Upcoming Election

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by mattrose » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:55 pm

thrombomodulin wrote: Matt,

Thank you for mentioning this, I think this perspective has a lot of merit. I would like to know if you see this kind of submission as applicable in all relationships (not just with respect to a ruler but anyone else who might unjustly harm the Christian in any way).

Thanks,
Pete
I think this kind of submission is applicable in cases of actual authorities.

For example, a Christian teen might submit to a non-Christian parent who bans them from going to church on Sunday. The teen could likely find other ways to connect with believers and endure the burden of such authority until they are old enough to make their own decisions on such issues.

But I don't think a Christian teen should 'submit' to unjust harm from another teen (who has no actual authority over them).

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by thrombomodulin » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:22 am

Paidion wrote:If a person were elected by those others in order to benefit them, and if he taxed them in order to fulfill his obligation to them, then he wouldn't be a thief.
If a person pays for some or good or service and does so on a voluntarily basis, because he values that good or service more than the sum of money that he paid to receive it, then this is not theft. I do not object to a ruler, or any one else, carrying this out. My objection is that the payment for those services may not be forcibly taken by the State. If anyone wishes not to pay for the benefits, because he does not value the the benefits more than the payments, then he ought to be exempted from being forced to pay for what he does not want. To take from such men is theft. Do you agree or disagree?
Paidion wrote:Now I have a question for you. If a Libertarian Government were elected, would they actually govern? Or would they simply declare that all people were on his own, to struggle along as they may, make their own roads, look after the poor (if they felt like it), pay for their own medical needs (even if it bankrupted them), etc.
A libertarian, if elected, would abolish the parts of the government he sees as unnecessary. If he consistently applies the non-aggression principle (many libertarians do not) then he would eventually eliminate all of it.

Your concerns assume that the State is a structure which provides for a superior efficiency in the provision of goods and services than a competitive market. The nature of a socialist program is that it takes from productive people in order to give benefits to those who are less productive, or not productive at all. This discourages people from being productive and encourages people to be less productive, and so overall the amount of goods and services produced in a socialist system will be less than otherwise would have been in a free market. Therefore, goods and services would be more plentiful and affordable in a free market. It is pejorative and not accurate to state that people will struggle along sans various government provisions. In a free market men's needs are met through the products that private enterprise creates. In this sense each person is not on his own, but each person must either pay his own way or rely upon voluntary charity.

It is never, in my opinion, justified to take one persons property because another person really needs it. Men ought to be free to give to the poor only if they feel like it. They should not be compelled to give. If a person wishes to secure himself against extreme hardship due to medical needs or other disasters,, then of course he may purchase an insurance policy to avail himself of such protections.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by thrombomodulin » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:33 am

mattrose wrote:I think this kind of submission is applicable in cases of actual authorities...
Thanks for your reply. I agree with it. If the possibility remains that there are men who claim to be authoritative, but are not, then it remains a difficulty to discern which men actually possess the authority that deserves the submission of Romans 13. I haven't discovered a good solution to this difficulty except to consider the OT precedent that a man anointed to be king by a true prophet would quality.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by Paidion » Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:38 pm

If a person pays for some or good or service and does so on a voluntarily basis, because he values that good or service more than the sum of money that he paid to receive it, then this is not theft. I do not object to a ruler, or any one else, carrying this out. My objection is that the payment for those services may not be forcibly taken by the State. If anyone wishes not to pay for the benefits, because he does not value the the benefits more than the payments, then he ought to be exempted from being forced to pay for what he does not want. To take from such men is theft. Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree—for the reason that, for government programs to work, they must be universal; all citizens must participate. If the majority of citizens do not agree with the government's programs, they can elect a government whose programs they can endorse.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by Paidion » Fri Sep 02, 2016 8:02 pm

Your concerns assume that the State is a structure which provides for a superior efficiency in the provision of goods and services than a competitive market.
No, they don't. I fully agree with free enterprise. But free enterprise and a competitive market do not provide for the needs of all society—especially the poor.
The nature of a socialist program is that it takes from productive people in order to give benefits to those who are less productive, or not productive at all. This discourages people from being productive and encourages people to be less productive, and so overall the amount of goods and services produced in a socialist system will be less than otherwise would have been in a free market.
This would be the case, if, say 90% or more of productive people's income were used to provide for the poor and for necessary government programs. But that is not the case. I live in Canada—a socialist country. I was a school teacher, and now live on a teacher's pension plus a government provided old-age security pension plus income from the Canada Pension Plan. The total income tax that my wife and I paid to the Canadian government was 3.4% of our total income. Do you consider that unreasonable, when one considers the benefits we receive from the federal government? Our medical needs are provided at no expense to ourselves, and we are given travel grants of 47¢ per kilometer when we must travel more than 100 kilometers for necessary health needs, and much, much more.

Government is totally responsible for roads; to the best of my knowledge, there are no toll roads in Canada.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:17 am

Paidion wrote:for government programs to work, they must be universal; all citizens must participate.
I'm sure you understand that by my having stating the qualification that when those who do not wish to participate are exempted from funding a program that this really makes that public program just another private enterprise. Private enterprises conduct business all the time providing goods of various kinds of goods to the public without a universal participation requirement. Hence I disagree with the reason that you provided for disagreement.

P.S. I'll respond to the 2nd post later.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by Paidion » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:12 pm

George MacDonald, in his novel, The Marquis of Lossie, wrote of an evil land agent or steward (called a "factor" in Scotland) who was very cruel to those over whom he had the oversight. He made the decision to turn Blue Peter out of his home and off the land.
George MacDonald wrote:Blue Peter was resolved to abide the stroke of wrong, and not resist the powers that were, believing them in some true sense, which he found it hard to understand when he thought of the factor as the individual instance, ordained of God. He had a dim perception too that it was better that one, that one he, should suffer, than that order should be destroyed and law defied. Suffering, he might still in patience possess his soul, and all be well with him; but what would become of the country if everyone wronged were to take the law into his own hands? Thousands more would be wronged by the lawless in a week than by unjust powers in a year.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Sep 03, 2016 4:08 pm

Paidion wrote:No, they don't. I fully agree with free enterprise. But free enterprise and a competitive market do not provide for the needs of all society - especially the poor.
As you know I disagree with this, and hold the contrary opinion. I live in a country that has a partially free enterprise market. The stores here are filled with low priced goods that cater to the needs of those who have the least - the poor. These items are produced by a broad number of private firms, and I can only suppose that you must think that these would cease to be produced by firms at the such prices if the government were to interfere less in the economy that what it does. I do not see why I should expect this to be so, perhaps you can make a positive case for it?
Paidion wrote:This would be the case, if, say 90% or more of productive people's income were used to provide for the poor and for necessary government programs.
This effect is also present if men are taxed at 89%. The effect would, of course, be of a lesser magnitude than would be the case if the tax rate were at 90% - but it occurs. We could say the same going from 89% to 88%, or from 88% to 87%, and so on, all the way down to any value greater than zero percent. The overall magnitude of the loss may not be large at small percentages, but it is a loss nonetheless. As near as I can tell, direct government spending is about 1/4th of GDP (from CANSIM table 380-0064), so the average Canadian bears a considerably higher burden than yourself. I'll grant there are many issues with a GDP calculation that I don't care to get into - this is just a rough estimate.
Paidion wrote: The total income tax that my wife and I paid to the Canadian government was 3.4% of our total income. Do you consider that unreasonable, when one considers the benefits we receive from the federal government?
You have brought this up before. Do you think that this amount that you paid for the benefits you recieved was equal to, more than, or less than, the costs incurred to provide those benefits? If so, by how much?

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:51 pm

thrombomodulin,

2 Peter 2:9-10 "...and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority."

If God has not ordained any authority today, then how can there even be authority to despise? And how can He condemn anyone who despises authority, if He has not ordained that authority?

Jude 1:8 "...these men ...defile the flesh ... and reject authority ..."

1 Timothy 2:1-2 " ... I urge that ... prayers ... be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, ...

1 Peter 2:13-14 "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by (literally "through") Him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

So the Bible calls the governorship or the kingship of a land a "human institution" that He (God) has sent. If He sent them, then are they not ordained by God?

Has God given authority to police officers? Do they not generally punish evildoers and praise those who do right? Do you feel like you don't have to obey them?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3123
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Upcoming Election

Post by darinhouston » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:46 am

morbo3000 wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:Did you see that Hillary mocks Trump for suggesting that we build a wall to keep out illegals, yet she and Bill have a high wall built around their Chappaqua estate to keep out undesirables. What hypocrisy.

It's okay for them to protect their estate, but not for us to protect our country.
You are using broken logic.

a Walls keep out people.

b Citizens have property

therefore: Citizens can build walls to keep out people.

----

a Walls keep out people

b Nations have borders

therefore: Since private citizens can build walls to keep out criminals, Nations can build walls to keep out people.

***

This is a non sequitur. Does not follow. Because these are not parallel statements. National borders are not the same as private property. For example, people can immigrate into a country. They can't immigrate into my house.

So you can't draw a parallel between those two to deem one person hypocrite.

To understand more... here's a short video on broken logic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRZk62QNOsM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”