Social Justice?

[KingsGambit]

I agree, and I'd be strongly in favor of figuring out how to do this by way of teaching them basic life and work skills. For a country whose infrastructure is well on the road to decay, it seems like a golden opportunity to re-enact some of the New Deal programs (but ofc someone has to pay for that, too).

I don't disagree at all though on a practical level, I have doubts as to whether the infrastructure can be rebuilt at all; the level of debt accumulation seems unsustainable to the point where interest is eventually going to become a significant part of the budget. (It bothers me that politicians portray themselves as future-minded by "reducing the deficit", which by definition still entails racking up more debt.)

[Adrift]

I don't see how that counters the free will nature of my argument.

Its essentially saying to not twist Paul's words into meaning something like "one should give cheerfully or they shouldn't give at all", rather he's saying something like "don't feel like giving is a chore. Do it with a happy heart". When my parents made my brother and I do chores when we were young, they often told us not to give them attitude. The idea wasn't that if we gave attitude we'd be exempt from doing the chores. We were definitely going to have to do those chores, but if we changed our attitudes then things would go better for us.

We would have to take one topic at a time.

Agreed.

Yes, and as far as I can tell the Settlement houses were not funded by the Federal Government

In post #163 you said that, "we went through most of our US history without social welfare programs". I then replied in post #165 "A need was recognized and attempted as early as the 1880s". You didn't specify "federal" till post #166. So then, what I was attempting to draw your attention to in that link was this,

As settlement house residents learned more about their communities, they proposed changes in local government and lobbied for state and federal legislation on social and economic problems.

Again, a need was recognized quite early even if it wasn't actually implemented until the 1930s.

But we will lose the whole ball of wax if we keep going this way. We are already trillions in debt.

I have a hard time believing that the wealthiest nation on the earth would lose the whole ball of wax by caring for its needy.

[Carrikature]

But what if those opposed to these policies don't think they actually help, for example? You seem to be assuming very selfish motivation on the part of all those who disagree with you, and purely altruistic motivation on the part of all those who agree with you, as though there's no possible reason for opposing any government program other than "I don't wanna pay for it, even though it'll help other people."

If you think the existing policies don't help, then propose some that you think will help. See if existing systems can be adjusted, and if they need scrapping then suggest alternatives. That's part of what I've been saying, but this is not what happens in practice. Instead, most conservatives either 1) deny there's a problem that needs addressed, 2) complain that it will cost too much, 3) complain that existing programs don't work, or 4) complain that they're being targeted because they're white males. Doing #1 doesn't get very far especially given the responses of "we'll just give to charities". We know the problems exist, even if we disagree to what extent and where. The other three options are simply non-productive, and sticking to them puts you out of the conversation altogether. That's not a very rational approach, however justified those complaints may be.

I don't actually assume purely selfish or altruistic motivations on either part, though. It's not necessary (let alone accurate). No Christian and/or conservative here, so far as I can tell, believes that we should be doing nothing to help the poor or the infirm. What's been said repeatedly by some of them (not all) is that we shouldn't be forced to pay for it, and we shouldn't have to do it for people we don't think qualify for whatever reason. The latter is at least worthy of discussion, but the former is kind of a pointless protest from where I sit. The nature of any government system inevitably leads to some people being forced to do things against their will, and a majority-driven system is no exception. Further, conservatives don't have any problem doing the same thing to everyone else where they think it necessary. In truth, I don't think motivation actually matters all that much. I think what matters is what you're doing about it, and if all you're doing is complaining then you can't expect things to improve. That's not how life works.

[Zymologist]

If you think the existing policies don't help, then propose some that you think will help. See if existing systems can be adjusted, and if they need scrapping then suggest alternatives. That's part of what I've been saying, but this is not what happens in practice. Instead, most conservatives either 1) deny there's a problem that needs addressed, 2) complain that it will cost too much, 3) complain that existing programs don't work, or 4) complain that they're being targeted because they're white males. Doing #1 doesn't get very far especially given the responses of "we'll just give to charities". We know the problems exist, even if we disagree to what extent and where. The other three options are simply non-productive, and sticking to them puts you out of the conversation altogether. That's not a very rational approach, however justified those complaints may be.

I don't actually assume purely selfish or altruistic motivations on either part, though. It's not necessary (let alone accurate). No Christian and/or conservative here, so far as I can tell, believes that we should be doing nothing to help the poor or the infirm. What's been said repeatedly by some of them (not all) is that we shouldn't be forced to pay for it, and we shouldn't have to do it for people we don't think qualify for whatever reason. The latter is at least worthy of discussion, but the former is kind of a pointless protest from where I sit. The nature of any government system inevitably leads to some people being forced to do things against their will, and a majority-driven system is no exception. Further, conservatives don't have any problem doing the same thing to everyone else where they think it necessary. In truth, I don't think motivation actually matters all that much. I think what matters is what you're doing about it, and if all you're doing is complaining then you can't expect things to improve. That's not how life works.

Ok. I'm not actually doing nothing about it, FWIW, though because I don't vote Democrat that probably doesn't matter to a lot of people (not saying you here).

Also, I no longer consider myself a conservative.

On that note, I think I'll just bow out of the thread. I probably shouldn't have posted in here to begin with.

[Carrikature]

I don't disagree at all though on a practical level, I have doubts as to whether the infrastructure can be rebuilt at all; the level of debt accumulation seems unsustainable to the point where interest is eventually going to become a significant part of the budget. (It bothers me that politicians portray themselves as future-minded by "reducing the deficit", which by definition still entails racking up more debt.)

I think this is a worthwhile discussion all its own. I think you're right that the level of debt accumulation is unsustainable, and as things stand we don't have a way to pay for rebuilding our infrastructure. That said, I don't think things are irrevocable. There's intelligent debt, and there's stupid debt. Accumulating debt to train and employ a workforce with an eye towards maintaining our country seems like intelligent debt. I'd be willing to bet we could restructure some things to accommodate these intelligent debts.

[Carrikature]

Ok. I'm not actually doing nothing about it, FWIW, though because I don't vote Democrat that probably doesn't matter to a lot of people (not saying you here).

To be honest, I don't really think it's fair to say that conservatives aren't doing anything, but I agree that Democrats may not see it that way unless you're doing things they want them done (which is probably true of everyone).

Also, I no longer consider myself a conservative.

What do you consider yourself, then? I'm in the position where I'm devoid of labels, myself. Where I come down on any given position is only determined after a fair bit of thought, and I'm often surprised at the outcome.

On that note, I think I'll just bow out of the thread. I probably shouldn't have posted in here to begin with.

That's disappointing. I always like discussing things with you.

[seer]

Its essentially saying to not twist Paul's words into meaning something like "one should give cheerfully or they shouldn't give at all", rather he's saying something like "don't feel like giving is a chore. Do it with a happy heart". When my parents made my brother and I do chores when we were young, they often told us not to give them attitude. The idea wasn't that if we gave attitude we'd be exempt from doing the chores. We were definitely going to have to do those chores, but if we changed our attitudes then things would go better for us.



Agreed.

OK, but the fact is Christians are not compelled to give, especially to secular causes, programs. Do you believe that we are compelled to Tithe?

In post #163 you said that, "we went through most of our US history without social welfare programs". I then replied in post #165 "A need was recognized and attempted as early as the 1880s". You didn't specify "federal" till post #166. So then, what I was attempting to draw your attention to in that link was this,


Again, a need was recognized quite early even if it wasn't actually implemented until the 1930s.

Yes, but your Settlement example sounds like people getting together and doing this of their own volition.

I have a hard time believing that the wealthiest nation on the earth would lose the whole ball of wax by caring for its needy.

We won't be the wealthiest nation for long. The fact is we are trillions in debt and the bulk of that comes from social programs.

[Adrift]

OK, but the fact is Christians are not compelled to give, especially to secular causes, programs.

We're compelled to pay our taxes.

Do you believe that we are compelled to Tithe?

I believe the Bible teaches that a faithful Christian will faithfully give, but, no, not necessarily the 10% tithe. I think that a tithe is not a bad idea if it means its either that or nothing.

Yes, but your Settlement example sounds like people getting together and doing this of their own volition.

That's probably how these thing go when a need is noticed. As you can see, they eventually found themselves having to lobby for state and federal legislation.

We won't be the wealthiest nation for long.

I do not believe that taking care of the poor is going to cause the end of America.

The fact is we are trillions in debt and the bulk of that comes from social programs.

I remember when people were going nuts about the national debt crisis during Ross Perot's campaign, and it sounded like the world was coming down around us. We were told to be extremely extremely afraid for the future. And then...nothing happened. Life went on as it always has. Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about the national debt issue. Every time I see it pop up its head, someone else comes along and says that its not anything we really need to worry about. Its a bit dated, but here's a quick informational video that had me thinking "well that's not as bad as everyone was making it out to be": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg

Again though, since I don't really have a background in economics, all I can do is hear the talking heads saying "Worry"/"Don't worry", and shrug my shoulders.

[seer]

We're compelled to pay our taxes.

True, though I never liked that part...

I believe the Bible teaches that a faithful Christian will faithfully give, but, no, not necessarily the 10% tithe. I think that a tithe is not a bad idea if it means its either that or nothing.

Yes, and even give more than 10% if you can afford it. But not under compulsion but from a willing heart.

I do not believe that taking care of the poor is going to cause the end of America.

Of course it is, it is already happening. Welfare programs are killing us.

I remember when people were going nuts about the national debt crisis during Ross Perot's campaign, and it sounded like the world was coming down around us. We were told to be extremely extremely afraid for the future. And then...nothing happened. Life went on as it always has. Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about the national debt issue. Every time I see it pop up its head, someone else comes along and says that its not anything we really need to worry about. Its a bit dated, but here's a quick informational video that had me thinking "well that's not as bad as everyone was making it out to be": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg

Again though, since I don't really have a background in economics, all I can do is hear the talking heads saying "Worry"/"Don't worry", and shrug my shoulders.

It is only common sense. Going out 25 years we have 16 trillion in debt - in unfunded mandates. There is no way we can pay that back, and we won't even be able to service the interest in the near future.

[Cow Poke]

We're compelled to pay our taxes.

But the instructions for filing for 1040 says we have a VOLUNTARY tax system!






Though the IRS explains the meaning of the word "voluntary":

The Law:
The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset.

[Zymologist]

To be honest, I don't really think it's fair to say that conservatives aren't doing anything, but I agree that Democrats may not see it that way unless you're doing things they want them done (which is probably true of everyone).

Yeah, I think it's true of pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

What do you consider yourself, then? I'm in the position where I'm devoid of labels, myself. Where I come down on any given position is only determined after a fair bit of thought, and I'm often surprised at the outcome.

I'm a libertarian now. This had actually been a while in the making; when I was a conservative, I was more libertarian than I realized. It took me a while to realize exactly how libertarian I actually was. At this point, I'm not Libertarian (as in, affiliated with the party), but I am quite firmly in the libertarian camp.

That's disappointing. I always like discussing things with you.

Aw, shucks.

Honestly, I find myself more and more drawn to lurking in Civics and less drawn to actively participating (other than asking some questions here and there), because politics in general is just divisive and unpleasant. That, and I honestly don't think I'm qualified to have an in-depth debate on libertarian thought. It's an unpopular position, and about the only one that I think could have the liberals, conservatives, and DE alike crucifying me over. Just doesn't appeal to me.

I reserve the right to poke my head in now and then, though.

[lilpixieofterror]

The argument Sam was combating was lilpixie's view that Jubilee was not a system of redistribution of wealth. As I saw it, lilpixie seemed to deny that Jubilee was a form of wealth distribution while agreeing that Jubilee called for a redistribution of land, and freedom from debt and slavery. Sam's point was that land (and slavery and debt) were economic assets, but he had to go through a syllogism for lilpixie to draw the connection between land and wealth.

Ummm no it isn't what I've argued, at all, because I am trying to get Sam to think (which I am finding that is a waste of time) because do you seriously think that I'm too stupid to know that land is a part of wealth? Now, ask yourself this Adrift, do people change their behavior, based upon laws that are passed and what are a few possible consequences of this law, on a country? I can take one guess... people are less likely to try to take your land from you because why bother when they have to eventually give it back? What is land often linked to, in a culture where most of the population are farmers?

[lilpixieofterror]

Again, it's establishing identity. The redistribution of land is a form of redistribution of wealth. Land is a subset of wealth. Therefore, if Jubilee requires a redistribution of land, Jubilee requires a redistribution of wealth. This isn't circular reasoning, it's establishing identity (or equality) of terms.

If you agree that P1 is true, you're going to believe that C1 is true. The other premises are there to establish the relationship between a concrete term (debt, slaves, land) and an abstract term (wealth). So if you agree that Jubilee required the list in P1, you must agree that Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

Here Sam, let me try to get you to think instead of assume things. If somebody had to give your land back to you... would they try to take it from you? Can you work your land and provide for yourself and your family, if you're burdened by debts (even if these debts were not incurred by you specifically)? Could you work your land or take care of yourself, if you are the property of somebody else? Now, think carefully Sam before you blurt out something else... if you have land, free from debts, and have your freedom. What does this give you?

[lilpixieofterror]

It's pretty hypocritical to denigrate others for voting in accordance with their self-interest when you (and others) are explicitly voting for your own self-interest.

Actually Carr, I vote for people to have the freedom to make their own choices, mistakes, and have to live with the consequences of their actions. Nobody gave me things, I went out, got a job, and worked for the things I got. My husband and I didn't have rich parents to give us things and we had to get the things we have ourselves. This is the opportunity I personally want everybody to have. The means to make your own way in life.

[Sam]

OK, but the fact is Christians are not compelled to give, especially to secular causes, programs. Do you believe that we are compelled to Tithe?

No, this is not the fact one should take from redistributive laws like Jubilee. If anything, Christ's explicit attachment of the concept of Jubilee to His ministry and the clear scope of his teaching regarding wealth and the poor make it clear that Christians are compelled to give. Jubilee and Christ make clear that there is a collective obligation to the poor and to ameliorating dramatic inequality as well as an individual obligation. The question at hand is whether the state has any legitimate part to play in the collective obligation. And, given the relevant laws, especially Jubilee, you are not able to maintain the position that the state necessarily