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

[Immanuel Can]

As an agnostic, I think it is immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving.

Well, I look at it differently. It's immoral to fail to be charitable, or to relieve suffering when one could, or to turn a deaf ear to the poor -- Christ made that very clear; but it's also immoral to covet and steal...as I recall, those are in the 7th and 10th of the Ten Commandments. So there are different ways to do evil.

But here's the important question: if you think Mike is being immoral, what are you going to do about it, Gary? What's your next move, or the move you would advocate the State taking on your behalf?

[Gary Childress]

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.

So are you going to say that it is immoral to hoard money when others are in crisis or are you going to stick instead with deflecting by saying it's "stealing" for the state to intervene on behalf of people in a crisis by taking from the rich? I notice that you are more concerned about the state "stealing" from people hoarding resources than you are about the welfare of those in crisis in that situation who need immediate help.

I don't think it's "stealing" at all under such circumstances. I think the state has authority to help those members of society that are in crisis and taking from the rich is more ethical than taking from the middle class or the not as poor. A person who has enormous wealth didn't earn that money through hard work. That money is coming from workers who are underpaid. The state is facilitating economic justice by stopping someone from behaving immorally. There's nothing wrong with that and the wealthy should observe the authority of the state to do so, they should not resist the state's redistribution. If the police come to stop hoarding and someone resists them, then that's like resisting a police officer when you are pulled over for a traffic violation. It's stupid. Hoarding money is not worth getting fined for resisting taxes that are meant to help the poor.

[Gary Childress]

As an agnostic, I think it is immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving.

Well, I look at it differently. It's immoral to fail to be charitable, or to relieve suffering when one could, or to turn a deaf ear to the poor -- Christ made that very clear; but it's also immoral to covet and steal...as I recall, those are in the 7th and 10th of the Ten Commandments. So there are different ways to do evil.

But here's the important question: if you think Mike is being immoral, what are you going to do about it, Gary? What's your next move, or the move you would advocate the State taking on your behalf?

So if a poor person isn't "charitable" is that immoral?

If a rich person resists the state's attempt to collect taxes from him or her to help the poor, then that's resisting authorities and should be punished just like resisting an officer giving you a traffic violation.

Do you think it is justifiable for the state to ticket traffic violations? Or is it not immoral to violate traffic rules?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

So are you going to say that it is immoral to hoard money when others are in crisis or are you going to stick instead with deflecting by saying it's "stealing" for the state to intervene on behalf of people in a crisis by taking from the rich?

It's both, clearly. And I've provided the Biblical explanation for both.

But you are not in charge of what Mike does. And the big question is, "What are you planning to do about it?" Will you hate, envy, covet, and rob him, believing yourself righteous because you see him as so evil? It's true that by hoarding, if that's what he's doing, Mike is becoming a bad person; but what are YOU becoming? Because it's YOU you're actually in charge of.

Mike will answer to God for what Mike does. But who will answer for you?

[Immanuel Can]

As an agnostic, I think it is immoral to hoard exorbitant wealth when others are starving.

Well, I look at it differently. It's immoral to fail to be charitable, or to relieve suffering when one could, or to turn a deaf ear to the poor -- Christ made that very clear; but it's also immoral to covet and steal...as I recall, those are in the 7th and 10th of the Ten Commandments. So there are different ways to do evil.

But here's the important question: if you think Mike is being immoral, what are you going to do about it, Gary? What's your next move, or the move you would advocate the State taking on your behalf?

So if a poor person isn't "charitable" is that immoral?

It's wrong for anybody to fail to be charitable. But I've spent time among the poor, and I can tell you that they are often more charitable than the prosperous, a fact not lost on Jesus Christ. (Matthew 12:41-44) And I could tell you stories that would break your heart, in that regard; never despise the charity of the poor, Gary. It's often precious.

If a rich person resists the state's attempt to collect taxes from him or her to help the poor, then that's resisting authorities and should be punished just like resisting an officer giving you a traffic violation.

This is the problem, Gary. The Social Justice crew is always focused on what they think somebody else is, not what they are becoming. They think if they invent explanations for how Mike got wealthy, that they can be justified in doing anything at all themselves. They rage, they slander, they envy, they burn, they steal...all the while considering themselves perfectly righteous, because, they say, "We're establishing Social Justice."

But just look at them. Look at them. What are they becoming? What are they doing? How are they winning? How are they serving the poor, and how are they establishing justice?

Once again, you are not in charge of Mike. Mike answers for Mike. But who answers for you? And who answers for what you demand the State to do, as your proxy?

[Gary Childress]

Well, I look at it differently. It's immoral to fail to be charitable, or to relieve suffering when one could, or to turn a deaf ear to the poor -- Christ made that very clear; but it's also immoral to covet and steal...as I recall, those are in the 7th and 10th of the Ten Commandments. So there are different ways to do evil.

But here's the important question: if you think Mike is being immoral, what are you going to do about it, Gary? What's your next move, or the move you would advocate the State taking on your behalf?

So if a poor person isn't "charitable" is that immoral?

It's wrong for anybody to fail to be charitable. But I've spent time among the poor, and I can tell you that they are often more charitable than the prosperous, a fact not lost on Jesus Christ. (Matthew 12:41-44) And I could tell you stories that would break your heart, in that regard; never despise the charity of the poor, Gary. It's often precious.

I've seen and worked with poverty also. I know the poor can often be more charitable than the rich. Do you expect the poor to maintain social programs for the poor? The rich can just look the other way and do nothing?

If a rich person resists the state's attempt to collect taxes from him or her to help the poor, then that's resisting authorities and should be punished just like resisting an officer giving you a traffic violation.

This is the problem, Gary. The Social Justice crew is always focused on what they think somebody else is, not what they are becoming. They think if they invent explanations for how Mike got wealthy, that they can be justified in doing anything at all themselves. They rage, they slander, they envy, they burn, they steal...all the while considering themselves perfectly righteous, because, they say, "We're establishing Social Justice."

But just look at them. Look at them. What are they becoming? What are they doing? How are they winning? How are they serving the poor, and how are they establishing justice?

Once again, you are not in charge of Mike. Mike answers for Mike. But who answers for you? And who answers for what you demand the State to do, as your proxy?

We live in a democracy and if people want social programs and believe that it's fairer for the wealthy who don't earn their wealth through work to support those programs then I agree with them. I'm sorry for you.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you expect the poor to maintain social programs for the poor?

Essentially, that's what's already happening. It's the middle class, not the uber wealthy, who bear the burden.

But what do you know about how Mike made his money, Gary? I'd be fascinated to know how you got that insider information.

If a rich person resists the state's attempt to collect taxes from him or her to help the poor, then that's resisting authorities and should be punished just like resisting an officer giving you a traffic violation.

This is the problem, Gary. The Social Justice crew is always focused on what they think somebody else is, not what they are becoming. They think if they invent explanations for how Mike got wealthy, that they can be justified in doing anything at all themselves. They rage, they slander, they envy, they burn, they steal...all the while considering themselves perfectly righteous, because, they say, "We're establishing Social Justice."

But just look at them. Look at them. What are they becoming? What are they doing? How are they winning? How are they serving the poor, and how are they establishing justice?

Once again, you are not in charge of Mike. Mike answers for Mike. But who answers for you? And who answers for what you demand the State to do, as your proxy?

We live in a democracy and if people want social programs and believe that it's fairer for the wealthy who don't earn their wealth through work to support those programs then I agree with them.

So...your idea of "democracy" is that if "people" want something, they can employ the government simply to steal it on their behalf? And you agree with that?

I think you should maybe look at how this has worked out in practice. Look up the word "Holomodor," and see what you find.

[MikeNovack]

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.

Well, we could look at Carl Sandburg's poem "Get off this estate". Or more prosaically Proudhon's "property is theft". Or we could discuss whether the fault/blame lies with those in charge who allowed this state of affairs to exist << there have actually been such cultures >>

[Gary Childress]

Do you expect the poor to maintain social programs for the poor?

Essentially, that's what's already happening. It's the middle class, not the uber wealthy, who bear the burden.

But what do you know about how Mike made his money, Gary? I'd be fascinated to know how you got that insider information.

If a rich person resists the state's attempt to collect taxes from him or her to help the poor, then that's resisting authorities and should be punished just like resisting an officer giving you a traffic violation.

This is the problem, Gary. The Social Justice crew is always focused on what they think somebody else is, not what they are becoming. They think if they invent explanations for how Mike got wealthy, that they can be justified in doing anything at all themselves. They rage, they slander, they envy, they burn, they steal...all the while considering themselves perfectly righteous, because, they say, "We're establishing Social Justice."

But just look at them. Look at them. What are they becoming? What are they doing? How are they winning? How are they serving the poor, and how are they establishing justice?

Once again, you are not in charge of Mike. Mike answers for Mike. But who answers for you? And who answers for what you demand the State to do, as your proxy?

We live in a democracy and if people want social programs and believe that it's fairer for the wealthy who don't earn their wealth through work to support those programs then I agree with them.

So...your idea of "democracy" is that if "people" want something, they can employ the government simply to steal it on their behalf? And you agree with that?

I think you should maybe look at how this has worked out in practice. Look up the word "Holomodor," and see what you find.

Funding social programs for those whose paychecks the rich steal from by taxing the rich disproportionately is not "stealing".

[MikeNovack]

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.

Well we could consider Carl Sandburg's "Get off this estate. Or more prosaically Proudhon's "Property is theft". Or the notion that is the fault/blame of those in charge allowing this state of affairs to exist << there have been such cultures >> Or continuing along that line of reasoning, in a democracy it is all our faults and we need to devise a fix.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Or more prosaically Proudhon's "property is theft".

Wow. What a silly title. I hope the poem is better than that would imply.

It's the old Social Justice mistake: the belief that wealth is zero-sum. If it were zero-sum, then it would make sense to believe that the gain of one was always as the expense of others. But it's not. Wealth isn't zero-sum. New wealth can be created, and often is. Whom did Bill Gates rob, when he invented a product everybody was desperate to buy?

So no, property is decidedly NOT theft...at least, not necessarily, and not in the majority of cases, and not today. If you can invent a product or service people want, you'll get rich on their voluntary willingness to buy the goods you create.

Here's the other interesting thing about property: everybody has some. In fact, you can't live without it. So if "proerty is theft," then every person on earth is a thief, to one degree or another. But in fact, as John Locke pointed out, the ability to arrange the disposition of property is a basic human right.

[Immanuel Can]

Funding social programs for those whose paychecks the rich steal from by taxing the rich disproportionately is not "stealing".

Who are these thieves? We should arrest them.

If taxation is not stealing, how come the government has to threaten the public with various forms of violence if they don't pay?

[Gary Childress]

Funding social programs for those whose paychecks the rich steal from by taxing the rich disproportionately is not "stealing".

Who are these thieves? We should arrest them.

If taxation is not stealing, how come the government has to threaten the public with various forms of violence if they don't pay?

Why do the police have to threaten people with speeding tickets? Why can't everyone drive as recklessly as they want? It must be oppression IC. It's that evil "socialism" again. Rugged individualism is what we want, you know, like Wyat Earp, Jessie James, etc. --some of the most unsavory characters society has ever produced. Can't have "socialism" and a cooperative society.

[Gary Childress]

Whom did Bill Gates rob, when he invented a product everybody was desperate to buy?

The thousands of rank and file workers who actually produced all the products but got paid infinitely less. Bill Gates sat in an office and "supervised". Real hard work. Heck, he didn't even originate the idea of the "graphic user interface". Xerox and Apple did that before Microsoft.

[Immanuel Can]

Initial thoughts?

Let's go back to my initial question.

When this "well-functioning" political system "requires people to be good," does it require them to be Socialists? Or Communists? Or good Nazis? Or Libertarians? Does it require them to subscribe to a political narrative? Does it require them to go to church? Does it require anything moral or them? For example, would it require them to raise their own children? Would it require them to work? Would it require them to be married, or to be happy with various sexual proclivities, or to march in military parades, or to genuflect before statues? Does it require them to be advocates of Social Justice and CRT? Does it require them to pay taxes, or to surrender personal information and private resources to the government, or merely to be "good" according to whatever lights they happen to prefer?

Again, what is included in this package of "good" that is being talked about? And who gets to pick that package?