Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    What we see consistently in the OT and NT is that rich people are exhorted to freely provide help to those who are less fortunate than themselves, we never see any permission for those who are less fortunate to forcibly take the wealth that rich people possess and distribute it amongst themselves.
    And I don't believe that I (or Sam) has argued that we should have a free-for-all between rich and poor or a revolution by the proletariat. No one has claimed that all types of forceful redistribution is justified

    What Sam has claimed (and I am of the same opinion) is that some forms can be: the government can by certain ways methods rightly do so.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      It justifies a reexamination of modern concepts of 'ownership' - which tends to be individualistic rather than communalistic.
      And I find it hard to think that this concept will ever be overturned, regardless of whether or not such a change in thinking would be justified (and I'm inclined to think that it very well might be).

      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Whether such a change is practical is irrelevant to whether the changed concept is true. And the discussion is thus far about what ownership is, not whether a specific conception can ever be accepted in the US within the next few centuries.
      I'm not sure that we disagree on how a proper definition of ownership should look. I'm more interested in looking at how ownership is seen in a modern western concept, and whether or not it's feasible to overturn this concept with a more biblical concept. If this is not feasible then I fail to see how a appeal to Leviticus 25 is going to be relevant to the situation in the modern West (and more specifically the US in this particular discussion).
      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        I wish that were true, but in reality it doesn't seem like it is. The government forced my grandfather to sell a huge chunk of his farmland (land that had been in the family since the early 1800s) so they could build a highway. My grandfather fought it as hard as he could, but to no end. Ultimately the land in America really seems to belong to the US government, and our ownership of it is more of a stewardship of sorts.
        And, I think you and I would both see that as an abuse of power, unfortunately made legal by a perversion (IMOHBAO) of the Eminent Domain Act.

        Originally, it was based on the concept that....

        "... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          And I don't believe that I (or Sam) has argued that we should have a free-for-all between rich and poor or a revolution by the proletariat. No one has claimed that all types of forceful redistribution is justified

          What Sam has claimed (and I am of the same opinion) is that some forms can be: the government can by certain ways methods rightly do so.
          Unless the modern legal concept of ownership is first overturned by a more biblical concept I fail to see how redistribution mandated by law could in any way be justified.

          ETA: Justified in the sense of being properly grounded in US law code (or any law code that is sufficiently similar), not morally justified.
          Last edited by JonathanL; 03-23-2015, 12:27 PM.
          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Go down to the courthouse in my county and tell them you want my ranch because I don't truly own it. They'll laugh at you.



            My lawyers would beg to differ. I have the paperwork.



            You're playing goofy games.



            I have dual citizenship. I am a citizen of the United States, but also a citizen of Heaven. The legal authorities don't recognize my citizenship in Heaven, and it would be silly for me to attempt to get them to see things that way.

            Deut 15 is about GRACE, not legalism. I am generous with what has been entrusted to me ("owned outright" in the legal sense - "stewardship" in the spiritual sense) because of the GRACE of God, not because I am forced to give.
            And since we are commanded to help the poor and give to charity, forcible taxation to take money from your pocket and put it into someone elses, actually interferes with our ability to follow Christ and obey of our own free will. You don't have the money to give to help others voluntarily if the government is taking it away from you. Charity is supposed to be voluntary.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Go down to the courthouse in my county and tell them you want my ranch because I don't truly own it. They'll laugh at you.

              My lawyers would beg to differ. I have the paperwork.
              You too, would agree that they don't truly own anything. What they say does not necessarily relation to what is.

              You're playing goofy games.
              If you don't want to engage at that level, I can't force you

              I have dual citizenship. I am a citizen of the United States, but also a citizen of Heaven. The legal authorities don't recognize my citizenship in Heaven, and it would be silly for me to attempt to get them to see things that way.
              I haven't said anything about trying to get them to 'see things that way'; this construction you see before your eyes is one woven by your own hands.

              Deut 15 is about GRACE, not legalism.
              Pray tell, what does the Lutheran grace-legalism dichotomy have to do with Deut 15?

              I am generous with what has been entrusted to me ("owned outright" in the legal sense - "stewardship" in the spiritual sense) because of the GRACE of God, not because I am forced to give.
              There's no need to insert yourself, because that law was not and is not for you. Try not to project.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                I wish that were true, but in reality it doesn't seem like it is. The government forced my grandfather to sell a huge chunk of his farmland (land that had been in the family since the early 1800s) so they could build a highway. My grandfather fought it as hard as he could, but to no end. Ultimately the land in America really seems to belong to the US government, and our ownership of it is more of a stewardship of sorts.
                Is this something that the government is legally allowed to do (i.e are there provisions in the US federal law for this kind of forceful behaviour), or is it a case of the government blatantly abusing their power in spite of what the law actually says? (I'm asking out of genuine curiousity, by the way)
                ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  You too, would agree that they don't truly own anything. What they say does not necessarily relation to what is.
                  ONLY if I accepted your goofy implied definition of "truly".

                  If you don't want to engage at that level, I can't force you
                  Correct, you can't force me to accept your tortured definitions.

                  I haven't said anything about trying to get them to 'see things that way'; this construction you see before your eyes is one woven by your own hands.
                  Actually, it's one stolen from my hands by you and twisted into your own meanings.

                  Pray tell, what does the Lutheran grace-legalism dichotomy have to do with Deut 15?
                  I suggest you ask the Lutherans.

                  There's no need to insert yourself, because that law was not and is not for you. Try not to project.
                  I am instructed to give generously, and with a grateful heart. I enjoy doing that, and am blessed for it.

                  It appears you're losing this argument, because you're reverting back to petulance. "project", my eye!


                  You're playing games, Papster.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    And I find it hard to think that this concept will ever be overturned, regardless of whether or not such a change in thinking would be justified (and I'm inclined to think that it very well might be).
                    An an ancient collectivistic Jew might just find it hard to understand how people could ever embrace such selfish individualistic modern notions of ownership.

                    I'm not sure that we disagree on how a proper definition of ownership should look. I'm more interested in looking at how ownership is seen in a modern western concept, and whether or not it's feasible to overturn this concept with a more biblical concept. If this is not feasible then I fail to see how a appeal to Leviticus 25 is going to be relevant to the situation in the modern West (and more specifically the US in this particular discussion).
                    I would say that we should understand what ownership is first, and not let our practical concerns sidetrack and possibly warp our conceptions.

                    In addition, of course, I am not a Yank so whether such a concept of ownership can be practically implemented in the USA ranks similarly in my regard as it would be in Zimbabwe. For me, the basic focus should first be what is ownership, rather than what certain groups of people can accept as ownership, as it would be for say marriage in a different context.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Is this something that the government is legally allowed to do (i.e are there provisions in the US federal law for this kind of forceful behaviour), or is it a case of the government blatantly abusing their power in spite of what the law actually says? (I'm asking out of genuine curiousity, by the way)
                      See my post Eminent Domain.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        And, I think you and I would both see that as an abuse of power, unfortunately made legal by a perversion (IMOHBAO) of the Eminent Domain Act.

                        Originally, it was based on the concept that....

                        "... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."
                        I don't know how I see it, honestly. I think had I been older, and lived closer I would have tried to fight harder for my grandfather. The farm changed after that day. Instead of being a bit of idyllic country in the heart of the Midwest, surrounded by other German, Russian, and Amish family farms the demands of population growth altered the environment, turned the country into a suburb, and apparently the government felt that it was a necessary evil for the greater good of the community to build a highway. Were we being selfish for wanting to hold onto what generations of my family had worked and cared for for so long? I don't know. Maybe. Its not like they didn't pay my grandfather well, but the land became part of the family's identity, and to see that taken away was heartbreaking. Ultimately, I think I understand the dilemma on both sides, and its hard for me to say that what the government did was completely wrong, though, I of course wish there was another way.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Is this something that the government is legally allowed to do (i.e are there provisions in the US federal law for this kind of forceful behaviour), or is it a case of the government blatantly abusing their power in spite of what the law actually says? (I'm asking out of genuine curiousity, by the way)
                          As far as I can tell its something that they are legally allowed to do.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            And since we are commanded to help the poor and give to charity, forcible taxation to take money from your pocket and put it into someone elses, actually interferes with our ability to follow Christ and obey of our own free will. You don't have the money to give to help others voluntarily if the government is taking it away from you. Charity is supposed to be voluntary.
                            Not only that - I think I am far more qualified and capable of addressing a local need directly, where 100% of my assistance goes to the intended person, rather than the 33% of government assistance that actually gets to a recipient.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              An an ancient collectivistic Jew might just find it hard to understand how people could ever embrace such selfish individualistic modern notions of ownership.
                              I'm inclined to agree with you on that one.

                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              I would say that we should understand what ownership is first, and not let our practical concerns sidetrack and possibly warp our conceptions.
                              My understanding of what ownership ultimately is is that we have been granted stewardship of our possessions and are expected to the best of our abilities to use them to the glory of God (which would include helping those less fortunate than ourselves).

                              Do you disagree with this understanding?

                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              In addition, of course, I am not a Yank so whether such a concept of ownership can be practically implemented in the USA ranks similarly in my regard as it would be in Zimbabwe. For me, the basic focus should first be what is ownership, rather than what certain groups of people can accept as ownership, as it would be for say marriage in a different context.
                              This thread is specifically about the situation in the US, so the question of whether it's practical to implement a more biblical (or communalistic) concept of ownership seems to me to be of paramount importance in the context of this thread.
                              ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                As far as I can tell its something that they are legally allowed to do.
                                The Church I pastored several years ago is facing that now - they're widening a highway, and it will encroach on the Church's property to the extent that the building is unusable. The State of Texas appears to be TRYING to work in good faith toward compensation, but establishing that "value" is going to be interesting. The Church will have to relocate, and land prices have escalated phenomenally.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, 07-27-2021, 10:22 AM
                                50 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by seer, 07-26-2021, 12:04 PM
                                65 responses
                                404 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Started by rogue06, 07-26-2021, 07:21 AM
                                11 responses
                                102 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 07-25-2021, 07:36 PM
                                23 responses
                                144 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 07-24-2021, 01:18 PM
                                7 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X