the slaughters that occured shortly after they came to power. Some of their closest allies were killed once they gained power. Cuba is a perfect example. Look at how many of Castros allies were killed by Castro whilst celebrating. They (the revolutionaries that were killed) sought utopia, not power. Their allies, such as Lennin and Castro, sought power. They had their communist revolutionaries killed because once they (the revolutionaries) realized that "true Communism" was not taking place, they (the revolutionaries) would revolt again. True Communism has never occured (thank God), just certain forms of it. This goes back to the original point that communism is a system that does not rely on materialism.

No my friend I think you continue confusing yourself with your contradictory statements. All of the above are self-professed

[DaniJ87]

oh wow. Big heated discussion...

My own opinion developed after having to listen to a liberal social work teacher last semester...

1. Some people are really poor because of something out of their control... and we should help them.

2. We do not need the government to do this. In the OT, the israelite's government was run by God, and sort of enmeshed with their faith. Our government is separate from the church. If we let the government do our ministering for us, we lose one more way to win people to Jesus. People respond when you help them- and having a local church aid a poor family will be much more effective, than them getting an impersonal check in the mail. Not only will they be more likely to feel motivated to get out of the pit that they are stuck in, but they will be encouraged by those who care about them, and aid them.

3. Our government has too much money- it just doesn't know how to manage it, because it has never been forced to.

4. Free (and fair) market is good. The Bible supports the concept of people benefiting from their work- if you don't work at all, you have nothing to eat... Free market supports that- you can make money- all you have to do is present a superior product, and market it well. If you try to scam people, it will come back and haunt you eventually... (However, I believe that the inter-national agreements, etc., harm this, because we could practice free trade here, but if we keep importing things from other countries, below-cost for ours, it harms our economy)

5. There are too many rules constricting trade (monopolies, etc.), and promoting trade between different countries...(NATO) I personally think that it would be better if everyone had to try trading on an even field- (for example, Canada ships its milk into the US... their farms are subsidized.. which means they produce milk for less cost... Our farmers don't have that... so it isn't fair to import the milk, because it harms the abilities of the dairy farmers HERE to support themselves. (most of them don't make much money... my dad's job is dependent on the dairy industry... and our income is pretty slim...)

6. Politically, the income tax is not necessary. Before it was started to be levied, our government had enough money. Giving them more, (and especially in an unbalanced way- (what's with differing percentiles for different incomes? It's not fair.... For example, in the Bible, the Israelites gave 10% of their income as a tax... (it was the only money that their government had... and this was the government that included the temple and worship, etc.) It wasn't varied. The rich man wasn't forced to give 40% of his income.... (I don't know what our percentiles are, currently... but I know they are not even for everyone) Changing the percentile is not necessary. The more money you make, the bigger chunk of money a single percent tax will make... and for those with small incomes, the percent doesn't amount to as much.

I haven't looked up verses for this... but I am pretty sure these ideas aren't contrary to scripture... most are opinions... I just felt like voicing my thoughts.....

~Danette

[Marnie]

oh wow. Big heated discussion...

Yeah, I regret hitting the "submit" button again.

My own opinion developed after having to listen to a liberal social work teacher last semester...

How did you survive that class with your brains intact?

1. Some people are really poor because of something out of their control... and we should help them.

Agreed. There is a very small segment of the population that is destined to be cared for by others.

2. We do not need the government to do this.

My arguement exactly. Unfortunately, I fear the Church has given up her responsibility and handed it over to the State, much to her shame.

In the OT, the israelite's government was run by God, and sort of enmeshed with their faith. Our government is separate from the church. If we let the government do our ministering for us, we lose one more way to win people to Jesus.

Yes yes! Faith without works is dead.

People respond when you help them- and having a local church aid a poor family will be much more effective, than them getting an impersonal check in the mail. Not only will they be more likely to feel motivated to get out of the pit that they are stuck in, but they will be encouraged by those who care about them, and aid them.

Amen to that.

3. Our government has too much money- it just doesn't know how to manage it, because it has never been forced to.

Our government has NO money of its own, only the money they confiscate from us.

4. Free (and fair) market is good. The Bible supports the concept of people benefiting from their work- if you don't work at all, you have nothing to eat...

Amen again. But be prepared to be pummelled for that opinion. However, there are more who agree with you than not. Hang tough.

Free market supports that- you can make money- all you have to do is present a superior product, and market it well. If you try to scam people, it will come back and haunt you eventually... (However, I believe that the inter-national agreements, etc., harm this, because we could practice free trade here, but if we keep importing things from other countries, below-cost for ours, it harms our economy)

Agreed.

5. There are too many rules constricting trade (monopolies, etc.), and promoting trade between different countries...(NATO) I personally think that it would be better if everyone had to try trading on an even field- (for example, Canada ships its milk into the US... their farms are subsidized.. which means they produce milk for less cost... Our farmers don't have that... so it isn't fair to import the milk, because it harms the abilities of the dairy farmers HERE to support themselves. (most of them don't make much money... my dad's job is dependent on the dairy industry... and our income is pretty slim...)

Right. Total free trade is the only way, but our "free trade" with Canada is not really free. Both sides of the border have all kinds of subsidies, not just the Canucks.

6. Politically, the income tax is not necessary.

Ummm, I would say it is now, but it should have never gotten that way. Income tax was originally brought in as a temporary measure. Furthermore, mandatory income tax is unconstituational and unfair. The rich pay next to nothing and the poor pay nothing at all, yet get all the benefits. It's the working schmuck in the middle that pays the bills. I am referring to Federal income tax here. The worst, most evil thing ever started was the withholding scam. Most Americans have no clue how much income tax the pay because they don't write a check each month. People mistakingly use the withholding thing as a way of forced savings; over pay your taxes to get a refund. How retarded is that? You give the government your money and they have use of it all year, then return it to you with no interest! Why not just pay enough taxes and invest the difference and make a little return?? How uninformed is the average American?

Before it was started to be levied, our government had enough money. Giving them more, (and especially in an unbalanced way- (what's with differing percentiles for different incomes? It's not fair.... For example, in the Bible, the Israelites gave 10% of their income as a tax... (it was the only money that their government had... and this was the government that included the temple and worship, etc.) It wasn't varied. The rich man wasn't forced to give 40% of his income.... (I don't know what our percentiles are, currently... but I know they are not even for everyone)

You are not far off. I pay well over 35% of my income out in Federal tax. Now, if you read the OT carefully, the Hebrews gave close to 30% of their income in "tithes." Part went to the Temple upkeep and the priests, part went to the government and part went to the poor. Do you advocate a flat tax? I sure do. Everybody would pay it, no exceptions and no deductions. Now that is fair.

Changing the percentile is not necessary. The more money you make, the bigger chunk of money a single percent tax will make... and for those with small incomes, the percent doesn't amount to as much.

That is way to simple, isn't it? lol

I haven't looked up verses for this... but I am pretty sure these ideas aren't contrary to scripture... most are opinions... I just felt like voicing my thoughts.....

Danette, I really enjoyed your post. Thanks so much for posting it. Be prepared to pelted from the left, but stand firm.

~Danette

[apothanein kerdos]

Why do people see it as "Church vs. State" in the instance of helping people? Why can it not be both? If the poor will always be with us (meaning we cannot rid ourselves of poverty) then why can't the government help out? In other words, even if every Christian were living up to their purpose in helping the poor, this would still not eradicate the problem, so why could the government not help out (as it is called to do)?

Also, to say that the income tax was a 'temporary solution' is absurd. You don't add things to the Constitution if they are supposedly "temporary." To say it is unconstitutional shows that you haven't read past the bill of rights. An amendment was added that makes the income tax constitutional. As for a flat tax, it has been said that those who know nothing of logic or are very rich to begin with support a flat tax. Suppose the tax rate was established at just 15%. I would end up bringing in about 1,020 to bring home each month. My friend, who makes more than me (but is the same age), would end up bringing home $4,250. The problem with this is that though he is paying "more" taxes (in value) I am paying a greater percentage of my paycheck. Granted, no matter what it's still 15%, but at the same time I lose more by having to pay it. In other words, a flat tax would only force those that are poor to remain poor. When income tax is considered, a graduated tax system is the fairest way to go about it. Otherwise, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer which eventually destroys a Capitalistic system. If an income tax must exist within Capitalism, the only fair income tax that a Capitalist can support is a graduated tax. After all, the more money the poor have, the more they will spend which helps the Capitalists.

[DaniJ87]

If you only make $100.. you would only pay $15... if someone makes $10,000, they would pay $1,500 Same proportions... Also, if we allow the church to take care of the poor, it doesn't matter so much anyway... Historically, except in the OT where the church and government were combined, the government doesn't show much interest in poor people. If we let the church do its job and expect them to help the poor, (which we are doing, somewhat... like the "Hope Gospel Mission"... for homeless/disadvantaged people- they even have an education center, so that people can learn a new trade. THIS is how we can help poor people- give them the means to better themselves, and if necessary, pull them up, and help to stand once we get them up.)

Our current welfare system is useless. It doesn't work. Though there is a percentage of individuals who genuinely need welfare, some just don't want to work, and others can't find jobs because of personality issues- such as being dishonest, or lazy... The ones who can't work should be helped, (by the church...) but the rest should be given very temporary aid, (also by the church) and helped to get on their feet. (like, have a church member give them a job, and help them to keep it, do it well, etc...)

A large proportion of money goes to single mothers with children.... I think we need to fix this problem, by paying more attention to promoting abstinence until marriage, and promoting healthy marriages that last. Just paying people after they divorce their husbands, or after they have premarital sex and become pregnant, isn't enough. We need to go to the source of the problem. Also, unmarried mothers could be encouraged to consider adoption, and we could structure our adoption systems so that they are not looked at so negatively. Widows and those having problems that they did not cause, should be supported....

Ultimately though, it is best if everyone who can work, does work.

Also, I am seeing a lot of "let's bash the rich people and businesses"...(I am not directing this remark to any specific person... it was just my impression over the whole thread) This isn't biblical, first of all- when we do well with what God gives us, he gives us more- he doesn't just take it and split it up evenly.

Businesses should follow laws... but if they make good money, it is because people like that business, and choose to do their business with it. Why should it suffer more than anyone else? After all, every business starts out as an individual person.

People who are rich, though there are a few who inherit their wealth, generally earn it. We should not penalize ambition, by taxing all their money away. We do not need the government to play "Robin Hood" for us.

Another issue with taxing businesses a lot, is that, (and we're already seeing this) they choose to move away. They relocate their factories where you can't overly tax them so much. If we get too over-zealous about taxing businesses, many more will move out of the country.

well. that's my $0.02... tear it up if you like....

~Danette

[apothanein kerdos]

If you only make $100.. you would only pay $15... if someone makes $10,000, they would pay $1,500 Same proportions

Under the current system, a person making $100 doesn't have to pay anything. This means they are allowed to keep the $15 and do what they want with it. Under your system, the poor are hurt. As a Christian, how can you advocate a system that harms the poor?

Also, if we allow the church to take care of the poor, it doesn't matter so much anyway... Historically, except in the OT where the church and government were combined, the government doesn't show much interest in poor people.

Once again, piss-poor analysis. The church and government were not combined in the scriptures I'm quoting. There was a king and a high priest. Judaism was seperate from the Israeli government. The prophets were also seperate from the kings and reported directly to God, not to the king. In other words, there was a seperation. Likewise, read the verses, along with the analysis I gave. Fact remains, the government, according to the Bible, is suppose to help with the poor. There is no getting around it. You can cry, "It's in the Old Testament" all day long. Fact is, that won't work.

If we let the church do its job and expect them to help the poor, (which we are doing, somewhat... like the "Hope Gospel Mission"... for homeless/disadvantaged people- they even have an education center, so that people can learn a new trade. THIS is how we can help poor people- give them the means to better themselves, and if necessary, pull them up, and help to stand once we get them up.)

You didn't finish your sentence. Anyway, there will never be a cure for poverty, this is not debatable. Since that is the case, why is the government forbidden from helping the poor?

Our current welfare system is useless. It doesn't work. Though there is a percentage of individuals who genuinely need welfare, some just don't want to work, and others can't find jobs because of personality issues- such as being dishonest, or lazy... The ones who can't work should be helped, (by the church...) but the rest should be given very temporary aid, (also by the church) and helped to get on their feet. (like, have a church member give them a job, and help them to keep it, do it well, etc...)

How does this a mandate against the government helping the poor? Because it mismanages it right now? Great, so does the church, so should the church not help the poor now?

Another issue with taxing businesses a lot, is that, (and we're already seeing this) they choose to move away. They relocate their factories where you can't overly tax them so much

What is more valuable, capital or ethics?