Ethics for Supporting the Helpless in Public

[Great Fiction]

This reminds me of what I have learned about the Protestant Reformation in Germany, in which city councils or princes of localities would be persuaded to the Lutheran cause. They would then institute laws which would include which denomination would be practiced. The upheaval it caused was severe, for one town may be Catholic, the next Lutheran, the next even Calvinist or Anabaptist.

That's incredibly interesting. The thirteen British American Colonies were also similar to religious persuasion, though some were highly mixed.

In the case of Smith-town, if the lawmakers were to follow ethics in scripture, any laws passed would have to treat Christians and non-Christians with equal ethicallity from the scriptures. So as to which substrate they should use, Natural Rights vs. Christian Contract, I believe Natural Rights would be the proper course, since Smith-town has non-Christians as citizens as well as Christian.

Since Natural Law was from the beginning, it applies to all people. The Christian Contract only applies to those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

I could not agree more

Now you could make a case for the Christian Contract to be imposed if all of the citizenry were Christian believers.
I believe this was the case in many places in Europe during the Middle Ages.

I think that’s a good point; for arbitrary law would have to hinge upon “individual consent” for it to be ethical.

Now we have to remember that if the council of the city is using scriptural ethics to effect change through imposition of law, then the council, too, is beholden to the Christian ethic of love. So forcing the church to move their soup kitchen, or moving the businesses for that matter, would need to include cost offsetting measures so as to not burden the move. So in a way, the businesses would be helping, through taxes, to move those services to another location, which would be, IMO, following Christian and Natural Law ethics.

I think I see your point.

If “compulsory taxation” is a trespass against property from Natural Rights Theory, yet it is my Christian ethic by salvation to pay my taxes, then ethical action for response is challenged?
Is this correct?

We are indeed close to a real-world scenario and that may be your postulation. Thus a question could be asked, “If I feel that taxation is unethical according to scripture and since I do pay taxes being obedient according to Roman 13; then shouldn't I at least “speak up for where and how the taxation money should go?” If I say yes then that would constitute me “getting involved with unjust Socialism as a voting citizen,” yet if I say no that all violence is to be rejected, then I am removing what little influence I have as a voting citizen to remove unjust law. Its a difficult decision that moves to ethics and is indeed why so many Christians compromise.

Your last paragraph could be reflected by this dilemma. For example: if I am required to pay taxes and the city is operating with arbitrary power, then how am I ethically effective to cause justice to be established in Smith-Town? Does this give me a right to vote the lesser of two evils, or must I remain rigid according to Natural Rights?

I could according to your context “vote” to have the businesses moved, since the City has already force-expropriated money from me (by taxation) and in earnest could make a public grievance to have the businesses be reimbursed by the expropriated money the city took? Thus is that moral or should I say, no “all violence is rejected” thus I must not support or participate in any Socialistic action at all?

I find that this “compromise” is what causes us as the church to be caught in the most difficult decisions with endless circumstances. For if no participation dis-empowers us and participation is a compromise to support the lesser of two evils to do its deadly work, then any action that Smith-Town does that abandons Natural Rights Theory causes us this dilemma.

 

[Great Fiction]

I get a little impatient about unnecessarily stilted language. In my career I attended many briefings where experts used terms of art to say simple things in complicated ways. I guess they thought they could impress the decision makers, who may or may not have a grasp of the details behind the language used. My opinion is that this almost always hid the important points rather than made them clear (or should I say obfuscated rather than elucidated). This was true even when the audience did have a grasp of the technical issues.

Siloam do you feel that I am writing with too much complexity? If so I am deeply sorry. I will confess that I am guilty of word-smithing too much. I am a writer and so its my nature to do so. I will promise to focus with more condensed precision in order to communicate more efficiently.

This discussion is about authority, and who can enforce their views on others.

The rule of love is God’s law. So are the laws of thermodynamics. The difference is how we receive the law and the clarity of our view. Natural law is God’s law.

Theologically “Eternal Law, Divine Law, Natural Law, and Civil Law are often differentiated. Do you agree with this or do you see them synonymous? If so what scripture do you use to substantiate all of them being the same or some of them being the same?

All authority stems from God. This was misused in the past to say that Kings ruled by the will of God. As faulty as that is, to say that God would sanction or lead a Christian to simply go where he felt God was leading is worse. It sounds lofty and so righteous, but it also makes our daily walk depend upon our feelings. Feelings can be great motivators, but they are poor navigators, and even worse at determining goals.

If we, as Christians, believe we are impelled to oppose the social and legal system I which we find ourselves, we must be very careful. It is not that the laws we would oppose are fundamentally good, it is just that our value to Him as witnesses is hurt if we are seen as stubborn and unwilling to work within the existing system. We must use the existing system to its fullest to achieve our goals, if indeed we are sure that they reflect the Lord's will.

I agree Siloam

Look at the life of Jesus. Look at the life of Paul. The social and legal system at that time and place were much less ‘fair’ than most western societies of today. Neither Jesus nor Paul spent much time preaching or teaching followers to defy the law. Jesus only railed against those who would lead God’s people away from a personal relationship with God. Paul only wrote against Christians who were not living according to God's will. Neither of them directly opposed either Roman rule, or the Jewish leadership.

We may have to agree to disagree here; for I will contend that Christ rejected the Sanhedrin government on numerous occasions, called them vipers, accused them of corruption, and disobeyed their “unjust” laws. I will admit that Paul was far less confrontational but does admonish us to obey God rather than men.

Let me be also confirm your admonishment, that “obeying the law” is indeed our precedent from scripture, yet publicly rejecting “despotism is also;” for we are never commanded to support violence to the innocent, which is despotism. Also our ability to reach out and do our best to support authority should be our disposition and attitudes; for to your point it is part of our witness.

It is by changing the life of the people within a society that real progress in that society is changed.

Amen Siloam

 

[dUmPsTeR]

Thank you for your attention to detail dUmPsTeR

In the fields of theology, philosophy and ethics, there is emerging terminology that may describe more accurately your position.

You may prefer:

Vicegerent
1. an officer appointed as deputy by and to a sovereign or supreme chief.
2. a deputy in general.
3.exercising delegated powers.
4.characterized by delegation of powers.

In essence I agree with you that only God has “final authority” yet I would contend that He can delegate “total authority” to us regarding His property. Thus I am positioned to believe that this is a type of “ownership” since one is operating with authority over what is delegated to them. The root word of ownership is “own” meaning its “yours to possess, rule over or control.”

Also I would agree that any ownership we have here in this world is “temporary” which would only constitute “natural ownership.”



I believe the Bill of Rights to be “ethical” and a major leap forward to establish “ethics in supreme law” in the form of “Rule of Law,” also reflecting Natural Law from scripture. Yet the Bill of Rights should have been extended to protect “property.”

Thus we have every kind of financial woe due to this failure. Without the protection of property, despotism is able to invade the law and commandeer property immorally causing wretched corporatism, thus poverty materializes from unethical precedents to simply trade and own property.

There was however due to “vertical decentralization” a natural barrier to commandeer property for a small time period in remote regions, but that quickly eroded by increasing encroachment of unjust law. Its does not take long for arbitrary power to commandeer property or transfer it to advantaged entities by means of legal-plunder.

Is it possible that the civil war and the reconstruction amendments were not about slavery but were about power; for if the U.S. government simply wanted to fix slavery, then all they had to do was “enforce the law.” For we already had the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence for any administration to stand on. Yet its understandable that “enforcing the law” would have also led to war.

Its a shame that hideous slavery is a scar in our history.



I agree about your position regarding coercion.

Yet I would like to offer a persuasion that if the Rule of Law is not documented that we have “Natural Rights” then how do you bring about a cohesive lawful structure for a country?” For if the Rule of Law is not documented then how will you what it is?

Yet human rights are derived from paper, yet I will contend that “protected Natural Rights” derive from God. You can then “document that your Natural Rights derive from God and that government is restrained by law to take them. Which we have in the U.S. in part.



I believe a strictly ethical State is possible that can react to despotism.



Forgive me dUmPsTeR, I was simply questioning the premise. I will agree that most licensing structures we witness in society today are predicated on Socialistic violence. However I do believe in private and participatory licensing (consensual licensing).



Yet surely if Smith-Town had a law that says, “Killing (committing aggress) is wrong and you will be prosecuted for it,” then you would support Smith-Town then? Or do you support lawless anarchy? Or do you feel that Smith-Town simply cant address the homeless or businesses?



It sounds like your life experience can offer a great deal of wisdom to many. I for one have incredible respect that you were able to overcome homelessness, for all of us have our trials and challenges, and overcoming all our individual deficits strengthens us as a body.



You are a blessing to me dUmPsTeR and thank you for the amazing amount of feedback!

As far as owning anything literally here in this land, America, no one truly owns anything. There are a couple of reasons for that, and it is quite complicated. One way to tell this is true is to ask yourself, if there is a question as to who owns a certain thing, who decides which party gets to keep control of it? A court, which is government. No one has Alodial title to their land.

Another thing few people know or understand is that the government turned into a corporation a long time ago when it first went bankrupt. That raises another question; are we being ruled by a company? And if so, how is that possible?

Is it by ignorant consent and acquiescence?

Yes, the Bill of Rights, to a certain extent, is all well and good, but it hardly ever applies to the common man. How can we know this? 1. why would each state need its own Constitution? 2. the common man in court gets denied use of it.

I have been doing a lot of searching as to why America is the way it is now. I had to wade through a great deal of dis-information until I came across a handful of researchers that diligently sought out answers. They even went into government archives; here in America, and abroad as well. They got certified copies of certain documents for proof of their findings. Some of their findings came from treaties.

I could go on and on about this, and I have studied these researchers articles, as well as following up on their references to documented evidence. If you're interested, feel free to send me a PM, and I will reply with link to some of their articles. No pressure ever, because I've found most people don't want to know the truth.

As far as being a blessing to you; it's my pleasure and it is mutual. (Sorry if I've gone too far off topic.)

 

[Robine]

Thus my question was to ask, do you believe that Natural Law from is in conflict with our covenant of salvation or is in conflict with any of His covenants, including the Mosaic covenant? For I argue that no covenant God ever agreed to with mankind is in conflict.

I have never thought about this. To be honest, I do not see the reason to think about the law given to Noah - probably because I do not see any serious conflict arising from that.

How does the Smith-Town City Council get the money ethically to educate the poor? Or is this function only possible for the church to ethically engage; for education costs money? Either the money is given or taken in order to educate. Giving the money does not trespass against Natural Rights, yet taking the money by violence-to-property does?

Thus if the Smith-Town City Council lawfully expropriates the money by force from its citizens, is that “moral” or “just” according to Natural Rights Theory?

Should the church be responsible for educating the poor, in order for the “action to educate” to remain ethical?

I think that this is the question of how the social system should work. So you can find at least thousands of answers
My opinion is that education should be the concern of government. I do not see any problem in taxes taken for this. Yes, you can say that it is a violation against Natural Law. But how else should the Smith-Town get money for education? People can give money voluntarily. But that would work just in a small group of kind, friendly and understanding people. Therefore a regulation or law is needed.
The church should fulfill the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ. If any group of Christians feels that it means to educate poor people, then it is their ministry.
(Keep in mind that I live in a country with quite generous social system and free basic health care and my view is affected by that.)

In the action that Smith-Town expropriates the money to educate the poor, are we to obey them taking it from us, disobey them from taking it from us, or obey them taking it from us “as we denounce its immoral operation?”

For I contend that we should “obey” government as we also “denounce its unethical operations” when possible.

That is also a relative question and clear simple answer does not exist. Let´s see two hypothetical extreme cases:
1. The Smith-Town takes taxes from the salaries of working people while these people are still able to live a good life with the salary left to them.
2. The Smith-Town takes equal amount of money from every inhabitant. That means that some people without stable income will become poor quickly.

I see no violation in the first case. But who will define what „good life“ means? How high the taxes should be? What should we do if the taxes are not used properly? Move to a deep wilderness and live without other people around you, or live with them and with these questions. I do not think that scripture will answer them.

 

[Great Fiction]

If you will excuse me a little...

Ethics schmethics.

Wrapping the thrust of this up and calling it a discussion in ethics is a false premise.

Ethics concerns the choices we make as individuals and collections of individuals. Because ethics concerns the choices of individuals while laws concern the interaction of people or other legally recognized entities, in all but the most extreme cases, ethics is about the choices we make within the law. Before you can apply ethical consideration, you must first determine your recourses within the legal structure. You cannot decide what you choose to do whether ethically or otherwise and have expectation that the legal system must bend to allow it.

May I be allowed in kindness to breakdown the branch of moral philosophy known as "ethics" so that we may be able to reason with each other my brother in Christ?

Ethics is a branch of Moral Philosophy that has three primary divisions
Meta-ethics
Normative ethics
Applied ethics

Normative Ethics also has three primary divisions

Virtue Ethics which is Aristotelean– Ethics assigned to the “moral agent” the individual – character building. I argue that this ends up under “Deontology” but its not formally recognized as such.

Deontology – Duty-Bound Ethics that must adhere to a “code”

• Theological (scripture) – we are duty-boud to obey scripture
  
  
• Immanuel Kant (Categorical Imperative, and Hypothetical Imperative)
  
  
• John Locke (Two Treatise of Government – Natural Rights Theory)
  
  
• Murray Rothbard (Ethics of Liberty) – Reason based defense for an ethical substrate for Natural Rights Theory – this could almost interchange with Virtue ethics since "reason" delivers the substrate.

• Natural Rights Theory is a “Deontological Ethical Substrate” - Natural Rights Theory “is ethics” and its application is “society.” I also argue it can be “scripturally supported” thus it can be “duty bound” from scripture as a deontological “code”

Though subjectively held, these ethical methods seek to build “objective ethics” based on a “code”

Consequentialism

• Utilitarianism – Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill – (Greatest good for the greatest number) – subjective ethics – typically this type of ethic has no metaphysical substrate, yet some try to build one from happiness or pleasure from a materialistic perspective. (I contend that this ethic is only applicable to the “individual agent” in order for it to abide by its own subjective ideology of morality, yet there is widespread efforts to force it upon society “immorally”)
  
  
• Egoism – Ayn Rand – Self Interest
  
  
• Intellectualism – Reason based morality – The Stoics

Meta Ethics – what is good, what is true?
This is the philosophical consideration for value, judgement, application capability and configuration of “Normative Ethics.” Thus this discussion is highly “Meta-Ethical,” for we are “considering what is good” for society. We are investigating a deontological substrate from scripture.

Applied Ethics – how are they applied and to who?
This is the philosophical consideration for ethical application, such as business, education, churches, branch of government, society at large or international affiliation of nations. This could be the substrate for “etiquette” “or law” which could or could not become a legal framework. In our discussion the application is “analogous society - Smith-Town.”
….......................................

Thus to answer your first paragraph, I am indeed offering “ethics directly” for consideration. Ethics that is “Natural Rights Theory; for Natural Rights from scripture “is ethics” and will argue that “society” is the applicable unit. It is proposed, “what is good” for Smith-Town, thus we “ethically consider it.”

The consideration of Smith-Town is analogous and is therefore not a “current binding lawful structure.” However if were to take a “real” town with “real laws” we then still have a “meta-ethical” opportunity to explore if the current set of laws are “ethical.”

To state that ethics require the ignoring of ordinances is ontologically unsupportable, as well as elevating our own desires above the Lord’s Instructions.

With kindness, Ontology is “metaphysics” - reason for existence, or being.

Ethical considerations do not call for disobedience, it challenges the moral agent to consider what is “immoral” and what is “moral:” for I am not qualified, nor motivated, nor called, nor authorized to request disobedience to authority, yet I may be “ethical” to say, “despotism is evil, Christ stood up against despotism, and we should follow His example.” For we are all qualified to emulate Christ.

I “reverence authority;” for that is my duty from scripture, yet I abhor despotism that will thrash a nation to suffer poverty, legal-plunder, starvation, rape, brutality, assassination, murder and genocide; for our authorities are our blessing when they are “good,” yet when despotism fills the law to wicked violence, then are we not to act as Christ acted? To stand up and declare evil to be evil? For Christ labeled the wicked in power as snakes, vipers, vicious dogs, and swine; for their intentions in the Sanhedrin were often to pillage, rob, incarcerate, whip, and kill innocent people.

I look at my own Government in the U.S. and see a mix of people, and most seem to have good intentions, though most operate in microcosm that has abandoned Natural Rights Theory; thus I am not labeling them wicked as Christ labeled, for I am still highly optimistic that my “ruling authority” will return back to more ethical standings. Thus I am in full cooperation, I pray, I reason, I hope, and I try to influence as I am convicted; I operate in love, and seek every opportunity to effect as I remain obedient to the law. However I am also by scripture personally convicted and obligatory to ask the question, “When is the law "just" according to scripture and, when am I able to ethically vote or support it?” Thus I am in this post offering “just that.” I am offering “ethics in Smith-Town regarding the law.”

Both the example of our Lord, and His clear instructions as set in His word compel us to work within the legal structure. Ethics do not override His guidance. We can talk about what to do in a completely immoral society, but I would term western society amoral, while many within it live immorally.

You mention that “ethics do not override His guidance.” May I be allowed to go further and say that His guidance “is our ethical substrate” and “provides us an ethical measuring stick for all action in society.” Is it possible that I am offering an opportunity on this post to “measure” Smith-Town?

A few years ago, the pastor at a church I was attending complained about the intrusive code inspection that had issues with a stove the church had installed in the kitchen. I looked at it and knew from first site that it was a safety problem with inadequate ventilation and poor fire shielding. I am not an expert, but even I could see that a fire in the stove (not all that uncommon, particularly since a church kitchen may be used by many in the congregation) could quickly start the ceiling joists and from there the rest of the building. It may be inconvenient to comply with local laws, but just standing on separation of church & state was not the proper way to proceed.

I understand completely. My church provides our community with a soup-kitchen, and we are under a lot of scrutiny regarding “legal codes.” Thus what did we do? We obeyed the law, and followed the code to the letter to complete compliance, yet in our conversation we also agreed that “these codes were in “ethical” violation of our scriptural “Natural Rights” and are now sober to pray, hope, vote, and persuade for change as we demonstrate obedience in a spirit of love. For it is not by might, nor natural power, but by the incontestable power of our God that will affect tangible change; thus we abide in Him and respond only as He directs.

However, “hypothetically” let us say that the City where I live said, “No you may never feed the helpless again, for that is now the Cities job using expropriated money that we take.” Then we might in a spirit of love option to give a kind grievance to the City, to say that “We are called on this mission to help the homeless,” and then reason with them to remove the ban. Then “hypothetically” let us say that the City fines us for saying our grievance in love, then we may move to public visibility and in love stand up to the despotism that would thrash our Natural Right to even speak, saying “Its our duty from God to minister. “Hypothetically,” at that point we may be led to “disobey” the city; for we are to “obey God rather than men.”

Despotism is worthy of disobedience, yet despotism is not the law itself, and the law itself can be void of despotism. Love is our method for change, yet ethics provides us the location of our scriptural stance.

In the case of Smithville, the church needs to work with the community. This may require that some of the things the congregation wishes to accomplish are not fully realized, but be assured (by scripture, not by me); God’s Will will not be thwarted. Our work is His work only when we are in accordance with His plan.

Yet what if God calls you to admonish despotism in your country in the same way that Christ admonished it to his government? Would it then be an “obligatory” duty to stand up?

Siloam you make incredibly good arguments to balance the scripture my friend.

Thank you so much for the skillful and wise contributions, and hope you will continue further: for it is in the confines of love that reasonable exchange can sharpen the finest of blades. I am already your beneficiary with many scriptural considerations.

 

[Great Fiction]

Yea Jesus said woe to the pharisees and scribes and lawyers.

he HATED lawyers esp cos they could twist anything and make it into a new law to add to the ones he already gave and put burdens on everyone.

They were hypocrites who thought just cos they policed the law, they were above the law.

The law is in our hearts and we are guided by what the spirit says to us, so in a situation such as this one, those church people would just do whats in their hearts to do and if it conflicts with council ordinances just say they are serving the Lord ...God triumphs and is the one who we follow not anyone else. Cos we are accountable to Him alone. Even if we may be persecuted and thrown in jail, that is the price we pay because we have faith in him not the man made laws.

In china many people get thrown in jail for simply worshipping in their homes. Only govt sanctioned churches are allowed and the govt dictates what these churches are allowed to preach.

That is why the churches go underground. The gates of hell cannot prevail against Jesus church. We can practise kindness anywhere, there is no law against kindness.

There are many countries that are being thrashed with immeasurable aggress, and it is my hope that our world will discover Christ and ethics; for in many countries “life, liberty and property” are still owned "controlled" for a proposed common good where the powers of despotism control people to immeasurable harm.

What is your opinion if these two things were accomplished in a country? Or better yet, in Smith-Town?

• Christ, Him crucified and Salvation was widespread
• Rule of Law was adopted– reflecting Natural Law, also fortified using strategic restraint forbidding arbitrary power from taking Natural Rights.

 

[Lanolin]

He has a name and it's Jesus.
He is also risen again and if we are believers then we believe he is raised and his holy spirit is given to us. It is only this gift of grace working in our hearts that can make us adopt God's law - which with the new covenant is only TWO commandments.

If we all lived by this then smithtown would be a lovely town to live in. It can only come about by the gospel.

 

[Abdicate]

I believe scripture is the "definitive source" for defining the rules of "justice" in "Natural Law." Primarily the first and ninth chapters of Genesis.



Is it possible that Franklin, Adams and Jefferson all three were "Lockean disciples" and all three got property wrong in the Declaration of Independence, only then to jot down a vague description of happiness that abandons Natural Rights Theory? I suspect that "possibly" Jefferson was the only one of the three who would of liked to remain in place to protect "property" or to Lockean terminology "estate."

I contend that "Life and Liberty" is guarded as "Natural Rights in the U.S. Bill of Rights" yet I contend also that the pursuit of happiness was a ploy by Franklin and others to "establish unjust ambiguous compulsory law, compulsory big banks, monetary monopolies and forced expropriation." They got "two out of three" correct "ethically" in my opinion, and am grateful that ethics are apart of the supreme mandate.

In 1962-63 America pretty much abandoned the Biblical Natural Law and the family disintegrated. Though it was tried before because Sam Adams once said "Before the formation of the Constitution...[t]his Declaration of Independence was receive and ratified by all State in the Union and has never been disannulled." Today, the Congress and the Courts separate the two documents rather than letting them spell out the rights of Americans. In fact the the founders even forever linked the Declaration to the Constitution in Article VII. With few exceptions the Founders dated their government acts from the Declaration date rather than the Constitution's. France's definition is, admittedly, man-centered, whereas the US's definition of Natural Law is God-centered. Again Sam Adams is quoted as saying, "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator." John Quincy Adams said on this, "[T]he laws of nature and of nature's God ... of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government." Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, John Jay, Rufus King, James Wilson all said essentially, "God... is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law." The great English judge Sir William Blackstone was the most invoken political authority during this time and it was James Madison that bought the US Senate copies of his commentaries where it is stated "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" which was quoted in our Declaration of Independence. Jefferson commented that American lawyers use Blackstone's commentaries with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran!

Indeed your buddy John Locke is the third most quoted man in early American political thought. His work is how the political theorists drew and reinforced the concept that Natural Law was derived from God and the Scriptures. There are two reasons why America grew to become such a great nation so quickly: they believed in God and they reasoned together, not just the politicians, but the very subject at the bar hall and the community garden. Everyone was talking about it. Ben Franklin, after leaving the sequestration of Congress for three months, was asked if we have a monarchy or a republic, and he replied, we have "a republic, you can keep it." The American people have surrendered their power to an oligarchy and don't even know it. They care more about Beyonce and the Kardashians than what their representatives do in office.

Much of this I took from "Original Intent" by David Barton; I'm not so smart.

 

[Great Fiction]

I started reading a little about the history of america last night, as had a book about it called america, land of dreams.

It was very intersting. One name springs to mind is William Penn, who founded Philadelphia and the state of Pennyslvania. He was a Quaker. He was not a stranger, a Puritan or a Seperatist these groups who wanted religious freedom and fought with each other (and the native americans), he did not own slaves. he was not a Founding Father either.

he made a major contribution to how democracy works in america today, which is related to this post. I dont know too much about Quakers but I do know they place a lot of importance in LISTENING to God. Then confirming it with his Word.

The Quakers as I understand did not try to make their own separate village like the Puritans did and impose rules on people that quickly became burdensome. Only have to look at Calvinist Genevas history to realise how that just doesnt work. They were essentially in rebellion to the church of England anyway..thats how Independence came about, because americans didnt want to follow British or Crown law. But in making a new country, it had to have some kind of laws so ppl could live at peace with each other.

It seems like God was speaking to the Quakers and working out a solution so that all these different groups in america could live at peace with each otherand worship Him freely or in any other way they liked, even those that didnt know Him.

I guess thats why you see churches in america are so different from those of England. I must say alot in america seem to worship mammon, and claim that as christianity. But in america that is their freedom to do this.

Is it possible that in earlier times in the American colonies, there would often be a non-violent precedent to “voluntarily trade and cooperate as friends” with the Indians, which led to exchanges which benefited both sides; land exchanged for technology, means exchanged for invention, and education exchanged for sustainability? Yet in horror there were some who would rush out despotically and spoil the Indians with starvation, mass-murder and genocide. My countries history is both good and bad, also honestly industrious and violently despotic. I find our founders to be both ethical and immoral, and our beginnings to be courageously valiant but also filled with angry hostility.

Is it reasonable to say that America's beginning was rugged, defiant, despotic, ethical, courageous, and glorious all at once?


Regarding our worship, is it also reasonable to say that America is still a mixed bag? For I live in rural America and find it very wholesome.

 

[Great Fiction]

It's interesting that the ancient Hebrews also read that passage in genesis and saw a "natural law" (i.e., a Noahide law for all mankind, the "sons of Noah," and later a separate Mosaic law only for the Hebrews, the "sons of Israel").

Thank you Roads for your contribution

I was wondering if the “The Seven Noahide Laws” would surface.

I contend that the Noahide laws are “not synonymous” to the Unilateral Contract of Natural Rights: for some of these laws are created from other scripture “outside the Unilateral Contract of Natural Rights.”

Thus would you agree that Smith-Town has no “ethical grounds from scripture” to force citizens to share property in society?

Do you believe however that we the church have a “mandate” by New Testament Contractual Precepts to be benevolent in society as the Spirit leads?

If we say that a right to property is implied in scripture (and the Hebrews also saw this right in their fifth Noahide law, "do not steal",) we must also recognize other scriptures that imply a natural responsibility to share wealth. For example, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part for not helping the poor and needy (). So if we do conclude that we have a right to own property, should we not also conclude that we do not have a right to hoard abundance while others suffer for want? If we find this to be so, wouldn't just laws protect nations against excessive hoarders, and ensure a more even distribution of resources?

Your point is understood

Yet sharing property is not a mandate in Natural Rights Theory by scripture; for benevolence, kindness, compassion, and love are all managed and addressed in our “Voluntary Contract of Salvation.”

For example: In Acts 2 people sold property and had things in common, yet they “voluntarily did so” for if we in error add “sharing property in common” to Natural Rights Theory (and add to the scripture) then “sharing must then be enforced by unjust law;” for no law can gain total compliance by every member in society regarding an arbitrary action. In ethics “forced sharing” poses a monumental problem, for “how is exhausted consent possible regarding a thing ambiguous?” The only way this is possible is if “every citizen” agrees by contract to a "specific act of sharing” at “everyone’s agreeable sacrifice or expense,” yet this is not ethical law but is instead an “ethical contract by every member of society.”

Also God has judged many other wicked cities and even all of Adam/Eve's posterity for various reasons regarding immorality and wickedness as He saw fit, for He has a “right” to destroy the wicked as He chooses to judge; for He owns all things and all people and is the “owner” of the highest order in the cosmos.

We as people are not given natural rights over other people or their property; and if “sharing property” was a Natural Right then majoritarian factions could “arbitrarily force” property from anyone, anytime and anywhere using despotic violence. In fact this is an ongoing tragedy in the world today and is also amounting to immoral ramifications is my own country.

 

[Great Fiction]

I am still internalizing Great Fiction’s posts. It has been 40 years since I was in college, and although I have continued to improve my education, most formal coursework has been more technically oriented than the philosophical and political sources Great Fiction sights, so I need to do some studying. I have (and will continue to save) posts in this thread so I can refer to them offline.

However, I agree with Great Fiction's plain English summary view: “For I contend that we should “obey” government as we also “denounce its unethical operations” when possible.”

If I have seemed a little one sided or insistent in this thread, please know that in some part, it was a reaction I was having to another thread. Even there, the problem is more a problem with my outlook than the posts themselves.

I hope I did not cause frustration. If so I beg forgiveness.

Siloam you fortify this forum with wisdom my friend and your contribution moves from scripture; thus you are a benefactor to increasing knowledge, and I am deeply grateful for your perspective.

 

[Great Fiction]

As far as owning anything literally here in this land, America, no one truly owns anything. There are a couple of reasons for that, and it is quite complicated. One way to tell this is true is to ask yourself, if there is a question as to who owns a certain thing, who decides which party gets to keep control of it? A court, which is government. No one has Alodial title to their land.

Its to your credit dUmPsTeR that you're endowed with knowledge concerning Alodial titles; for very few people are aware that they even exist. I agree with you that Alodial titles are the "pure ownership" title. For very few people actually own their land in purity; in a sense, you could say that people “rent property from the compulsory State” with a regular deed/title.

Another thing few people know or understand is that the government turned into a corporation a long time ago when it first went bankrupt. That raises another question; are we being ruled by a company? And if so, how is that possible?

Is it by ignorant consent and acquiescence?

Is it possible that government and legally advantaged corporations are two entities that empower each other? I see them separate entities, but I get your point.

Yes, the Bill of Rights, to a certain extent, is all well and good, but it hardly ever applies to the common man. How can we know this? 1. why would each state need its own Constitution? 2. the common man in court gets denied use of it.

I have been doing a lot of searching as to why America is the way it is now. I had to wade through a great deal of dis-information until I came across a handful of researchers that diligently sought out answers. They even went into government archives; here in America, and abroad as well. They got certified copies of certain documents for proof of their findings. Some of their findings came from treaties.

I could go on and on about this, and I have studied these researchers articles, as well as following up on their references to documented evidence. If you're interested, feel free to send me a PM, and I will reply with link to some of their articles. No pressure ever, because I've found most people don't want to know the truth.

As far as being a blessing to you; it's my pleasure and it is mutual. (Sorry if I've gone too far off topic.)

No apologies required, you bring about a lot of concerns my friend that I can resonate with.

I do believe the U.S. constitution does have a very important feature to “improve itself to furthering ethics” or “to furthering despotism.” Let us influence to the better in hopes that ethics will deliver our children a better place to live.

 

[Roads]

Thank you Roads for your contribution
Thus would you agree that Smith-Town has no “ethical grounds from scripture” to force citizens to share property in society?

Not necessarily. Perhaps (or perhaps not) in scripture, we can see a right to own property. But I doubt will we find a right to hoard property. If we do find that we have no right to hoard property, perhaps there will be ethical grounds for governments to oblige citizens to distribute property. In such a case, even if we do say that we have a "right to own," the concept of "ownership" wouldn't mean that you can do whatever you want with "your" property, and unethical uses of your property (i.e., hoarding) could potentially merit a justified forced partial loss of stewardship over that property (i.e., not arbitrary seizure).

I am being a bit cheeky in saying that, as obviously governments tend to seize property to reinforce a status quo which serves the elite, rather than address poverty. But I also am willing to explore the potentially slippery slope that won't put a "unambiguously unethical" stamp on governmental seizure of property.

Do you believe however that we the church have a “mandate” by New Testament Contractual Precepts to be benevolent in society as the Spirit leads?

I'm not sure I'd think of them as "contractual precepts" necessarily, but I think scriptures demonstrate that all of humanity has a natural obligation to care for those in need. I don't necessarily think that governments have a mandate to oblige citizens to meet each other's needs, but that's more of a discussion about whether or not "natural law/rights" can actually be enforceable by governments, even if they do exist (i.e., can you legislate motives, or only motivate a facade of ethical behavior through consequences? Whatever the act, God knows the heart.)

In ethics “forced sharing” poses a monumental problem, for “how is exhausted consent possible regarding a thing ambiguous?”
...
We as people are not given natural rights over other people or their property; and if “sharing property” was a Natural Right then majoritarian factions could “arbitrarily force” property from anyone, anytime and anywhere using despotic violence. In fact this is an ongoing tragedy in the world today and is also amounting to immoral ramifications is my own country.

If we consider the disparity between a billionaire born into wealth, and a full time minimum wage earner who cannot earn a living, there is an ethical law in there somewhere, man. I don't know where exactly, but it's there. The line between "acceptable personal wealth" and "outright hoarding" is of course arbitrary(ish), but at some point, a government is as culpable for being a bystander to the tragedy of poverty as it would be for the despotic act of directly seizing private property. Perhaps a practical necessity will not be an ideal ethical solution.

I do admit (happily) that governmental license to seize property is a slippery slope. However, I don't think that "forced sharing" is a bigger ethical problem than "passivity to hoarding amid poverty." I also don't think that disparity of wealth is a lesser tragedy than forced seizure of property. I expect, though, we will both agree that the compounded tragedy is if seizure of property is being done to reinforce the status quo of disparity, rather than addressing the real needs of the poor.

 

[Great Fiction]

In 1962-63 America pretty much abandoned the Biblical Natural Law and the family disintegrated. Though it was tried before because Sam Adams once said "Before the formation of the Constitution...[t]his Declaration of Independence was receive and ratified by all State in the Union and has never been disannulled." Today, the Congress and the Courts separate the two documents rather than letting them spell out the rights of Americans. In fact the the founders even forever linked the Declaration to the Constitution in Article VII. With few exceptions the Founders dated their government acts from the Declaration date rather than the Constitution's. France's definition is, admittedly, man-centered, whereas the US's definition of Natural Law is God-centered. Again Sam Adams is quoted as saying, "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator." John Quincy Adams said on this, "[T]he laws of nature and of nature's God ... of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government." Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, John Jay, Rufus King, James Wilson all said essentially, "God... is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law." The great English judge Sir William Blackstone was the most invoken political authority during this time and it was James Madison that bought the US Senate copies of his commentaries where it is stated "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" which was quoted in our Declaration of Independence. Jefferson commented that American lawyers use Blackstone's commentaries with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran!

Indeed your buddy John Locke is the third most quoted man in early American political thought. His work is how the political theorists drew and reinforced the concept that Natural Law was derived from God and the Scriptures. There are two reasons why America grew to become such a great nation so quickly: they believed in God and they reasoned together, not just the politicians, but the very subject at the bar hall and the community garden. Everyone was talking about it. Ben Franklin, after leaving the sequestration of Congress for three months, was asked if we have a monarchy or a republic, and he replied, we have "a republic, you can keep it." The American people have surrendered their power to an oligarchy and don't even know it. They care more about Beyonce and the Kardashians than what their representatives do in office.

Much of this I took from "Original Intent" by David Barton; I'm not so smart.

Abdicate, I'm not buying your last sentence; you are smart and humble my friend.

 

[Great Fiction]

He has a name and it's Jesus.
He is also risen again and if we are believers then we believe he is raised and his holy spirit is given to us. It is only this gift of grace working in our hearts that can make us adopt God's law - which with the new covenant is only TWO commandments.

If we all lived by this then smithtown would be a lovely town to live in. It can only come about by the gospel.

Lanolin you seem to always have a direct perspective that causes me to think differently about things.

I also will receive your admonishment

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus

 

[Great Fiction]

I have never thought about this. To be honest, I do not see the reason to think about the law given to Noah - probably because I do not see any serious conflict arising from that.
I think that this is the question of how the social system should work. So you can find at least thousands of answers

My opinion is that education should be the concern of government. I do not see any problem in taxes taken for this. Yes, you can say that it is a violation against Natural Law. But how else should the Smith-Town get money for education? People can give money voluntarily. But that would work just in a small group of kind, friendly and understanding people. Therefore a regulation or law is needed.

The church should fulfill the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ. If any group of Christians feels that it means to educate poor people, then it is their ministry.

(Keep in mind that I live in a country with quite generous social system and free basic health care and my view is affected by that.)

It is quite OK Robine, and please know that I respect your country and your societal origins.

I have a proposition to entertain for Smith-Town regarding education, and would ask you to consider possibilities. Please know that I respect your liberty to disagree.

What if a country operated on an "ethical economic premise" regarding education?

For example: What would schools look like in a non-interventionist free market economy, where all schools were "voluntarily chosen, and most importantly were ethical according to Natural Rights?"

Instead of one compulsory socialistic school being forced into place by expropriated money, is it not possible to have thirty private schools competing for students instead, and all them costing less money but offering superior results?

Where I live it costs about seventeen thousand U.S. dollars per child a year for our socialistic school to educate one child. However the socialistic school performs poorly, which moved me over the years to "pay again" to put my children through private schools. Now the private schools that I used cost less per year than the public school, but was far superior to much better results. The private schools are better than the public schools, even though the public school expropriated more money from me than the "voluntary amount" I paid to the private schools. Thus I paid "twice," yet once to inferior socialism, and once-again (twice total) to the superior free market schools. However the private schools were not totally "free market" in purity; for there was heavy financial burden from the State to even open their doors, not to mention that all "clients/ parents like me" are already expropriated by the compulsory State to pay first to the inferior education I didn't use. Now how much better would the privates schools be if they could “invest” more money into their business models? I contend it would transform education to new heights past anything we have ever witnessed.

Yet again, what would that look like? If the Socialistic school in Smith-Town were to vanish and they chose to operate ethically void of socialistic force regarding education, where Smith-Town depended “solely” on a non-interventionist free market economy to engage education, then I will contend that something incredibly good would happen? I would contend that over thirty or forty schools would instantly open for business to compete for every child with passion. I would contend that this competition for educational services would accelerate to incredible quality, depth and options for every child. I would contend that they would cost a fraction of the money that Socialism expropriated for each child and would cause also the economy to thrive. Parents would be “in control” of their children and children that are challenged or different would also have many more options. Most importantly it would be “ethical according to scripture;” for no violence would be used to educate.

Some schools would align to science, some to math, some to art, some to ministry and some to a rounded foundation, yet parents and guardians would choose what is best for their child. Some schools would accelerate in various fields causing children who are hungry to learn to advance themselves beyond current compulsory college levels. The market place would invest heavily in children's futures by investing in the schools. Technology would flourish in the school environments. There would be an amazingly low price for an amazing high quality education. Churches, non-profits and scholarship programs would compete for children who have no money for school, and parents would not be unethically interrupted by the compulsory State regarding their own children.

I use to belong to a church in my State which wanted to open a school for children (grades 1 - 6). However the church could not open the school due to the severe regulatory environment. The goal was to “educate children but also spread the gospel.” That was just one church and I will contend that if “true” free markets were allowed to exist, then unfortunate and poor children would have many more options for free school than they do with Socialism; for every denomination and non profit would compete for them too.

Now what of abuse? Would there not be abuse with so many schools, especially with schools for the homeless, and schools for orphans? Yes there would, in the short-run the same amount of abuse you would have in Socialism. For Socialism or free-markets does not cure abuse; however “education does cure abuse.” Thus free markets will in the long run curtail abuse far better than Socialism.

Am I offering a panacea in Smith-Town? Well of course not; for no society will ever be perfect, yet I will contend that it will far out-pace compulsory Socialism and most of all “remain ethical according to scripture.”

 

[Abdicate]

Abdicate, I'm not buying your last sentence; you are smart and humble my friend.

Thanks

 

[Robine]

It is quite OK Robine, and please know that I respect your country and your societal origins.

I have a proposition to entertain for Smith-Town regarding education, and would ask you to consider possibilities. Please know that I respect your liberty to disagree.

What if a country operated on an "ethical economic premise" regarding education?

For example: What would schools look like in a non-interventionist free market economy, where all schools were "voluntarily chosen, and most importantly were ethical according to Natural Rights?"

Instead of one compulsory socialistic school being forced into place by expropriated money, is it not possible to have thirty private schools competing for students instead, and all them costing less money but offering superior results?

Where I live it costs about seventeen thousand U.S. dollars per child a year for our socialistic school to educate one child. However the socialistic school performs poorly, which moved me over the years to "pay again" to put my children through private schools. Now the private schools that I used cost less per year than the public school, but was far superior to much better results. The private schools are better than the public schools, even though the public school expropriated more money from me than the "voluntary amount" I paid to the private schools. Thus I paid "twice," yet once to inferior socialism, and once-again (twice total) to the superior free market schools. However the private schools were not totally "free market" in purity; for there was heavy financial burden from the State to even open their doors, not to mention that all "clients/ parents like me" are already expropriated by the compulsory State to pay first to the inferior education I didn't use. Now how much better would the privates schools be if they could “invest” more money into their business models? I contend it would transform education to new heights past anything we have ever witnessed.

Yet again, what would that look like? If the Socialistic school in Smith-Town were to vanish and they chose to operate ethically void of socialistic force regarding education, where Smith-Town depended “solely” on a non-interventionist free market economy to engage education, then I will contend that something incredibly good would happen? I would contend that over thirty or forty schools would instantly open for business to compete for every child with passion. I would contend that this competition for educational services would accelerate to incredible quality, depth and options for every child. I would contend that they would cost a fraction of the money that Socialism expropriated for each child and would cause also the economy to thrive. Parents would be “in control” of their children and children that are challenged or different would also have many more options. Most importantly it would be “ethical according to scripture;” for no violence would be used to educate.

Some schools would align to science, some to math, some to art, some to ministry and some to a rounded foundation, yet parents and guardians would choose what is best for their child. Some schools would accelerate in various fields causing children who are hungry to learn to advance themselves beyond current compulsory college levels. The market place would invest heavily in children's futures by investing in the schools. Technology would flourish in the school environments. There would be an amazingly low price for an amazing high quality education. Churches, non-profits and scholarship programs would compete for children who have no money for school, and parents would not be unethically interrupted by the compulsory State regarding their own children.

I use to belong to a church in my State which wanted to open a school for children (grades 1 - 6). However the church could not open the school due to the severe regulatory environment. The goal was to “educate children but also spread the gospel.” That was just one church and I will contend that if “true” free markets were allowed to exist, then unfortunate and poor children would have many more options for free school than they do with Socialism; for every denomination and non profit would compete for them too.

Now what of abuse? Would there not be abuse with so many schools, especially with schools for the homeless, and schools for orphans? Yes there would, in the short-run the same amount of abuse you would have in Socialism. For Socialism or free-markets does not cure abuse; however “education does cure abuse.” Thus free markets will in the long run curtail abuse far better than Socialism.

Am I offering a panacea in Smith-Town? Well of course not; for no society will ever be perfect, yet I will contend that it will far out-pace compulsory Socialism and most of all “remain ethical according to scripture.”

I totally agree with you. Free market should surely create better schools (I would be also for free market in health care).
As I have never studied any education system in countries where education is not for free, I am not really well-informed about how these system currently work and what are their disadvantages. But your suggestion sounds really effectively. It would be needed to find a way for poor people who would not be able to pay school fees, of course.

I do not know many private schools in my country but I know one Christian elementary school that gets money from government and from parents as well (100 USD per year for one child) because they want to have less children in a class than it is recommended (30). Therefore they do not get enough money from government. Also they want to pay more to teachers than it is usual because our usual salary for a teacher is ridiculous. It is clear that if the school offers services of high quality, people are willing to pay for it even in this socialist society that is used to pay for nothing and „everything belongs to everyone“.

 

[Great Fiction]

Thank you Roads for your contribution

I was wondering if the “The Seven Noahide Laws” would surface.

I contend that the Noahide laws are “not synonymous” to the Unilateral Contract of Natural Rights: for some of these laws are created from other scripture “outside the Unilateral Contract of Natural Rights.”

Thus would you agree that Smith-Town has no “ethical grounds from scripture” to force citizens to share property in society?

Do you believe however that we the church have a “mandate” by New Testament Contractual Precepts to be benevolent in society as the Spirit leads?

Your point is understood

Yet sharing property is not a mandate in Natural Rights Theory by scripture; for benevolence, kindness, compassion, and love are all managed and addressed in our “Voluntary Contract of Salvation.”

For example: In people sold property and had things in common, yet they “voluntarily did so” for if we in error add “sharing property in common” to Natural Rights Theory (and add to the scripture) then “sharing must then be enforced by unjust law;” for no law can gain total compliance by every member in society regarding an arbitrary action. In ethics “forced sharing” poses a monumental problem, for “how is exhausted consent possible regarding a thing ambiguous?” The only way this is possible is if “every citizen” agrees by contract to a "specific act of sharing” at “everyone’s agreeable sacrifice or expense,” yet this is not ethical law but is instead an “ethical contract by every member of society.”

Also God has judged many other wicked cities and even all of Adam/Eve's posterity for various reasons regarding immorality and wickedness as He saw fit, for He has a “right” to destroy the wicked as He chooses to judge; for He owns all things and all people and is the “owner” of the highest order in the cosmos.

We as people are not given natural rights over other people or their property; and if “sharing property” was a Natural Right then majoritarian factions could “arbitrarily force” property from anyone, anytime and anywhere using despotic violence. In fact this is an ongoing tragedy in the world today and is also amounting to immoral ramifications is my own country.

Not necessarily. Perhaps (or perhaps not) in scripture, we can see a right to own property. But I doubt will we find a right to hoard property.

I will contend that each person is given a Natural Right to “own honest property” and that the amount is irrelevant according to Natural Rights Theory. However I can agree quickly that “hoarding, like gluttony, or lust is scripturally wrong.” Yet what is “wrong” and what should be “illegal” are differentiated. Natural Rights is the ethical substrate for what is “unjust” and "just.”

If we do find that we have no right to hoard property, perhaps there will be ethical grounds for governments to oblige citizens to distribute property. In such a case, even if we do say that we have a "right to own," the concept of "ownership" wouldn't mean that you can do whatever you want with "your" property, and unethical uses of your property (i.e., hoarding) could potentially merit a justified forced partial loss of stewardship over that property (i.e., not arbitrary seizure).

Yet this position poses a problem; for governments are not able to “oblige citizens to distribute” without committing violence to person and property. For if a citizen wants to distribute their property “voluntarily” then they can give to the church.

Natural Rights from scripture does not support “forced expropriation” in the Unilateral Contract, thus how can you “justify by scripture that personal property can be taken with force from a person who has committed no crime?”

I am being a bit cheeky in saying that, as obviously governments tend to seize property to reinforce a status quo which serves the elite, rather than address poverty. But I also am willing to explore the potentially slippery slope that won't put a "unambiguously unethical" stamp on governmental seizure of property.

We may have to agree to disagree in the confines of Christ's love my good friend

For me personally, this is my position, according to Natural Rights from scripture, “No person, business, faction, group, church, institution, corporation, government or entity has a Natural Right to ethically take property using arbitrary violence.” However when they (governments) do take it, and they will, then I must with gravity honor Paul's admonishment in and pay taxes; for that is my Christian ethic to do so.

Thus I submit to unethical taxation, yet I do not ethically condone it as being "just.”

I'm not sure I'd think of them as "contractual precepts" necessarily, but I think scriptures demonstrate that all of humanity has a natural obligation to care for those in need.

Yet the “natural obligation to care for those in need” is not a “contractual obligation of justice delegated to the whole world,” yet the mandate to never “kill, or harm, and a option to own honest property” are obligatory requirements of justice to the whole world.

Natural Law is “justice” and is not “righteousness,” thus “caring for the needy is a righteous precept” yet "refraining from arbitrary violence is a just precept.”

Regarding New Testament precepts

When our Lord says
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
Also
"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full."

When we say
“Lord come into my heart, I make you Lord over my life, and I will now obey you in all things; I will love you with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.

Are we now indeed His bond-servants to obey our agreement with Him? For what is exchanged in the contract of salvation? Can we agree that its our loving obedience to Him for eternal life with our Loving Savior? Thus our agreement with Him unto salvation is a “contract” and can we agree that our “contract” or “love contract being a covenant” requires us to obey His “precepts?” Yet this is not the worlds contract but ours as Christians.

Natural Rights are homogeneous, embodied from our conception and birth, which were "contractually delegated to all people from God."

Two Contracts - The first is "Unilateral," and the second is "Voluntary and Reconciliatory"

• Natural Rights = Natural Justice for this world (just-law) - what is "justly legal or illegal"
  
• Salvation = Righteousness moves to our "right standing with God for eternity"

By Salvation we help the helpless, by Natural Rights we reject all despotism ethically.

I don't necessarily think that governments have a mandate to oblige citizens to meet each other's needs, but that's more of a discussion about whether or not "natural law/rights" can actually be enforceable by governments, even if they do exist (i.e., can you legislate motives, or only motivate a facade of ethical behavior through consequences? Whatever the act, God knows the heart.)

I agree, for you cannot ethically legislate motives, nor positions of the heart.

The only thing governments can “ethically “ protect by restraint are Natural Rights.

Therefore a just-law is “just” to react to despotic actions only.

Thus just-law can only ethically react to “a despotic action of violence that kills,” “a despotic action of violence that harms” and “a despotic action of violence to a persons property/ theft.”

If we consider the disparity between a billionaire born into wealth, and a full time minimum wage earner who cannot earn a living, there is an ethical law in there somewhere, man.

To your credit, disparity is indeed a severe problem, but I will contend that arbitrary violence in the law is a poor solution to fix it. For we have six thousand years of history offering every kind of compulsory violent solution imagined to make things ambiguously moral, fair and safe, yet no violent system of coercion has ever solved the disparity. I will argue that “more unjust violence” fused into the law, will cause more disparity; for laws that aim to “level” the disparity are “manipulated by those who control unjust law.” For unjust law is “unjust” by those who thwart it. Those that thwart it, manipulate it. Yet they cannot manipulate “just-law” for the moment they manipulate it, it is no longer just. Thus if a standard for “just-law” is beholden in society then those that cause the disparity, fail to control the law.

Unjust law “is the portal for the unjust” that is faithful to cause the disparity. For free markets unabated is that natural method by God which is void of violence. It is the disparity crusher. Yet a non-interventionist free market economy is not “fair by what is owned, but by who can own.” For in a compulsory market “who can own” is rigged by unjust law, yet in an “ethical” economy “all are on equal standing to compete.” Just-law forbids a legislated advantage, a legislated wind-fall, a legislated subsidy, and a legislated regulation for control. Just-law says that corporations are no longer an entity and that businesses are simply accountable businesses. Small business has the upper hand in a non-interventionist free market economy, yet corporations have the upper hand in a manipulated market with proposed unjust fair laws.

Yet no society will believe that a non-violent precedent is better than a violent one; for every government by societies consent invades the market place with every kind of unjust law to “take from one group and give it to another by violence,” yet when these unjust laws unravel, then by surprise amazing disparity is always the result. Why? Because those who “unjustly control unjust law” control it to their own favor.

I don't know where exactly, but it's there. The line between "acceptable personal wealth" and "outright hoarding" is of course arbitrary(ish), but at some point, a government is as culpable for being a bystander to the tragedy of poverty as it would be for the despotic act of directly seizing private property. Perhaps a practical necessity will not be an ideal ethical solution.

I agree that our goal on earth is not to hoard or build up wealth, and I believe that most of society, Christian or not, know in their heart that money is not a source of happiness or fulfillment. However the law is simply “force,” a blunt hammer that dispels violence when “that line” is crossed, which then causes “ambiguous compulsory law” to exist: for “who draws the line” and “which part of society is to receive violence from the law without consent?” For what person or power on earth is worthy to “force” property from another using violence? Ambiguous compulsory law is “unjust” for no society is in complete harmony for its existence, and many will suffer violence to property without consent.

Just-law in contrast is “just” because it condemns all arbitrary violence.

I do admit (happily) that governmental license to seize property is a slippery slope. However, I don't think that "forced sharing" is a bigger ethical problem than "passivity to hoarding amid poverty." I also don't think that disparity of wealth is a lesser tragedy than forced seizure of property. I expect, though, we will both agree that the compounded tragedy is if seizure of property is being done to reinforce the status quo of disparity, rather than addressing the real needs of the poor.

Yet scripture differentiates just action from righteous action. It also differentiates violence from Christian neglect or rebellion. I contend that “contracts are the substrates that differentiate”

• Forced sharing requires a “positive action of violence” to another person
  
  
• Seizure of property is a “positive action of violence” to another person
  
  
• Passivity to hoarding amidst poverty is “personal negligence” void of a “positive action of violence”
  
  
• Disparity of wealth is a result that will manifest in society from “positive actions of violence”

Roads you may me work for a sound rebuttal; for your reasoning is elevated.

Thank you dearly for the incredible feedback

 

[Where is the Messiah]

Because if God isn't my resource then am I really doing what He wants or what I want? I still have costs - web hoster, bandwidth usage, computers, and programs. But I'm well provided the resources to do it.

Excellent point.