"Winderquist's point is that there is little to no difference between extremely powerful private ownership and government."

if something like what happened in the gulf coast were to happen in a state where there is no economic oversight by the state (let's even say that state is a democracy, so the people have some voice), then what does the state do to enforce the company to correct the problem? If they are completely separated from the economy, then there is no such thing as regulations or oversight. Should the state enforce minimum wages?

Tom: I'm trying to emphasize the fact that the system Asher is arguing for our world is categorically speaking in the same set as all the others he argues are evil.

Earl: I think this is right. And this point is huge for me, particularly combined with the reality of our epistemic limitations. I do not think any of us have anything close to the kind of access to The Truth about the complexity of our world, given the zillions of personal and systemic interrelationships (social, political, economic, etc.) between individuals, groups, nations, etc., that would be required in order to think up (much less agree upon) a tidy, logically consistent system which constitutes THE best (least evil) system possible.

I think Jesus and Paul had fairly low expectations of government: Let the authorities fulfill their role of maintaining a basic order in society, but don’t expect the principalities and powers to provide Justice with a capital "J". Pay your taxes; then get on with rendering unto God, seeking first His kingdom, and loving everyone for the day is near.

I see my self, politically speaking, as a small "c" conservative. I am more or less content with a representative democracy as a pragmatic, imperfect attempt to balance values like civil liberty and civil justice, knowing that it will be a far cry from the best or least evil system imaginable.

I guess I’m basically with Boyd. The Church shouldn’t waste a lot of time worrying about how to improve the kingdoms of this world. It has plenty of work to do learning what it means to live in this world as a testimony to God’s reign.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/24/2010 4:46:37 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/24/2010 10:47:52 AM (GMT-5)

Jeff: You're missing the logic of the statement. If you concede THAT the pattern OF ITSELF doesn't ALWAYS prove an INHERENT injustice, then you've agreed with ME. IOW, we don't KNOW all of what makes the patterns exist. THat would take god-like knowledge.

Daniel: Okay, I admit I might be missing it. So lets work through it step by step from the start.

Your example was this : "If 90% of a society were poor because they refused to take the opportunities provided to them to acquire property, their poverty would be DUE to their own refusal to work. Hence, that mere PATTERN would imply nothing about any injustice done them by the 10%."

Your example limits the possibilities of what could be the cause of poverty by giving the cause of their poverty.

Jeff: My example is JUST an example. As such, it limits NOTHING. The whole point of it is to show that a mere PATTERN doesn't IMPLY an INTRINSIC injustice. To do justice in State action, one has to know WHO is doing an injustice and WHAT the injustice IS. Wealth redistributing policy makers take none of that kind of knowledge into account (how could they? They don't HAVE that kind of knowledge). Hence, that state action is blind force. Hence, it is UNJUST.

Daniel: The pattern of distribution suggests that the 10% are exploiting the 90% from historical precedence.

Jeff: I agree that MOST of the 10% are exploiting the 90%. But there are 2 things you're over-looking:

1) Part of the 10% are government officials.

2) Many of the 90% are pathetically petty and will cut off their nose to spite their face. If they could put away their petty jealousy and envy and UNITE to bargain COLLECTIVELY, most of the madness could be stopped OVER NIGHT. But they would rather divide and be conquered over relatively petty issues by a mere 10%. ALL PEOPLE ARE SINFUL, DANIEL! Poor people aren't RIGHTEOUS just because they're poor.

If the government wanted to bring about positive change justly, they would advocate collective bargaining and JUSTLY punish fraud, slander, negligence, etc. Don't hold your breath on those.

Jeff: The government is to praise the good and deter the evil.

Daniel:  Paul never suggested, or even hint about obstructing what Rome was doing when Paul was under arrest, he never said anything amounting to "when the government does what is wrong (which it was OBVIOUSLY DOING when Paul wrote Romans) we should resist and plot against, and use hostile language towards, the government. Indeed, libertarian ideology suggests that some governments, or ought to not exist, and might need to be resisted violently (per Asher's comment regarding the "illogic" of the pacifists".

Jeff: Don't know of any libertarians advocating violent resistance against the government. That's not to say there aren't any. Just don't know of any. Indeed, I would suspect that libertarians, being MUCH more tolerant than most, would be the last (except for absolute pacifists--which you are NOT, since you advocate government force) to use violent force against anyone.

Jeff: As for us, we are to feed our ENEMIES when they hunger (Romans).

Daniel: More than that, we are to give to whoever asks (matthew).

Jeff: May I have all your earthly possessions?

Jeff: But EVEN we are to not "let" professing Christians "eat" if they are hungry due to being a busy-body (Thessalonians).

Daniel: Okay. If there is a Christian who is hungry from being a "busy-body" then correct them in love. If there is anyone outside of that community, i.e. the majority of the world, then the general principle seems to be to give to them until we have nothing left to give.

Jeff: Dang; I was hoping that "give to whoever asks" included me! Apparently Jesus wasn't being literal there. So I wonder what he meant. How do you exegete that statement now that you don't think it's literal?

Besides, the scripture also says "give to him that needeth." So if that is to be taken absolutely with no qualification (which there is plenty of in scripture), then you shouldn't be able to afford internet access since you would have already given til you had "nothing left." So exegete the passage for me in a way that actually accounts for the fact that you're not destitute yet.

IOW, again, you're over-generalizing. You need to be non-condescending to those of diverse opinions until you have a coherent exegetical approach that is plausible (thus far, you're not even coherent). Indeed, I would say you should be non-condescending, regardless. But ESPECIALLY ought you to until then. I always find that people who love to throw out condescending "SIGH"'s have no appreciation for the difficulty of obtaining a well thought-through view of human duty.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/24/2010 3:56:45 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/24/2010 8:41:24 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/25/2010 1:14:15 AM (GMT-5)

Z: Jeff, Daniel's or my own (perceived) failure to act upon our convictions says nothing about the appropriateness of those convictions. Your ad hominem attacks continue to be a distraction. "You yourself claim to be a Christian. Yet you admit to sin. Aha!" It's childish. It's not the kind of thing I'd hope to see among Christians.

J: I said nothing of Daniel's failure to act upon his convictions. He admitted that Paul's injunction to not "let" busy-body Christians "eat" was legitimate FOR CHRISTIANS. That means he can't apply Jesus' command to "give to whoever asks" literally in an absolute way without violating the law of non-contradiction.  That's pure logic, my friend. So it is YOU who is doing the illegitimate insulting by misrepresenting what I said and then clubbing me with your misrepresentation.

Z: People need time to work things out. The barrage of ad hominem attacks didn't help me, and I doubt they help anyone now.

J: More importantly, they need to cease the condescending remarks that Daniel is so quick to make. Moreover, I'm not aware of any ad hominem attacks I've made against you or Daniel. The one you refer to here is made up in your own mind. I don't know if you can't think objectively about me because of animus or what. But anyone can read what I said and see you are misrepresenting it.

Here's some loving advice (loving, because it's the exact advice that Jesus gave): If you're going to be ruthless in debate, be man enough to take some reciprocated ruthlessness yourself. It'll save you some well-deserved judgment down the road.

Z: The "you and all socialists/murder in your hearts" garbage... I've gotta say, this is pearls and swine.

J: Unbelievable for two reasons:

1) You have seemed to argue, yourself, that State killing is murder, whether done by socialists or not.

2) Even if all State killing isn't murder, it would certainly seem that the governmental killing of someone for not giving some of their money/possessions away WOULD BE. At least, I see nothing in scripture that even hints that God ever delegated to the State the authority to use force to compel wealth redistribution, and therefore ANY use of force (except under emergency conditions where civilized order depends on it; e.g., our 3rd amendment) to that end seems wrong. Note, too, I'm not arguing our 3rd amendment is legitimate. I'm conceding the fact that it is plausible to consider it legitimate in terms of certain theological views of the PURPOSE of the State.

Thus, the burden of proof is CLEARLY on you and Daniel to show that Asher is wrong before judging him. And neither of you have done that. Just give us the verses that show that God intended the State to use any kind of force to redistribute wealth in non-emergency conditions, and Asher and I will concede. Until then, we are within our rights to express what we think scripture means. Anyone can refute us at any time if they have the scriptural evidence. I've been waiting for years now. Haven't heard a peep. Just insults like the ones you're hurling now.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/25/2010 9:24:43 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/25/2010 12:31:53 PM (GMT-5)