Then you must also agree that reforming the welfare system would reduce the behavior you're trying to prevent. By your own admission, we can prevent this kind of behavior from occurring if we simply provide the proper incentives or, conversely, withhold the improper incentives. If people knew that the nanny-state would not subsidize their irresponsible behavior, then they'd be much less likely to engage in that behavior. I know it sounds crazy, but if you treat people like adults, they tend to act like adults. At present, we're treating the poor - and most Americans for that matter - like hapless children. It's no wonder they keep acting like it...
I didn't predict that this conversation would have to get this deep, but.. I don't think reality is fundamentally physical, it is fundamentally conceptual. That should answer these questions If reality is fundamentally conceptual rather than physical, then none of this is a problem. But then again, that is if reality is fundamentally conceptual. Through induction, we assume that the patterns we notice of our natural world are rules, rather than consistent coincidences. Ultimately this leads to understanding that other people are communicating through signals, including symbols. Since reality is fundamentally conceptual, anything we communicate must be conceptual. Even descriptions of physical events are actually conceptual.
The crime rate would also skyrocket because people would have more reason to..steal, and participate in "black" markets (although on another note, we need to end the Drug War and Police State). A way to prevent both this and parasitism, is to prevent economically unfit people from breeding until they aren't any longer economically unfit.
It doesn't answer anything. It's just an assertion with no explanation. You seem to think that math equations are objectively true whereas moral propositions cannot be, but you haven't provided any self-consistent reason why that should be. And if reality is "fundamentally conceptual", then why do you posit the objective truth of math but not morality? They're both conceptual and they're both ascertained using human reason. Why the distinction? This is a false dichotomy. Reality can be both physical and conceptual. But that is besides the point. You're arbitrarily differentiating between mathematical truth and moral truth, despite the fact that both are conceptual and that both are ascertained via reason. To me, there is no self-consistent reason why we should treat them as being fundamentally any different. And what makes you think morality cannot be ascertained in the same way? If you can logically justify math and language, if you can you embrace abstract concepts like reason and induction, then why can't you do the same thing for morality? Just because there is not a universal agreement amongst people as to what constitutes "right" and "wrong" does not mean "right" and "wrong" are purely subjective.
If we removed the incentive for them to behave irresponsibly, logically, they would behave more responsibly. If they behaved more responsibly, then their economic circumstances would improve, and this would lessen their incentive to engage in criminal activity. Also, as you have pointed out, there are numerous issues paralleling crime rates that could be addressed in conjunction with welfare reform. The solution is to address the many factors which cause irresponsible and so-called "criminal" behavior, not to impose some arbitrary, draconian standard on the populace.
No. There is no obligatory charity or tax, or demand for a type of government, like there is with the false prophet's tyrannical nation of Islamifascism. And for those that do not know the difference between socialism and communism, if Jesus could not judge between a brother's inheritance he could not judge between a redistribution of any wealth nor did he advocate his having control over such matters. Render unto the government is not saying which type. When the Golden Rule is applied between individuals one does not have the right to demand another be owned by them or accept their control. Kings, Caesar, and Rome was violating the Golden Rule. When the Golden Rule is applied between Nation/States each would have to respect the other's right to exist regardless of their form of government. Government ownership and control of the principle means of production cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus, because at the time such ownership and control would violate the Golden Rule. Since We the People own the principle means of production, therefore, we own China. {Silly wabbit...} We the People under our system own the land, eminent domain, we do not control the people. If Jesus was a socialist then, then We the People could NOT own and control ourselves. If we control ourselves, as the Golden Rule exists, then we can control whether we are socialist or not. Since we can control whether we are socialist or not, therefore, Jesus was not a socialist at the time and could only be one now when We the People decide and always have the right to decide, consequently, since We the People have the right to decide, therefore, Jesus was not a socialist. It is obvious that the Obamanation types support Caesar's ownership and control of We the People. Such an Obamanation must be voted out before it is too late.
Who said socialism had to operate with force? Without the force however, it would be an anarchic system, but still it could called socialism. What you describe is state-socialism. Incidentally, to reject all authority would mena one has to say capitalism is also flawed and that only anarcho-capitalism is valid. However given the altruistic promotions of Jesus, I would say he sought something close to the former rather than the latter, that is, anarchism or socialism.
Absurd! How is it you weren't too embarrassed to even post this? I am embarrassed for you. What here in Jesus' own words makes you think he rejects authority, order and rules of conduct? Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (an anarchist fulfilling the law and order of the prophets?) I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (they aren't called Commandments for nothing and Jesus is not advising people to ignore a rigid code of conduct) For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (be more righteous than teachers of the law....why is an "anarchist" saying this, advocating for teachers of dreaded laws?) You know nothing about what anarchy is and that anyone would call Jesus an "anarchist" is too funny.
Socialism and any anarchy cannot coexist. Socialism as any social reform would dissipate with any anarchy. Charity dissipates with anarchy. As long as there is any bad sense to the word whatsoever, it would be wrong to label him with it. Even "Chartist" cannot be used now. Lover? Nope, that might imply you are a homo, bi, or one of many sluts. Goodist? Give me a break, I like my Kindle. Gay? Are you kidding? Lets look at the idea of not being seen a socialist, so he says, "I am a socialist," or "for unto whom much orders are given, much beating shall be required," if they do not obey the master's instructions, well he has his reward of being seen as an abuser of rich people, right? If you want to be a socialist just blame yourself; if you have to say some rock star was you probably are a lightweight with a limp argument.
Jesus advocated being civil first. The social follows. If one advocates social first, you get the violent occupy movement. 1. Be civil. 2. If they refuse to hear, leave and let the Libertarian State of Egypt be, if they are uncharitable judgment day will catch up to them--and with the consent of Congress form a State compact for Romney Care...where all Blue States and any Red States that wish to join pool their resources. If Pharaoh insists on socialism, because the devil made him do it, you get uncivil Libertarians demanding to be led to their promised land in an Exodus; and don't forget all the curses of the Obamanation.
Jesus was a company man in most cases, however natural law (God law) always supersedes mans law or the law of the land. So if there comes a time that abortion or euthanasia is demanded by the state for example we have every right and would be expected to rebel even if jail or the deaths sentence awaits us. i.e.; Acts 5:29 (KJV) 29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. See also Titus 3:1; Dan. 3:1-29; 6:1-24. Reva
Wrong. Matthew 5:39 - But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
But you are an American? When did Americans obey God or anyone but those who paid them or kicked them?
Correct, and well summed. But the point is, Jesus believed in anything but anarchy. His famous "render unto Caesar" remark shows he did not reject authority and order, but his true allegiance was to God's authority and God's order. There's a wacko or two here that wants to impose their crazy ideas onto Jesus. It just doesn't work!
Silly man - what is not God's? It was a joke about holy phoneys carrying occupation money with Caesar's image on it. He totally rejected the order that murdered him, obviously. You've been in America too long, lad, getting brainwashed by the Mammon-worshippers.
I do not see how Jesus could consider a centurion to have "great faith" if he was an anarchist. The anarchist could have no respect for the centurion. "If Jesus wasn't an anarchist, tell us who he believed should rule." http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/232342-jesus-socialist-13.html#post1060870522 Jesus never said who he believed should rule. The instant one does it establishes in religion a succession controversy like in false prophet's Nation of Islam. Leaving the issue undecided allows for Democracy, a Republic, judges like before Saul, or even Saul, it allows for people to have free speech (Acts 5) and to contract for their government as the people of Israel did. In the verse Obama missused, for his tax schemes, it is not demanding we have such taxes, it is saying to us those who abuse the word (the will of God) will be beaten: "47 The servant who knows the masters will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12&version=NIV People seem to miss the big picture, Israel did contract for a Saul, and were given a Saul, that means they had an unalienable Right of "consent of the governed": "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ With the "unalienable Right" of "consent of the governed," which is illustrated in the big picture, we can socially contract for any tax schemes we want, and leave it totally to charity if we choose, or we can choose not to. Then once we contract under the "consent of the governed," and choose wrong, a Saul or an Obamanation, we have every right to "consent of the governed" again "to institute new Government" taxes or leaders, and that is truly change we can believe in. Recently an Islamist used this verse to claim Jesus said to kill those opposed to his rule: 26 He replied, I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over thembring them here and kill them in front of me. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19&version=NIV The simple fact is Jesus opposed such government, that is why he did the parable. 14 But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, We dont want this man to be our king." That is clear, they were exercising their rights to contract for their King or government, and to petition for a redress of grievances. And with such unalienable Rights come the rights to contract for less taxes and social programs...or more. We could contract for nothing but Charity. Resist not an evil person, under Federalist occupation of States Rights, because they will call down Homeland Security, and slaughter your asses or send you packing to the four corners of the earth. Wow, it is amazing how some people cannot get the big pictures!
So which is it. Does he embrace Caesar's rule or God's? If it is the latter this PROVES his anarchism. You're the imposer, not me. Jesus didnt run for office, for obvious reasons., He didnt create company. He didnt create an institution. Why? Because he was an anarchist - against all man made authority and rule. That is not only debatable, its beside the point.
Since I believe in free will and the earthly struggle between good and evil, in the very large picture everything is God's but here in our world man is responsible for what he has constructed and does. So ultimately, your point is not well taken. This is gobbledygook! If you have a point here it can't be found.
Correct because in many ways they are the same thing. Why? You seem to not understand that socialism does not require force, according to many socialists, especially the first socialists, to occur, and is in the eyes of many to be immoral - this is where some are also anarchists.
Anarchy is defined as "1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. 2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." God's authority is still authority and anarchy has no rules, even in a theocratic state. So if you want to believe that Jesus rejected the authority of man, though he was observant of Jewish customs and traditions, be my guest. It does me no harm if you are so mistaken.
Wrong, since God's kingdom is "not of this world." You are comparing God's authority to man's - not possible. Its not belief - its fact. I am not mistaken.
I will state this just once more as I will not get into a protracted is not/is too argument with someone who is out of his depth: Authority is authority. A true anarchist (i.e. a self centered psychopath) will not rest on the Sabbath or observe Jewish scripture and tradition if he does not feel like it. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill them." Mathew 5:17 This is anarchy? This is strict adherence to laws, codes and a proscribed way of life. Jesus did NOT reject man's authority as far as it supported his views of God. You have selective "anarchy", at best. Yeah ....buh bye!
Not all authority is the same. If you cant accept the fact that God's authority IS NOT comparable, that is not in the same league, as human authority, then you entirely miss not only my point, but also the message of Jesus. WHERE THE (*)(*)(*)(*) DID YOU GET THAT PATHETIC DEFINITION FROM? Correct. This is free will. Indeed fulfill - not continue, not 'keep as they are' - fulfill, that is fulfill the law and scripture - salvation. YES. Where did he say that? He said that HE was to going to FULFILL the law. Where does he say "apply Mosaic law strictly"? YES HE DID. Wrong. Cowardice? Not surprising.
