CDZ redistribution of wealth

[danielpalos]

Socialism always works. Religion is a form of socialism not capitalism.

No, and no. You are wrong as you have been routinely.

Yes, and yes; vows of poverty mean not much capitalism; which means more socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Is this the generalization zone? All these categorical statements that are impossible to substantiate make discussion difficult.

There are many blends of socialism and capitalism; neither is monolithic and neither is wrong or right or always works or never works.

Religion is all over the place, but the original Christian community was completely communitarian (just to avoid a similar, emotionally charged word).

All the religions I am aware of do, however, maintain that distributing wealth to the needy is requisite.

No it wasn't. Most religions suggest that you help the poor, as part of their doctrine. That's a huge difference between that, and "distributing wealth" to the needy.

Offering help to the poor involves ministries and service. "distributing wealth" involves giving your wealth to them. Entirely different concepts.

My father is excellent example of such. He had do much to help out those who he found in need. But he didn't sell off his home, or his property, or his assets, or his retirement fund.

This is in accordance with Biblical doctrine.

Helping the poor, is not the same as "distributing wealth" to the poor. Not the same.

It is about solving for simple social dilemmas as the End, regardless of the Means of wealth redistribution.

 

[there4eyeM]

Nothing in the words "distributing wealth" says nor implies a totality. Any physical aid is a form of wealth. Even intellectual aid is, in a sense.
Most religions maintain that their deity requires mercy, aid, giving.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing in the words "distributing wealth" says nor implies a totality. Any physical aid is a form of wealth. Even intellectual aid is, in a sense.
Most religions maintain that their deity requires mercy, aid, giving.

The right has a problem with concepts external to the Institution of money based markets.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing in the words "distributing wealth" says nor implies a totality. Any physical aid is a form of wealth. Even intellectual aid is, in a sense.
Most religions maintain that their deity requires mercy, aid, giving.

That's all well and fine, and if you wish to have people give 'aid', that's fine too.

Where people like myself disagree, is when you try and apply Christian doctrine to government force. Now other religions, where if you don't pray to mecca you get stoned to death, go talk to those people if you want their opinion. As a Christian, all I care about is defaming the Christian faith, which is why I'm making an issue of this.

If you don't mean "coerced redistribution of wealth, based on 'christian belief'", then we have no problem.

But if that's what you mean, then why bring it up here? It has nothing to do with the policies of the US Government, if you don't mean coercion. If you just mean you support people voluntarily helping others.... great we all agree, let's move on.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism always works. Religion is a form of socialism not capitalism.

No, and no. You are wrong as you have been routinely.

Yes, and yes; vows of poverty mean not much capitalism; which means more socialism.

Christianity does not require a vow of poverty. Jesus himself, was buried by a "rich man", which if a vow of poverty was required, he would not have been able to afford the tomb.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was never intended, stated nor implied that redistribution in either vertical sense had to be through government. That was included in the broader scope, but not implicit.

Poverty was not demanded, though riches were clearly identified as an impediment to reaching a 'higher state'.

Life is not about materialism, even if the material is an important part of life.

The original question did concern government involved schemes that transfer wealth and in particular those that transfer in the upward direction.

 

[Andylusion]

It was never intended, stated nor implied that redistribution in either vertical sense had to be through government. That was included in the broader scope, but not implicit.

Poverty was not demanded, though riches were clearly identified as an impediment to reaching a 'higher state'.

Life is not about materialism, even if the material is an important part of life.

The original question did concern government involved schemes that transfer wealth and in particular those that transfer in the upward direction.

Right, which again is peachy, but of no relevance to the current topic.

So back to the topic. I don't agree with any transfer of wealth by the government in any direction, upward, downward, leftward, rightward, homeward, skyward, anyward.

Transferring wealth, is morally wrong. Taking something that does not belong to you, and giving it to someone whom it does not belong, outside of government, is called "stealing".

If I come to your home, and steal your car, and then give it to a homeless guy, you wouldn't be on here talking about what a great transfer of wealth system this is. You would call the police.

But if I elect the right politician, and he confiscates your car, and gives it to someone else, there would be some guy on an internet forum somewhere, saying this was a great method of transferring wealth.

Yet the only practical difference between the two actions, is in the first I use the power of my own efforts, and in the second, I use the power of the government. But otherwise, it's exactly the same, and I'm against both.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is taxation?

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing in the words "distributing wealth" says nor implies a totality. Any physical aid is a form of wealth. Even intellectual aid is, in a sense.
Most religions maintain that their deity requires mercy, aid, giving.

That's all well and fine, and if you wish to have people give 'aid', that's fine too.

Where people like myself disagree, is when you try and apply Christian doctrine to government force. Now other religions, where if you don't pray to mecca you get stoned to death, go talk to those people if you want their opinion. As a Christian, all I care about is defaming the Christian faith, which is why I'm making an issue of this.

If you don't mean "coerced redistribution of wealth, based on 'christian belief'", then we have no problem.

But if that's what you mean, then why bring it up here? It has nothing to do with the policies of the US Government, if you don't mean coercion. If you just mean you support people voluntarily helping others.... great we all agree, let's move on.

I believe that topic is about morals; should he take it up in a morals thread whenever those of the opposing view are devoid of any in these threads?

 

[danielpalos]

What is taxation?

A social Power based upon the coercive use of force of a larger collective of the People, such as a State.

 

[there4eyeM]

The power to do what? Isn't this redistribution?

 

[danielpalos]

The power to do what? Isn't this redistribution?

Yes; taxation is a form of socialism and that paradigm for redistribution of wealth for social goodness over capital goodness.

 

[Andylusion]

What is taxation?

Coerced removal of someone's rightfully earned wage.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
-Alexander Fraser Tytler

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"
-Thomas Jefferson.

Income tax specifically, is a form of legalized theft, depending on how it is used. And yes, that does matter.

For example, note the quotation at the top. Propagation of ideas he disbelieves. Does anyone disbelieve in law and order? Other than possibly the criminals themselves, no one disagrees with that. And everyone benefits from it equally. Thus it meets the "general welfare" clause.

So an income tax at the state and local level, is acceptable if everyone agrees to it, because everyone benefits from law and order.

But what about Welfare? Does everyone support welfare? No. Does everyone benefit from welfare equally? No. So coercing people to pay for it, is merely legalized theft.

The core functions of government, I would suggest to you, could easily be funded without the use of income tax, at least on the Federal level.

 

[Andylusion]

The power to do what? Isn't this redistribution?

Power to force you to give me your money, and give it to someone else. Yes, that is redistribution, and yes, that is theft. To me, when someone says "redistribute", they are merely referring to legalized theft.

 

[regent]

The power to do what? Isn't this redistribution?

Power to force you to give me your money, and give it to someone else. Yes, that is redistribution, and yes, that is theft. To me, when someone says "redistribute", they are merely referring to legalized theft.

All nations redistribute wealth, in fact, it is one of a nations economic responsibilities to work out a system to redistribute.

 

[Andylusion]

The power to do what? Isn't this redistribution?

Power to force you to give me your money, and give it to someone else. Yes, that is redistribution, and yes, that is theft. To me, when someone says "redistribute", they are merely referring to legalized theft.

All nations redistribute wealth, in fact, it is one of a nations economic responsibilities to work out a system to redistribute.

Because "all do it" does not mean it is good, or morally right.

No, it is not a duty of the nation to steal from one group, and give to another. That is a false claim.

 

[there4eyeM]

Law and morality are not synonyms. Taxation's morality is subjective. Calling taxation theft is deleterious to language. Democratic decisions cannot be equated with theft except by a very curious logic.

Life in society requires accommodating others. One fits in as best one can, lives one's life, as much as possible/practical, according to one's way of seeing things. If this becomes insufferable, one finds some place else to be or one rebels. Rebels do so at their risk.

One might very easily redistribute his/her wealth with reference only to esthetics and none to morality. It might also be done in order to avoid some undesired consequences. Provoking resentment by flaunting economic superiority has a poor historical record.

 

[Andylusion]

Law and morality are not synonyms. Taxation's morality is subjective. Calling taxation theft is deleterious to language. Democratic decisions cannot be equated with theft except by a very curious logic.

Life in society requires accommodating others. One fits in as best one can, lives one's life, as much as possible/practical, according to one's way of seeing things. If this becomes insufferable, one finds some place else to be or one rebels. Rebels do so at their risk.

One might very easily redistribute his/her wealth with reference only to esthetics and none to morality. It might also be done in order to avoid some undesired consequences. Provoking resentment by flaunting economic superiority has a poor historical record.

Morality is external to law. Just because the majority says it's ok to take people, and force them into slavery, does not mean that the action in question is morally right, just because it was democratically done.

After Pearl Harbor, the mass of public opinion, was in favor of the internment of Japanese citizens, and thus was done. If the action had come up for a public vote, most agree it would have passed. Many Japanese lost property, confiscated by the government during this time.

Does that mean it was right? No. It was still wrong. Morality is above the law. It was theft. They were legal citizens, who voted. Democracy stole their property. It was still theft.

Income Taxation is not morally subjective. Stealing people's wages is wrong... period. The end. It is.... wrong.

Being forced to accommodate others on a social level, is not a legitimate excuse to violate the rights of those you think should be forced to accommodate you.

What motivation an individual has to choose to voluntarily distribute his own wealth, is irrelevant to the topic. Regardless of what mythical reasons the politicians justify coerced confiscation of property (such as income tax), the fact remains it is morally wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

What is taxation?

Coerced removal of someone's rightfully earned wage.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
-Alexander Fraser Tytler

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"
-Thomas Jefferson.

Income tax specifically, is a form of legalized theft, depending on how it is used. And yes, that does matter.

For example, note the quotation at the top. Propagation of ideas he disbelieves. Does anyone disbelieve in law and order? Other than possibly the criminals themselves, no one disagrees with that. And everyone benefits from it equally. Thus it meets the "general welfare" clause.

So an income tax at the state and local level, is acceptable if everyone agrees to it, because everyone benefits from law and order.

But what about Welfare? Does everyone support welfare? No. Does everyone benefit from welfare equally? No. So coercing people to pay for it, is merely legalized theft.

The core functions of government, I would suggest to you, could easily be funded without the use of income tax, at least on the Federal level.

There is no willful appeal to ignorance of this legal fact in American law:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;