Problem solved!steve wrote:
kaufmannphillips,
I will not have time over the next four weeks to reply to your post.
There is a deficit in your conceptualization here, limiting the matter to vengeance and/or punishment. The role of shepherd involves not only such things, but also discipline – engaging not only negative breaches of conduct, but also positive responsibilities.steve wrote:
...I do not agree with your definition of "rights." My having a need does not give me an enforceable right to have the government force my neighbor to be charitable toward me. God, of course, has the right to require my neighbor to be charitable, or else to face consequences that God alone has the right to exact. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." But this does not mean that any human agency—government, society, church or family—possesses God's right to punish a man's lack of mercy.
By the way – it is curious that you indicate family does not have the right to punish a lack of mercy. If my child were failing to act mercifully, I most certainly would not stop short of imposing punishment (if it seemed necessary); lack of mercy is one of the most grave failings a person can have, and I would be betraying my responsibility as a parent if I were to allow that sort of failure to pass by without consequence. Such is not a usurpation of divine prerogative; rather, it is a matter of duly fulfilling one’s stewardship as a disciplinarian.
Of course, there is a lot of territory between “unrestrained government power to enforce every outcome [per] the mood of its officers,” and utterly denying the role of government in disciplining citizens.steve wrote:
You made many references to things that are "right" to be done. I am an advocate of doing right things—whether they are enforceable by law or not. I am not a believer in unrestrained government power to enforce every outcome that the mood of its officers may categorize as "the right thing" for me to do.
steve wrote:
You said that justice is not objective, and as a case in point, alluded to differing human opinions about what ought to be done to the Aurora shooter. I did not say that all people are equally informed about, or in sympathy with, the objective justice defined by God. However, God has defined justice, and has differentiated it from mercy and other qualities. Justice has its own range of meaning, as defined, I believe, in the second tablet of the decalogue. There, a person's right to his life, the inviolability of his marriage, his property, and his good name are safeguarded as rights not to be violated by others (all of these can be forfeit by the man's own criminal behavior, but not when the man is himself not a criminal). In the following chapters of Exodus, it makes it clear that these are the rights, which, if violated, should incur criminal penalties. This would define the function of government as defined by Paul and Peter.
G-d’s sense of justice is also subjective, though it is a divine subjectivity. You insist on differentiating mercy from justice. I will insist on declaring them indivisible. Come now, think of Christian theology – homoousios and perichoresis and consubstantiation! 
Upon what basis should we identify the aft-end of the Decalogue as defining the "range of meaning" for justice? It is far from demonstrable that Peter’s and/or Paul’s remarks in NT texts would amount to their comprehensive view(s) on justice and/or the role of government. Given the opportunity to expound at length on these topics, Peter and/or Paul might have elaborated further.steve wrote:
You suggested that the government has as much right to force a man to do good as it has to for him not to do evil. This is neither self-evident, nor would a Christian, like myself, find any support for it in the teaching of Jesus or the New Testament. There is a difference. When I do what is unjust, I harm an innocent victim. When I withhold mercy in a given instance, I am not hurting anybody. For example, if there are ten beggars at my door, and I help five of them, but withhold assistance from the the remainder (either because I have reached the end of my expendable resources or I have judged that the remainder of my charity could more wisely support a better cause), I have not deprived the five who must then go beg elsewhere of any right that they possess. On the other hand, if I rob even one man, I have victimized him and violated his right to his property. It is good for the government to prosecute me for the latter, but the government has no right to tell me to whom my charity must be given.
The NT does not purport to be a comprehensive guide to governmental philosophy. But some Christians read their OT, where they can find the concept of national leader as shepherd.Shepherds, of course, do not limit themselves to punishing harmful sheep; they also drub them along into desirable paths – for their own good and for the good of the flock.
When a person derelicts their positive responsibility by withholding mercy, this can redound to the harm of others: a rightful recipient may have to suffer without their proper due; and/or another party may have to sacrifice and/or bear a greater burden to pick up the slack. And of course, government action is not merely a matter of punishing or even disciplining the neglectful; it also is a matter of providing for need. A responsible shepherd makes sure that the sheep are fed, watered, etc.When “charity” is left to uncoordinated efforts by individuals or groups, some needs may be met readily, while others may be undersupplied; cute orphans may be well-subsidized, while scruffy schizophrenics may be overlooked. It would be naive to imagine that the broad spectrum of need will be adequately met by “invisible hand” or happy coincidence. A superintending agent is needed to ensure that needs are duly addressed.
So the government does have a right to direct your charitable activity, when doing so is part of pursuing its responsibility to meet the needs of its citizenry. The shepherd manages the sheep in ways that facilitate the meeting of their needs – even when the sheep balk and bleat their complaints.
Now, you may disagree with specific ways in which the government is pursuing its responsibility – you may “judge” that it could act “more wisely.” The happy news for you is that you live in a society where you can take your superior wisdom and judgment and participate in governmental activity – either directly, as an official, or indirectly, through advocacy.
I do not conceive of business as an egalitarian collective, but as one where both benefit and participation are fairly distributed amongst constituents. Not all parties must be equally involved in all aspects of management; but all parties should have some opportunity for participating in the process of management, and all should take some responsibility for how their collective is being managed, even if it’s not their primary area of interest or comfort or skill.steve wrote:
Your idea of a business as an egalitarian collective is certainly not the only model that satisfies all participants. When employed, I myself prefer to leave the management to managers. I can decide whether or not they are offering me a fair wage. If not, there are options to me other than moving myself into a management role that does not appeal to me. Such collectives as you describe exist for those who desire them. They can exist under a free-enterprise system (like Israel's kibbutzim), for those attracted to such things. They should not be forced upon those who prefer a different model.
The notion of “family sovereignty” is unhealthy, akin to the spirit of individual sovereignty that characterizes libertarianism. Without equitable integration with broader society, the individual and/or the family become vaunted over all others; “family values” eclipse loving the neighbor as the self. The predilections of the familia (often, the paterfamilias) reign supreme, and the concerns of outsiders get second consideration, if any at all; the kids get ballet lessons and soccer leagues, while the neighbors go hungry.steve wrote:
A single man, without children, like yourself, might understandably find such community rewarding, as a sort of surrogate family. When I was single, I always lived in Christian community houses, for that very reason. When a man has a family for which to provide, I think, he will generally find the communal economy detrimental to a healthy family sovereignty.
So, in a depressed economy, the issue would not be that workers could be exploited and marginalized ad arbitrium; the issue would be that workers might be “spoiled” and not passively endure such mistreatment.steve wrote:
You say that, in an economically depressed society, where there is a surplus of unemployed labor, my suggestions do not produce such ideal results as we would like. However, it may be unrealistic to anticipate ideal standards of living (regardless of political policies) during economically depressed seasons. We do have a tendency to become spoiled in times of easy prosperity, but we have no intrinsic right to it.
O pallid fruit of Christianity, “an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded ... to keep the poor in order.”
Upon their inception, many “Communist” countries were inheritors of corrupt and dysfunctional societies. Russia was a dreadful country before, during, and after the Soviet era. And these countries generally did not remedy the weaknesses of their societies through diffusing power; rather, they replaced one oligarchy with another. A society that is accustomed to corrupt dysfunctional oligarchy under one system, is liable to reconstitute the same under another. And societies that scrabble the majority of advantage to a small cadre of persons generally will be depressed. Consumption slumps; demand slumps; production slumps; employment slumps; and so, consumption slumps, and so forth.steve wrote:
My impression is that the countries that have communistic economies have created permanent economic depression for their citizens, except in cases, like China, where many of the features of western capitalism have been introduced. In a free-enterprise economy, it seems that such depressions come and go, whereas, in Communist countries, depression is essentially the norm.
Democratic socialism seeks diffusion of power beyond oligarchy: not only entrepreneurs call the shots, but workers and the public have a say in how business is conducted; not only bureaucrats determine the working policies of the nation, but citizens participate in the development and establishment of policy.
With diffusion of power, there is increased likelihood that advantage will be more broadly distributed amongst a population. With broader distribution of advantage, one may expect broader diffusion of wealth; broader distribution of wealth yields increased consumption; yields increased demand; yields increased production; yields increased employment; yields broader distribution of wealth, and so forth.
steve wrote:
Your parable about the berries presupposes a static and never-increasing quantity of berries that must be shared among the gatherers. In this, it does not correspond to the real world in which economies operate. Of course, you have already identified yourself as a communist, and, as such, the "pie-model" of wealth must be presupposed. There is one pie, and it must be divided equally. There will never be any more pies, so the man who gets a bigger share necessarily does so at the expense of another man, who must then settle for less. On this model, wealth and resources (more pies) are not able to be produced by labor and innovation, they just exist to be distributed.
I have identified as a socialist, not as a communist. There is one “pie,” viz., the amount of benefit available to a society.Given the principle that neighbor should be loved as self, all constituents of a society have equitable rights to the “pie.” Accordingly, the “pie” must be divided equitably amongst society (not “equally”).
The “pie” can be grown, so there can be more “pie”; but no amount of “pie” can be dissociated by a continuing member of the society, so there never can be “more pies.”
In any present context, there is a present amount of “pie” available and a present amount of need. Both the available “pie” and the need are finite; and in any present context, an increased availability of “pie” can only be theoretical.In the parable, most of the smoots were faced with a shortfall of berries. Perhaps, if they put their minds to it, some of them could come up with a coping strategy. Perhaps some could explore an adjacent valley and try to find new foodstuffs. Perhaps some could try to develop horticulture and learn how to produce more berries. Perhaps some could try to invent their own berry harvesters.
But there is no guarantee that any of these strategies would be successful; and it could take years for the other smoots to hit upon a successful strategy. Should the majority of smoots suffer and risk starvation in the meantime, just so Dexter and his colleagues can retain their gross advantage?
It is fine to seek an increase in future “pie” – but in every here-and-now, we must work with the amount of “pie” we actually have available.
In the original parable, there already was more “pie” available than there was need. And so we may ask – what difference would it make if the amount of available “pie” were increased? If there is not a righteous distribution of the present amount of “pie,” how likely is it that there will be a righteous distribution of a larger amount of “pie”? Those who are unfaithful with little – will they be faithful with much? And what about smoots who only have modest potential, and might never develop the genius and/or the stamina to obtain enough berries in the new berry economy? Though other smoots may increase the overall berry harvest through their innovation and labor - growing the "pie" - these other smoots might emulate Dexter & Co., retaining their advantage for themselves.Some smoots might always have modest skills and modest strengths. But if these smoots steward their modest capacities righteously – and if overall the present amount of “pie” available is large enough to meet the needs of all smoots, and then some – then why should these smoots suffer?
Please articulate “the biblical teaching about generating wealth” for the benefit of readers here. And please explain the part where one generates wealth without generating obligation toward one’s neighbor.steve wrote:
...[T]he pie-model is foundational to the communist's conception of justice. It is, however, not demonstrably valid, nor in keeping with the biblical teaching about generating wealth.
