Does a well functioning political system require people to be good?

[Gary Childress]

Why don't you just concentrate on what you think and not what you think secularists think?

Because I'm not talking about secularists as people. I'm talking about what secularism, as a worldview, can or cannot rationalize. I'm using logic. That's what we do here, Gary.

You don't even know logic from sophistry you ignoramus. The sooner you realize that the better off the rest of us are.

I don't believe in this bogeyman of yours, Gary...this "Capitalism." It's a Marxist invention, actually, if you check the etymology. Its first appearance happens just before the writings of Marx. I think it's complete nonsense. Nobody has an ideology of "capital."

So that's not even a sensible question. Maybe you can rephrase.

Do you think ordinary people have a claim to the capitalist's wealth if they become desperate or do you think capitalists absolutely without exception own their wealth?

[Immanuel Can]

So that's not even a sensible question. Maybe you can rephrase.

Do you think ordinary people have a claim to the capitalist's wealth if they become desperate or do you think capitalists absolutely without exception own their wealth?

You're not understanding the objection, Gary. The term "Capitalist" is Marxist nonsense.

But I think I get your question. You're asking this, essentially: Gary has $1,000. Mike only has $250. Is Mike justified in robbing Gary, because Gary has more money than Mike? Essentially, that's what you're asking, minus the Marxist prattle, right?

[Gary Childress]

So that's not even a sensible question. Maybe you can rephrase.

Do you think ordinary people have a claim to the capitalist's wealth if they become desperate or do you think capitalists absolutely without exception own their wealth?

You're not understanding the objection, Gary. The term "Capitalist" is Marxist nonsense.

But I think I get your question. You're asking this, essentially: Gary has $1,000. Mike only has $250. Is Mike justified in robbing Gary, because Gary has more money than Mike? Essentially, that's what you're asking, minus the Marxist prattle, right?

NO! That's not what I'm asking. If someone is destitute in a society and someone else in that society owns far more than they need or can use, does the destitute person have any claim on the exorbitantly wealthy person's resources? It's a straightforward question and one that can either be answered "yes" or "no".

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think ordinary people have a claim to the capitalist's wealth if they become desperate or do you think capitalists absolutely without exception own their wealth?

You're not understanding the objection, Gary. The term "Capitalist" is Marxist nonsense.

But I think I get your question. You're asking this, essentially: Gary has $1,000. Mike only has $250. Is Mike justified in robbing Gary, because Gary has more money than Mike? Essentially, that's what you're asking, minus the Marxist prattle, right?

NO! That's not what I'm asking. If someone is destitute in a society and someone else in that society owns far more than they need or can use, does the destitute person have any claim on the exorbitantly wealthy person's resources? It's a straightforward question and one that can either be answered "yes" or "no".

Okay, let's try again.

Gary is destitute..defined as...what? Anyway, Gary is destitute, let's say. Mike has more goods. Gary is convinced that Mike has more goods than he can need or use. Does Gary have a right to rob Mike?

That's the question.

[Gary Childress]

You're not understanding the objection, Gary. The term "Capitalist" is Marxist nonsense.

But I think I get your question. You're asking this, essentially: Gary has $1,000. Mike only has $250. Is Mike justified in robbing Gary, because Gary has more money than Mike? Essentially, that's what you're asking, minus the Marxist prattle, right?

NO! That's not what I'm asking. If someone is destitute in a society and someone else in that society owns far more than they need or can use, does the destitute person have any claim on the exorbitantly wealthy person's resources? It's a straightforward question and one that can either be answered "yes" or "no".

Okay, let's try again.

Gary is destitute..defined as...what? Anyway, Gary is destitute, let's say. Mike has more goods. Gary is convinced that Mike has more goods than he can need or use. Does Gary have a right to rob Mike?

That's the question.

So you think that it's "robbery" if the state intervenes and uses some of the wealthy person's wealth to help the desperate person? Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

NO! That's not what I'm asking. If someone is destitute in a society and someone else in that society owns far more than they need or can use, does the destitute person have any claim on the exorbitantly wealthy person's resources? It's a straightforward question and one that can either be answered "yes" or "no".

Okay, let's try again.

Gary is destitute..defined as...what? Anyway, Gary is destitute, let's say. Mike has more goods. Gary is convinced that Mike has more goods than he can need or use. Does Gary have a right to rob Mike?

That's the question.

So you think that it's "robbery" if the state intervenes and uses some of the wealthy person's wealth to help the desperate person? Is that correct?

Well, Gary...what are you going to do if Mike doesn't agree with your assessment of his level of goods? Are you going to use the government to rob him? Or are you asking, should Mike feel bad, and so give you something voluntarily? What if what he gives you voluntarily isn't as much as you think you're entitled to? Are you going to rob him then?

Besides, Mike is a secularist. Why should he think he owes you anything, even if you were starving? Secularists don't have any moral commandments, and have no accountability to God, they think; why should Mike feel he has to give to you from what he's earned, merely because you have less? Maybe Mike thinks you didn't work for it. Maybe you did, but fell on hard times. But either way, why should Mike give what he has to you?

Now, if Mike were a Christian, then maybe we could say that he ought to be charitable, because God says charity is a moral duty. But that's two ways different from what you're asking: first, because its voluntary, not forced, and secondly, because Mike does not believe in Christianity, so is quite convinced there is no moral duty to give charity.

So what are you going to do now? Are you going to rob him?

[Gary Childress]

Okay, let's try again.

Gary is destitute..defined as...what? Anyway, Gary is destitute, let's say. Mike has more goods. Gary is convinced that Mike has more goods than he can need or use. Does Gary have a right to rob Mike?

That's the question.

So you think that it's "robbery" if the state intervenes and uses some of the wealthy person's wealth to help the desperate person? Is that correct?

Well, Gary...what are you going to do if Mike doesn't agree with your assessment of his level of goods? Are you going to use the government to rob him? Or are you asking, should Mike feel bad, and so give you something voluntarily? What if what he gives you voluntarily isn't as much as you think you're entitled to? Are you going to rob him then?

Besides, Mike is a secularist. Why should he think he owes you anything, even if you were starving? Secularists don't have any moral commandments, and have no accountability to God, they think; why should Mike feel he has to give to you from what he's earned, merely because you have less? Maybe Mike thinks you didn't work for it. Maybe you did, but fell on hard times. But either way, why should Mike give what he has to you?

Now, if Mike were a Christian, then maybe we could say that he ought to be charitable, because God says charity is a moral duty. But that's two ways different from what you're asking: first, because its voluntary, not forced, and secondly, because Mike does not believe in Christianity, so is quite convinced there is no moral duty to give charity.

So what are you going to do now? Are you going to rob him?

I'm not desperate right now. So why are you asking me if I'm going to rob a wealthy person? The question I've posed is do you think it is "robbery" for the state to intervene in the lives of the wealthiest members to help destitute members in times of crisis? Or do you think it is OK for the state to intervene in the lives or the wealthiest members to help destitute members in times of crisis. My answer, NO, it is NOT "robbery" for the state to intervene in the lives of the wealthiest members to use some of their wealth to help destitute members in times of crisis.

Do you agree with my position, yes or no?

[Immanuel Can]

So you think that it's "robbery" if the state intervenes and uses some of the wealthy person's wealth to help the desperate person? Is that correct?

Well, Gary...what are you going to do if Mike doesn't agree with your assessment of his level of goods? Are you going to use the government to rob him? Or are you asking, should Mike feel bad, and so give you something voluntarily? What if what he gives you voluntarily isn't as much as you think you're entitled to? Are you going to rob him then?

Besides, Mike is a secularist. Why should he think he owes you anything, even if you were starving? Secularists don't have any moral commandments, and have no accountability to God, they think; why should Mike feel he has to give to you from what he's earned, merely because you have less? Maybe Mike thinks you didn't work for it. Maybe you did, but fell on hard times. But either way, why should Mike give what he has to you?

Now, if Mike were a Christian, then maybe we could say that he ought to be charitable, because God says charity is a moral duty. But that's two ways different from what you're asking: first, because its voluntary, not forced, and secondly, because Mike does not believe in Christianity, so is quite convinced there is no moral duty to give charity.

So what are you going to do now? Are you going to rob him?

I'm not desperate right now. So why are you asking me if I'm going to rob a wealthy person?

It was YOUR question. All I did was take it out of the abstract, make it personal and real, and ask what you would do. And you know what's right. I don't have to tell you.

You see, Gary, when we frame these things as "the State" doing things, and doing them to some imaginary "bourgeois" person, we don't see the moral context of what we're asking. When we put it in human, personal terms, we certainly do.

So now you have your answer to that.

And taxation is robbery. If you think it's not, just try not paying your taxes next year.

So now you have your answer about that, too.

[Gary Childress]

Well, Gary...what are you going to do if Mike doesn't agree with your assessment of his level of goods? Are you going to use the government to rob him? Or are you asking, should Mike feel bad, and so give you something voluntarily? What if what he gives you voluntarily isn't as much as you think you're entitled to? Are you going to rob him then?

Besides, Mike is a secularist. Why should he think he owes you anything, even if you were starving? Secularists don't have any moral commandments, and have no accountability to God, they think; why should Mike feel he has to give to you from what he's earned, merely because you have less? Maybe Mike thinks you didn't work for it. Maybe you did, but fell on hard times. But either way, why should Mike give what he has to you?

Now, if Mike were a Christian, then maybe we could say that he ought to be charitable, because God says charity is a moral duty. But that's two ways different from what you're asking: first, because its voluntary, not forced, and secondly, because Mike does not believe in Christianity, so is quite convinced there is no moral duty to give charity.

So what are you going to do now? Are you going to rob him?

I'm not desperate right now. So why are you asking me if I'm going to rob a wealthy person?

It was YOUR question. All I did was take it out of the abstract, make it personal and real, and ask what you would do. And you know what's right. I don't have to tell you.

You see, Gary, when we frame these things as "the State" doing things, and doing them to some imaginary "bourgeois" person, we don't see the moral context of what we're asking. When we put it in human, personal terms, we certainly do.

So now you have your answer to that.

And taxation is robbery. If you think it's not, just try not paying your taxes next year.

So now you have your answer about that, too.

So it is not immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving, is that correct? Yes or no.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not desperate right now. So why are you asking me if I'm going to rob a wealthy person?

It was YOUR question. All I did was take it out of the abstract, make it personal and real, and ask what you would do. And you know what's right. I don't have to tell you.

You see, Gary, when we frame these things as "the State" doing things, and doing them to some imaginary "bourgeois" person, we don't see the moral context of what we're asking. When we put it in human, personal terms, we certainly do.

So now you have your answer to that.

And taxation is robbery. If you think it's not, just try not paying your taxes next year.

So now you have your answer about that, too.

So it is not immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving, is that correct? Yes or no.

Mike is a secularist. You're going to need to explain to him why you believe you know what wealth is appropriate for him, and why you're entitled to get some of it. And you're going to have to explain it in terms of secularism.

So how do you explain that? "Mike, I know you don't believe in objective morality; but I, Gary, find it immoral that you don't give me your stuff." How do you think he's going to respond?

[Gary Childress]

It was YOUR question. All I did was take it out of the abstract, make it personal and real, and ask what you would do. And you know what's right. I don't have to tell you.

You see, Gary, when we frame these things as "the State" doing things, and doing them to some imaginary "bourgeois" person, we don't see the moral context of what we're asking. When we put it in human, personal terms, we certainly do.

So now you have your answer to that.

And taxation is robbery. If you think it's not, just try not paying your taxes next year.

So now you have your answer about that, too.

So it is not immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving, is that correct? Yes or no.

Mike is a secularist. You're going to need to explain to him why you believe you know what wealth is appropriate for him, and why you're entitled to get some of it. And you're going to have to explain it in terms of secularism.

So how do you explain that? "Mike, I know you don't believe in objective morality; but I, Gary, find it immoral that you don't give me your stuff." How do you think he's going to respond?

I'm not interested in what you think "secularists" have to say, I'm interested in what you a Christian has to say. Is it immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Yes or no.

[Immanuel Can]

So it is not immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving, is that correct? Yes or no.

Mike is a secularist. You're going to need to explain to him why you believe you know what wealth is appropriate for him, and why you're entitled to get some of it. And you're going to have to explain it in terms of secularism.

So how do you explain that? "Mike, I know you don't believe in objective morality; but I, Gary, find it immoral that you don't give me your stuff." How do you think he's going to respond?

I'm not interested in what you think "secularists" have to say, I'm interested in what you a Christian has to say. Is it immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Yes or no.

Christians believe in objective morality. Christians believe in charity. And charity is voluntary, not forced by the State.

But Mike doesn't believe in objective morality or God. That's definitional for a secularist, so you can't dodge it. So how do you convince him to give what he has to you?

I know how you're going to do it. You're going to appeal to the State to take his money by force. That way, you don't feel like you're the robber, because an institution did it. But it's still not right. It's still robbery. And you're still the robber.

[Gary Childress]

Mike is a secularist. You're going to need to explain to him why you believe you know what wealth is appropriate for him, and why you're entitled to get some of it. And you're going to have to explain it in terms of secularism.

So how do you explain that? "Mike, I know you don't believe in objective morality; but I, Gary, find it immoral that you don't give me your stuff." How do you think he's going to respond?

I'm not interested in what you think "secularists" have to say, I'm interested in what you a Christian has to say. Is it immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Yes or no.

Christians believe in objective morality. Christians believe in charity. And charity is voluntary, not forced by the State.

But Mike doesn't believe in objective morality or God. That's definitional for a secularist, so you can't dodge it. So how do you convince him to give what he has to you?

I know how you're going to do it. You're going to appeal to the State to take his money by force. That way, you don't feel like you're the robber, because an institution did it. But it's still not right. It's still robbery. And you're still the robber.

So are you saying it is moral or immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Which is it?

[Gary Childress]

As an agnostic, I think it is immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving. Will that oil the wheels of conversation? What do you think, IC? Moral or immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Do you agree with me, or no?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not interested in what you think "secularists" have to say, I'm interested in what you a Christian has to say. Is it immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Yes or no.

Christians believe in objective morality. Christians believe in charity. And charity is voluntary, not forced by the State.

But Mike doesn't believe in objective morality or God. That's definitional for a secularist, so you can't dodge it. So how do you convince him to give what he has to you?

I know how you're going to do it. You're going to appeal to the State to take his money by force. That way, you don't feel like you're the robber, because an institution did it. But it's still not right. It's still robbery. And you're still the robber.

So are you saying it is moral or immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving? Which is it?

I think the answer is clear, Gary. You can't go around robbing people...either personally, or using the mechanism of the State. And one ought to be charitable to those less fortunate, as well. However, if secularism is true, then NOTHING is immoral. Our mythical Myke can do whatever he likes, as can our mythical Gary.

But I believe in a judgment. And judgment comes for those who are uncharitable AND for those who rob others, even if they hide behind the State. So there are two immoral things going on, not one. What is moral is to be charitable, and also not to rob people. You can't excuse the one by complaining about the other.

I should think both would be obvious, intuitively. But the lack of belief in God affords secular people no compelling reason to be charitable, and no compelling reason not to covet, either.

We forget that both are sins.