Then I am in trouble. I can't recall the last time I was friendly to a beggar. If every 100th beggar to come our way was an angel, then I have met 1 000 angels here in Africa. I do what I would want done unto me. No smile, no money. Just a harsh rebuke. 'Stop this bad habbit. God did not create you to beg. Go deal with reality and get some dignity. Go fish and find land to grow a crop'.
Ethics for Supporting the Helpless in Public
- Thread starter Great Fiction
- Start date
My apologies Glomung
I was trying to understand the context, and respect your line of thinking my friend.
Are you responding to #108 and #112?
Glomung
Account Closed
Yes, those two, though more to 108 than anything else.
There has been much speculation on the nature of the harlot and beast over the years.
In my opinion, the true nature of the two will be revealed to all within the next few years.
Thank you KingJ for bringing a different and scriptural perspective my friend. I am moved by many of your posts in this forum.
I must agree quickly that the miraculous power of Christ can supersede all zoning laws, business and church regulatory intervention, yet what is our Christian duty regarding the law? Are there scriptural ethics that govern our ethical action in the realm of “justice?”
Imagine you are a “citizen” of Smith-Town, and you witness this scenario where the church nor the businesses can agree, thus how do you respond as a Christian citizen? What is our Christian ethical duty according to scripture when it comes to societal law?
Example: - Do any of these positions fit your position? You can add one or modify one of these.
I deeply respect your liberty to hold any position KingJ, for me personally, I believe in the - "Christian Natural Rights Position – benign, and rigid ethics"
Christian Pro Church Position - benign
- You “verbally” in kindness and prayer encourage the city, your neighbors and your local society to “support” the church's position because its more important than the businesses positions; yet you abstain from any kind of political action.
- You “verbally” in kindness and prayer encourage the city, your neighbors and your local society to “support” the businesses' positions because its more important than the Church's position; yet you abstain from any kind of political action.
- You politically support the church's position by voting for the church to win the public argument; you also support city-intervention with the businesses' which causes them to suffer financial loss.
- In kindness and prayer, you encourage the city, your neighbors and your local society to “support” the church's position and how you voted.
- You support public property, and support that an authoritarian presence to regulate it is justified in scripture.
- You politically support the businesses' position by voting for the businesses to win the public argument; you also support city-intervention with the church which restricts them to minister to the helpless in some capacity.
- In kindness and prayer, you encourage the city, your neighbors and your local society to “support” the businesses' position and how you voted.
- You support public property, and support that an authoritarian presence to regulate it is justified in scripture.
- You support the churches position by simply being “uninvolved” and pray for the Lord to materialize His will.
- You believe in being “non-political” on all accounts.
- Political activity is not your concern on any level.
- You give a kind grievance to the City in a public manner; you communicate it is illegitimate according to Natural Rights theory that they have any involvement with either side, and that the public street itself is predicated on violence.
- You believe the cities only role is to “respond” to despotic action; an action that will commit aggress (initiated violence” to a person or their property.
- You believe the street should be “participatory property, contractual property, or private property” in order for legitimate regulations to exist.
- You respect the law and the ruling authority as a defaulted precedent, though you challenge all law “ethically.”
- You can only vote if the party, candidate or law is void of all aggress to person or property.
- You give a kind grievance to the City in a public manner; you communicate it is illegitimate according to Natural Rights theory that they have any involvement with either side, and that the public street itself is predicated on violence.
- You believe the cities only role is to “respond” to despotic action; an action that will commit aggress (initiated violence” to a person or their property.
- You believe the street should be “participatory property, contractual property, or private property” in order for legitimate regulations to exist.
- You respect the law and the legal authority as a defaulted precedent, though you challenge all law “ethically.”
- You vote strategically for parties, candidates or laws that offer a strategy, sometimes violent, to obtain the goal of Natural Rights and a just-society.
- You verbally in kindness and prayer encourage the city, your neighbors and your local society to support the “church's” position as a priority, but are sympathetic to the businesses secondarily.
- You believe that elected Government-Rule should exist so that an authoritarian presence can lawfully intervene in order to protect Christian, traditional and family values.
- You believe that Government must protect the church from the businesses as a moral priority
- You believe that the Government must expropriate more money from citizens to finance a resolve for the businesses; to relocate them or improve city access to them without any interference to the church.
- Violence from government is morally justified, because God sanctions violence from government in the same way that God sanctioned Nebuchadnezzar to subdue the earth.
- You vote strategically for parties, candidates or laws that offer a moral strategy, sometimes violent, to obtain the goal of a moral-society.
- You verbally in kindness and prayer encourage the city, your neighbors and your local society to support a “fair” position
- You believe in elected Government-Rule should exist so that an authoritarian presence can disseminate proactive fairness with all people in society.
- You believe that Government must protect the church and businesses in equal priority, and seek a fair solution.
- You believe that the Government must expropriate more money from citizens to finance a resolve for both parties to relocate both or one of them, or improve city access to them both fairly.
- Violence from government is morally justified, because God sanctions violence from government in the same way that God sanctioned Nebuchadnezzar to subdue the earth.
- You vote strategically for parties, candidates or laws that offer a fair strategy, sometimes violent, to obtain the goal of a fair-society.
For me KingJ that would be any law that initiates, commits, or supports actions of aggress to any person who is a non-aggressor. Meaning only an “aggressor” who commits “aggress” is worthy of a reaction of “just-law.”
You put so much effort into your posts
. For a moment I thought I was studying property law 
.I agree with this one as I am sure most do.
On the one hand....If we resort to violence / hatred to drive us to remove / disregard the needs of an unsaved business entrepreneur, I believe we have failed completely at Christianity. We are here for the unsaved businesses owners and their staff as much as we are for the homeless.
On the other hand....If unfair laws are made / precedents set many unsaved will abuse this and force many churches to suffer unfairly and relocate.
It is obvious that we need a fair agreement. It is not always as simple as 'who was there first' as the church could have prospered and business suffered for reasons other then the disturbance of feeding the homeless. So hopefully we have unbiased government deciding on the matter. But that seems very unlikely these days. The unsaved want us gone. Perhaps 50 years ago business would relocate and respect the church. Nobody would want to take on God.
Yet we still need not stress. We can be confident and find peace in the fact that if 100 + members of a church decide to pray, God definitely intervenes. Whether relocating or remaining, His will, will be done. I am reminded of this verse Matt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Oh this thread still going.
I guess a bit above my head.
But i would say the first position, cos if lived in smithtown, Id probably be married and looking after my children, and my husband would be involved in the politics. But we would both be about our Fathers business. So I imagine that he would have a job in which he would be making an honest living, teaching perhaps..or computer security, or writing, or some variant. Or he might not care, cos he doesnt worship mammon. We would just ignore those people treating everyone so rough and continue shining our lights and let them go their own way if they insist on being uncharitable citizens. Or, we might just move out of town and live in the country or seaside. He would have to take up fishing or orcharding and we would just live off the land, the fat of the land.
I guess a bit above my head.
But i would say the first position, cos if lived in smithtown, Id probably be married and looking after my children, and my husband would be involved in the politics. But we would both be about our Fathers business. So I imagine that he would have a job in which he would be making an honest living, teaching perhaps..or computer security, or writing, or some variant. Or he might not care, cos he doesnt worship mammon. We would just ignore those people treating everyone so rough and continue shining our lights and let them go their own way if they insist on being uncharitable citizens. Or, we might just move out of town and live in the country or seaside. He would have to take up fishing or orcharding and we would just live off the land, the fat of the land.
Your incredibly kind KingJ
That means a lot coming from you who has invested incessantly in this forum with much scriptural wisdom
One of my closest friends also embraces this position. I also deeply respect your liberty, as your position has much in common with my own: for your answers would seek justice for both sides.
I can resonate with much of what your saying, may I offer some consideration? Yet I move to consideration in order to ponder derivation only.
Is it possible that a fair law, or any law must be “legitimate” in order for it to be “ethical?” What makes a law “legitimate?” Is it possible that “legitimacy is premised on rightful authority” which is what can make a law “ethically legitimate” and “ethical in of itself.” Thus if God's authority backs a law, it is then “legitimate” because He has the “rightful authority.” Then mankind can be “delegated that rightful authority.”
Example: If in Smith-Town, Ted the City-Councilman makes this decree, “I Ted of the city council decree that all businesses surrounding the church must pick up and move your operations this instant with a total loss, and also give all your business property to the church.” Would his “decree be legitimate” if the other city-councilman/women were not in agreement?
I think we would all quickly agree that the purpose of a city-council is to “vote” on a matter, since they were elected by the Smith-town citizens. Thus we could say that Ted the City-councilman was “illegitimate and void of proper authority to make that decree” because he was not delegated the “rightful authority” to make that decision.
However the matter grows to more consideration.
Example: If in Smith-Town, Ted and “all” of the City-Councilmen/women makes this same decree, “We the city council decree that all businesses surrounding the church must pick up and move your operations this instant with a total loss, and also give all your business property to the church.” Would the city-council's “decree be legitimate and ethical” even if they are in one accord? Well not if “property” is protected by the law for they would be illegitimate without proper authority to make that decree if property is protected. Thus they would be unethical to make that decree to the businesses.
We must ask the question “how does the city-council get “rightful authority?” Well many will say that the “rule of law (constitution or supreme mandate)" that is established provides the precedent for "just-action” with those who operate in public office. The argument would say that the “rule of law” is the source for authority: thus if the rule of law protects property, then the city-council must protect property, yet if the rule of law says they can take, manipulate, or give property, then they can make edicts regarding property as they see fit.
Therefore if Smith-town has a constitution that says the City-councilmen/women are “sovereigns” concerning property, then an argument could be made that they are “ethical to take it away or give it to another” in order to make things moral, fair or safe. However in contrast, if Smith-town has a constitution that says the City-councilmen/women are subject to its citizens regarding property, then an argument could be made that they are “unethical to take it away or give it to another” in order to make things moral, fair or safe.
Yet again more consideration must be made.
What of the “rule of law itself” what makes the “rule of law itself” legitimate? Again I would argue “rightful authority.” God is that “rightful authority” and He has given us “a few rules regarding all law:” which is “you cannot kill anyone, you cannot harm anyone and you may own honest property.” Thus if a rule of law is to be manufactured, there is a template that is given to make it.
Christian Path of Rightful Authority to “legitimate” law
- God delegates to mankind of His own accord (He owns all things)
- Mankind is given a precedent of non-aggression – you cannot kill or harm another
- Mankind is given a precedent to own honest and legitimate property (theft, force and violence to property are not supported)
- Mankind can build “human law” with these precedents in place in order to stay “legitimate.”
Now there is also the Christian Thomistic (St. Thomas Aquinas, or similar, Hugo Grotius) method using reason that does not use Gen. 9 as a deontological substrate but will “arrive via reason” to apprehend scriptural moral norms and the same “objective substrate for life, liberty and property.” They use an intellectual method mixed with scripture to arrive at the same conclusion (Aristotle the precursor).
Yet I must admit that I provide “one” path for legitimacy from scripture, it is of course not the only view and respect many different views in the body. I also respect yours my friend.
Do you feel that when a City-council makes a fair ruling that they are “legitimate” in the same way that “Nebuchadnezzar was sanctioned by God?” Meaning that God can use the just and unjust to do His bidding? I think its by this perspective that “ethics for justice” become the most complex of all, yet I build my same path of “legitimacy” yet with much greater complexity.
That sounds like an extraordinary life Lanolin. Smith-Town has become bliss.
Is it possible that all of us simply wish to be left alone to serve the Lord, love each other, work, enjoy the fruit or our labor, and enlarge the family?
Maybe this why so many move to prescription and possibility?
I think where we are all on the same page as Christians is that this kind of reality will be materialized to its fullness when our Lord and Savior returns to repossess what was delegated.
Yes I agree with you. Though only on this Smith town example. We need to discern the rebellion to God in obeying an unjust law. Relocating unjustly = turn the left cheek. Bowing to Nero, different story.
God uses the devil. So, yes definitely agree on the underlined.
It sounds really funny when you group the local city council with Nebuchadnezzar
. There is no mandate for Christians to submit to authorities that are ungodly. Neb was involved in fulfilling prophecy with the Jews. The local town council is not.
I watched a Ted Talk today that reminded me of this conversation; on the Ted Talks website, do a search for "Paul Tudor Jones II: Why we need to rethink capitalism." I expect that you will find the speaker to be a kindred spirit.
Regarding your thoughts on solutions to disparity, I agree that taxation is a less than ideal solution, and I really like that people like Jones are making efforts to encourage just decision making for corporations, as well as transparency and public input. I was even inspired to indulge in a little hope from his talk. If corporations could be persuaded to act justly, perhaps taxation will become increasingly unnecessary.
However, while taxation is (agreed) not an adequate response to disparity, I do offer a challenge to the claim that we must always think of it as "despotism" and "arbitrary violence."
To address the label of "arbitrary violence," the government has a responsibility to limit what people can do with their own property. For example, while it's legal to own a gun, it's not legal to use it to murder someone. If you do use that property to murder, the state is justified in violence as a response, in terms of the loss of your freedom. We wouldn't accuse the government of "arbitrary" violence in that very reasonable response. Similarly, if hoarding is seen as a harmful and destructive act, perhaps the government has a legitimate right to intervene to prevent people from using their property that way. Even if taxation is not the ideal solution, it is not necessarily an immoral response to a genuine problem, especially since more ideal solutions are long term, and there is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed immediately. So I don't think we should think of taxation as "arbitrary violence," but instead as one of many ethically sound short term solutions to disparity, while we progress toward more ideal long term solutions, like transparency in just decision making for corporations.
And to address the label of "despotism," if taxation is enacted by an elected government, is endorsed by the majority, and there is transparency and accountability for who is taxed, the amount taxed, and the uses of tax money, perhaps there is a more suitable word than "despotism" to describe it. Further, while taxation is unlikely to be the sole solution to disparity, it beats the historical alternative solution to gross disparity, which is violent revolution. As disparity continues to worsen, while taxation cannot solve the problem alone, it is probably one of the only things preventing actual arbitrary violence, perhaps eventuating in true despotism.
I guess I jumped on this boat a little late...
Regardless of who they are, we should help them. It's that simple, and it should be. Regardless of the law, regardless of what they are doing, we should help them.
Now the kind of help should be determined by the person that needs it. Sometimes a trip to jail is helping a guy, while sometimes giving a guy $100 is helping him. But regardless, they are humans that God created, whether they acknowledge it or not, we must love them.
Matthew 25 is pretty self explanatory for this. If we pass a begger, or any human for that matter, with anything aside from love, we fall short.
Regardless of who they are, we should help them. It's that simple, and it should be. Regardless of the law, regardless of what they are doing, we should help them.
Now the kind of help should be determined by the person that needs it. Sometimes a trip to jail is helping a guy, while sometimes giving a guy $100 is helping him. But regardless, they are humans that God created, whether they acknowledge it or not, we must love them.
Matthew 25 is pretty self explanatory for this. If we pass a begger, or any human for that matter, with anything aside from love, we fall short.
Capitalism is by far the best economy ever, bar none. Just like America. But... you knew one was coming... it only ONLY works correctly when the society, and those that representing society, are honest and decent - or enough of them to keep those that are not in check. Without honesty and decency, capitalism is THE worst, bar none, economy. So, to say it's "good" or "bad" is irrelevant since it depends on its people. That's my secular view of economics 
Ive lived thru both systems.. Under left wing and right wing govts, working in public and private sector. Where it gets confusing is when ppl try and mix the two up.
I would agree if the people are honest and decent, both ways can work, but when they not, everyone is worse off because absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Its Animal Farm all over again. Just goes round and round. Stop the world, I want to get off.
I would agree if the people are honest and decent, both ways can work, but when they not, everyone is worse off because absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Its Animal Farm all over again. Just goes round and round. Stop the world, I want to get off.
I will agree that Mr. Paul Tudor Jones has a kindred spirit and is also well intentioned, however I must remain in direct disagreement with his “ethical positions” which propose that income inequality can be “driven to correction by social justice” which will derive from “Socially-Just Corporate Behavior.”
Instead, I will contend that justice is “Natural Rights Theory” which derives from “Natural Law.” Justice is only possible through “legitimate property ownership” delegated by God; for what God has given to mankind, no man is legitimate to take away by violence. Justice is that legitimate ownership which God has delegated, which causes us as each individual man and woman to be a freewill “vicegerent.” We are delegated as owners of our own life, liberty and property before all men and women on earth and only God is “just” to interfere with His own delegation.
Thus if compulsory “social justice” is supported in an index promoted by Mr. Jones, then that index cannot be “ethically just” but can only be an index of wretched “social-justice” which is not justice at all but instead “voluntary corporate benevolence” or “compulsory unjust redistribution anchored by legislated violence.”
Can we agree that “true corporate unjust activity” (violence to person and property) is realized on every side because of existing “unjust legal plunder” which thrashes “Natural Rights Theory;” for the same laws that expropriate the individual through taxation are the same medley of laws that enable the corporate behemoth to trample? Therefore more compulsory social justice will empower larger tramples and lead to more “revolutions, furthering higher taxation and perpetual wars.”
I can agree that Mr. Jones, like Mr. John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods believes in a concept of “Conscious Capitalism,” which will often focus on “operational excellence, consideration of others, benevolence, and behavioral business practices.” I am quick to stand with you that both of these men want to make society better by offering “in-built voluntary standards” for other businesses to emulate, yet “ethics in the confines of justice” is a totally separate matter; for “ethical justice” is not about kindness, benevolence, income inequality, fairness, consideration, or how much money a company makes. “Ethical Justice” is about a line that separates initiated “violence” from “non-violence,” and “self-defense” regarding a person and their property.
Let us be in agreement that “capitalism is just” and that “corporatism is primarily unjust;” for corporatism widely depends upon “immoral intervention” to exist.
Can we agree that corporations today do their damage across the world because they are “unjust” and operate in the confines of “legal-plunder?” Can we agree that if all businesses had no choice but to operate by Natural Law/Natural Rights, then the world would be a much better place? Yet no perfect society is advocated; for no perfect society is possible without Him who is perfect.
If a man approaches another and commits an act of violence, the threat of violence, or uses coercive force to expropriate property, is that not despotism?
What if there was an island where there were twenty people; sixteen were blond-headed and four were red-headed. Is it just for the blond-headed people to use a threat of violence to take a percentage of the fish caught from the red-heads simply because they have a majority? Can we agree that arbitrary majoritarianism is evil because it abandons ethics and justice?
How can expropriation by violence ever be seen as “ethically good” according to scripture? Does Christ or Paul “ethically endorse taxation as being good” or do they “tolerate it to strategy to prevent offense from despots in order to spread the gospel?” For I too pay all taxes required of me unto strategic submission, yet I condemn taxation ethically as theft secured by the threat of violence and we all are witnesses that unpaid taxation certainly materializes to violence actuated.
Thus we must pay taxes by scriptural strategy, yet taxation is in of itself is “immoral.” It is the same when all Natural Rights are thrashed, and it is by the leadership of the Spirit that we are able to navigate this world of despotism; first unto survival and then unto successful dissemination of the gospel.
Roads I understand the direction of this comment, for you would say that there is a just-role for the State, yet it is here in this sentence that “all ethics from Natural Law may be discovered,” yet it is by another question that will zero in on the discovery my good friend.
“Who will limit,” and by what “legitimate authority will they limit?”
Majoritarian authority is unjust authority because it contradicts what God has delegated; for an individual cannot take away another persons legitimate property “justly.” Thus what kind of State is “just” and operates by “legitimate authority?” I will contend, only a State that has a “just apparatus of law,” or “natural law” where the individual is “sovereign over their life, liberty and property.” Only God ranks higher.
I am with you here in totality my friend; for murder is a “violent trespass of Natural Rights.” Thus the apparatus of just-law” is “just” to engage a person who commits the violent act of murder. Thus according to Natural Law, “murder should be illegal.”
Yet according to Natural Rights Theory the non-aggressive hoarder “owns himself also” and no other person may interfere with his own-self “except God,” and no person on earth has a “natural right” to interfere with the non-aggressive hoarder unless the hoarder trespasses upon another persons life, liberty or property.
According to Natural Rights Theory, If the hoarder hoards a pile of debris that falls over on top of his neighbor, causing his neighbor injury, then the hoarder is now an “aggressor” by volitional negligence and may be engaged by an apparatus of “just-law” for compensation.
Yet also if a neighbor sees the pile growing near his property line, he then may see the pile as a “tangible threat” and may secure a lawsuit by arbitration to force the pile removed.
However if laws comes from majoritarianism that says, all or some hoarding is against the law, then those laws are illegitimate because there is no “just-authority” to make laws that interfere with Natural Rights. For it is in the actionable violation of Natural Rights and in the arbitration process that the apparatus of just-law may operate with proper reaction.
Your benevolent and kindred spirit is evident in every post, yet ethics would be blind to it when compulsory methodologies is called for. Your heart for a solve is extraordinary, yet is there a way my friend that I can persuade you that all infection awaits its own opportunity to spread in the body to kill it. For if ethics is abandoned for a proposed injection of money stolen from some, the injection becomes polluted and contaminated. Those who expropriate must be violent to take, and with a violent extraction, the things taken are no longer good.
What person is ethically legitimate to “take by force” another persons or group of persons property using violence, or by using the threat of violence? Who has the authority to legitimize violence against an innocent non-aggressor? Where in scripture are we allowed to support any kind of aggress of any kind?
The best cases of “brief” disparity-disintegration in world history are where markets were radically free (the U.S. does not have radically free markets any more). I will contend also that a non-interventionist free market economy (which we have never had) would deplete disparity by even greater margins than histories best statistics. I also would contend that all cases of morbid disparity in world history are predicated on interventionist systems and compulsory monopolies by illegitimate forces who were able to thwart the law to unjust perversions.
Either “justice” is a subjective arbitrary line shifting on the whims of authoritative and Socialistic forces, or it is based on “ethics in Natural Law;” ethics that derive from Genesis 1 & 9 or by reason, where no person or groups of persons are ethically “justified” to take another persons legitimate property by means of arbitrary violence.
Is it possible that morbid disparity solidifies “when some advantaged groups are able to take property unjustly by means of economic violence?”
Unethical Majoritarianism uses a variant of utilitarian ethics which will subjectively leverage coercion for a proposed goodly thing, which in time engineers morbid disparity. Here is an analogy to simplify the compulsory coercive methodology.
On an island of 20 people, Jane walks out in her front yard and sees a small teenager Sally getting assaulted by a large stronger man named Brutus. Brutus using force, robs Sally by taking her picked berries, while also harming her physically and continually. Jane, a small-framed and delicate lady witnessing the attack is no match to stop Brutus physically, so she goes next door to get Gunner who is a strong and athletic man, and asks him to to stop Brutus. Gunner then says with little remorse, its not really my problem, but I am willing to help if you are willing to pay me a wage to stop Brutus. Jane thinking quick on her feet goes next door to her other neighbor, who is a wealthy ninety year old frail man named Earl, and says to Earl, I need money to pay Gunner in order to help Sally! Earl being a greedy miser then says no, and shuts the door firmly. Still with energy and still witnessing Sally across the street being harmed, Jane frantically goes to another neighbor Susan who lives next door to the old man Earl. Jane in her excitement explains to Susan the problem. Susan then quickly says she can help. Susan goes back next door to the old man Earl and pulls out a weapon, and at gun-point robs Earl of enough money to solve the immediate violence. She takes the money to Gunner who then eliminates Brutus the aggressor from harming further the teenager Sally.
Now in the aftermath, several people on the island realize that people like Brutus are capable of violence, so they all “vote by a majority to hire Gunner on a regular bases,” but also by “robbing Earl on a regular bases;” for Earl is not in agreement to “contribute” his property freely, thus the majority must “take it.” This compulsory method in the real world not only robs Earl but in time also Jane, Susan, Sally, Gunner, and Brutus, but for other reasons besides protection where its not Gunner who is hired but another person or groups who are formulated and selected by elites; thus corporatism is born. As corporate structures materialize they commandeer the “monetary allocation and robbery process” unto themselves. Once the robbery matures it then is able to to elevate the level of disparity. With each new interventionist ideology, a new robbery perpetuates the disparity. In time corporatism monopolizes every sector of an economy. Only ethics from Natural Rights Theory can combat it and its the only method which is corporatism's natural enemy; for ethics is in enmity with organized robbery.
Natural Rights and the Ethical Method
All violence is “scripturally and ethically immoral” even robbing Earl the greedy miser, and the only “ethical method” is for all “participating people” to contractually allocate their “own voluntarily exchanged means or money” to Gunner, where in turn Gunner is obligatory now to “protect those who participated in his contract of reactive protection.” By voluntary agreement Gunner has a contractual burden to fend off or neutralize any aggression that comes from Brutus or those like him. This voluntary method is an ethical method. In our real world there would be “thousands of Gunners (police)” to fend off the thousands of Brutus' (would be criminals of violence).”
Yet what of Sally the teenager, what if Sallies parents are not financially able to hire Gunner? It then becomes an opportunity by “participating society” to hire Gunner to defend her as well, which is also one of the primary obligatory requirements of Christians, which is to push back despotism and defend the innocent. Yet robbing Earl is not a scriptural requirement, opportunity, or permissible action for non-violent Christians to leverage, support, finance or endorse “ethically.” For we are to be “harmless as doves” to all non-aggressors, whether they are a hoarder or a prostitute. Christ warded off the compulsory Pharisees to protect the adulteress but also challenged her to sin no more; Christ did not endorse “arbitrary violence from the Pharisees.”
Thus the non-aggressive hoarder and non-aggressive miser are not scripturally afforded to us to be our targeted recipients of majoritarian violence; for we can only use strategic defensive violence in protecting the innocent from the despot who uses aggression. According to Natural Rights Theory, only if the hoarder or miser trespasses against life, liberty or property can we as Christians or citizens “ethically support the law” to engage that person. Even further, as a citizen we are also bound to the same rules of justice using “reason” to ascertain moral objective precepts in the Thomistic tradition; for reason will construct the same substrate that Genesis 1 & 9 will construct, and we as Christians all contend that God is also the author of reason.
Last edited:
I must agree quickly with your position for helping the helpless my friend.
Do you feel that the law should be used to "force" benevolence or do you believe it should be voluntary unto choosable action?
Capitalism is by far the best economy ever, bar none. Just like America. But... you knew one was coming... it only ONLY works correctly when the society, and those that representing society, are honest and decent - or enough of them to keep those that are not in check. Without honesty and decency, capitalism is THE worst, bar none, economy. So, to say it's "good" or "bad" is irrelevant since it depends on its people. That's my secular view of economics
"it only ONLY works correctly when the society, and those that representing society, are honest and decent"
Your line using the word "only" is highly significant to point out that interpersonal integrity is not just an ingredient but the very ethical fabric of Capitalism itself.
I have witnessed on many forums where "Capitalism" is statistically evaluated unto good or bad findings, yet Capitalism should never be measured statistically for its acceptance; for Capitalism is the "only" ethical economic system.
examples:
Capitalism - Is the honest, ethical and voluntary exchange from one person to another.
Socialism - Is the dishonest, unethical and compulsory exchange managed by illegitimate authority.
Capitalism - Exists when honesty, ethics and voluntary decision is actionable.
Socialism - Exists when when robbery, legal plunder and involuntary decision is mandated.
Capitalism - Disappears in every place Corporatism appears.
Corporatism - Disappears when Capitalism is protected by Natural Rights.
Capitalism - Does not use ethics, "it is ethical, just and honest exchange"
Corporatism - Abandons ethics and creates injustice
Capitalism - Is free of intervention
Interventionism - Interferes with Capitalism upon unjust grounds
If Capitalism goes amiss to do anything unjust, then its not Capitalism
Capitalism is two people who agree to trade one thing for another without authoritarian forces punitively harming them to do it.
If a Capitalist harms another then they are not a Capitalist, they are a criminal
Capitalism does not go terribly wrong, instead when the economy goes terribly wrong, Capitalism was abandoned
Capitalism is the "only" ethical economic system supported by Natural Rights Theory
Do you consider "left" to be public and "right" to be private?
What if "left" and "right" were instead dispositional toward conservative and liberal variants, then also mixed with various orders and intervention?
I like John Dalberg Acton's scepticism, for it points to the dangers of despotism
Orwellian transfigurations of power is surely a daily reality upon the earth today, yet I remain optimistic that we as a society will embrace ethics, peace and non-aggression. I also believe the body of Christ will lead the way.
Glomung
Account Closed
To quote Benito Musselini " fascism should properly be called corporatism, for that is what it is".
The main cause for the income disparity we see in the modern world is the punitive taxation and regulation of the "little guy".
And to compound the issue you have inflation, which in essence is a tax on consumers.
The main cause for the income disparity we see in the modern world is the punitive taxation and regulation of the "little guy".
And to compound the issue you have inflation, which in essence is a tax on consumers.
Right is conservative, and left is liberal thats commonly known.
But also public and private. In my country anyway. We had a welfare state that once looked after all nzers from cradle to grave, from the left leaning govt. this was paid for by our taxes..and mostly through subisidies from england cos of the wool industry. There was enough for everyone.
But now, due to the new economics i think its neo conservatism...they want to dismantle this and just have unlimited free trade and no welfare state cos its meant to be everyone make their own money. This is the right wing govt, which is now currently in power.
In the 80 s stuff happened to our country that opened it up and we lost a lot of revenue because england basically stopped buying our wool..we had to diversify. They were our bread and butter. Dairy also...and because of refrigeration and air travel, beef and lamb. Now its tourism and education and lifestyle that attract foreigners, also wine industry become big.
I dont really like the way our country been governed but then nobody really does...atleast its not as corrupt as others and peaceful. The baby boomers got the best out of it. My generation, not so much...even though theres affluence, now theres more poverty as well.
But also public and private. In my country anyway. We had a welfare state that once looked after all nzers from cradle to grave, from the left leaning govt. this was paid for by our taxes..and mostly through subisidies from england cos of the wool industry. There was enough for everyone.
But now, due to the new economics i think its neo conservatism...they want to dismantle this and just have unlimited free trade and no welfare state cos its meant to be everyone make their own money. This is the right wing govt, which is now currently in power.
In the 80 s stuff happened to our country that opened it up and we lost a lot of revenue because england basically stopped buying our wool..we had to diversify. They were our bread and butter. Dairy also...and because of refrigeration and air travel, beef and lamb. Now its tourism and education and lifestyle that attract foreigners, also wine industry become big.
I dont really like the way our country been governed but then nobody really does...atleast its not as corrupt as others and peaceful. The baby boomers got the best out of it. My generation, not so much...even though theres affluence, now theres more poverty as well.
Very interesting information Lanolin
Heritage ranks New Zealand in the top 3 economically free countries in the world in 2015, and you have a 0.9 point increase from last year. Very impressive growth.
http://www.heritage.org/index/
Are you witnessing economic growth? Is it aggressive growth or subtle?
Is it hard to start a business? Is there a lot of red tape or is it fairly hassle free to start a business?