Augustine2004's opinions on Lew Rockwell, Plato, and assorted other subjects

[technomage]

Right, she is losing the right to her property (her body) without her consent and I am losing the right to my property (my money) without my consent.

Property is not a guaranteed right--at least not one listed in the preamble of our Constitution. And to attempt to conflate a person's liberty with "her property (her body)" is not only wildly inaccurate (technically, a red herring), but downright delusional. If you got that analogy from someone else, they need slapped upside the head with a red herring--preferrably a dead, smelly one.

[Philosophickle]

Property is not a guaranteed right--at least not one listed in the preamble of our Constitution.

I don't get my idea of morality from the constitution. But yes, my argument certainly depends on the validity of private property which not all are willing to admit. It is my belief that my body is my property to do what I want with unless it infringes upon someone else's rights.

And to attempt to conflate a person's liberty with "her property (her body)" is not only wildly inaccurate (technically, a red herring), but downright delusional.

Personal liberty follows from personal property.

[Amazing Rando]

Rando, I hate to tell you this--but tax resistance (even "by issue" tax resistance) violates Matt 22:21.

Perhaps- the "Render unto Caesar" passage is so enigmatic though. It's so famous because it can be (legitimately) taken a variety of ways depending on the theological precept one wishes to stress. Perhaps more to the point (and less enigmatic) would be Romans 13:7.

It's not a form of resistance I would undertake, but I can't speak for Phil. Maybe he's coming from a different place than I am.

The practice of war tax resistance, I've learned, is a lot more common than you might think. Those who practice it generally donate the portion they've withheld (usually a percentage of owed income tax equal to the percentage of the federal budget set aside for military expenditure) and donate it to life-affirming causes. The recent film Stranger Than Fiction highlighted the practice.

[Trout]

I'm with you, Phil.

It's an uphill battle though. Few will understand the implications of what you're trying to convey.

[Amazing Rando]

Phil- have you actually engaged in war tax resistance? I'd be very interested in hearing of your experiences if you have.

[Philosophickle]

Phil- have you actually engaged in war tax resistance? I'd be very interested in hearing of your experiences if you have.

No. I've protested nearly everything you could think of at nearly any venue you could imagine, but I had never heard of war tax resistance until you had linked it.

[technomage]

Perhaps- the "Render unto Caesar" passage is so enigmatic though.

Rando, my friend, if you feel that the passage is enigmatic, then I am forced to posit that you do so from your own desire to avoid the issue, rather than from any actual lack of clarity in the passage.

Taken solely on its face value: Jesus did not make any argument over whether or not the taxes "justly" belonged to Caesar, nor did he comment on whether or not the txes were used for "moral" purposes. He ignored those issues as insignificant, just as he ignored the issue of whether or not it was idolatrous to pay for the taxes with a coin with Caesar's image on it. These issues were, to him, utterly insignificant--he simply said "Pay it."

[technomage]

But yes, my argument certainly depends on the validity of private property which not all are willing to admit.

OK, so what makes the argument valid? You can re-define "life, liberty, and happiness" as springing from a more fundamental right (private property), but a simple redefinition does not suffice: what's the logic behind the change of definition?

[Amazing Rando]

Rando, my friend, if you feel that the passage is enigmatic, then I am forced to posit that you do so from your own desire to avoid the issue, rather than from any actual lack of clarity in the passage.

Taken solely on its face value: Jesus did not make any argument over whether or not the taxes "justly" belonged to Caesar, nor did he comment on whether or not the txes were used for "moral" purposes. He ignored those issues as insignificant, just as he ignored the issue of whether or not it was idolatrous to pay for the taxes with a coin with Caesar's image on it. These issues were, to him, utterly insignificant--he simply said "Pay it."

I meant "enigmatic" as in multifaceted. Jesus had more in mind when he said that than just "you should pay your taxes!" If that was the only message that passage is trying to convey, he would have said so plainly. He would have answered "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar" with a simple "yes." I'd agree with you that's a part of what he had in mind (since according to the Sermon on the Mount we're to give to whoever asks of us, even in the case of unjust oppressors), but there's more to it, not the least of which is hugely contentious issue of exactly what belongs to Caesar versus what belongs to God.

As a testimony to the passage's ambiguity, look at what the Pharisees charged Jesus with at his trial- "Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23:1-2)
The Pharisees believed that Jesus was opposed to paying taxes to Caesar based on what he had just said to them in Luke 20:25. I think (based on other grounds) that they were wrong, but this passage is so multifaceted that the Pharisees came away hearing the opposite of what Jesus had probably intended to convey.

If you're trying to make a point about paying taxes, I'd suggest another passage, precisely because the paying taxes issue (even though it is real and present in this text) often gets overshadowed by the other theological baggage present in the passage. That's why I referenced Rom. 13:7, which is more directly to the point.

[technomage]

I meant "enigmatic" as in multifaceted.

For a multi-faceted statement to be true, all facets should be true.

As a testimony to the passage's ambiguity, look at what the Pharisees charged Jesus with at his trial- "Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23:1-2)

Rando, you cannot take what the text claims was a false accusation as an accurate analysis of Jesus' teachings.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know, a few inches off on rail tracks seems to be a smaller problem than a housing bubble or the Great Depression.

It's very critical for getting supplies from one end to the country to the other. If you don't have a standard transportation system that can cheaply and efficiently deliver goods from one end to the other, you have a rise in cost and unnecessary transportation, which can lead to a depression. So a standard transportation system is critical to a healthy economy. One of the major issues I can find with private companies building roadways is that you wouldn't have those same consistent standards across the board. Roads in some areas might be twice as thick as in others, in addition, road signs in California could be far different than ones in Arizona or New York, which could lead to more accidents because people are trying to figure out what a sign means. So having a standard that is governed by a nation wide body is critical to a working road system, even private industry often creates organizations to over see standards across a given product company to company and area to area. So regs are not always a bad thing.

It seems as if the free market could easily correct all those problems. As soon as riding a train becomes too risky, people would look for other venues. That would force railroad companies to improve standards.

Yet, they didn't or they tried to hide it from the public. Of course, it was actually a public outcry that made the government step in and make these rules. Plus much of the public was also unaware that technologies existed that could help with safety. (Also, in the 19th century, you really little choice besides the railroad, wagons and horses were the only other form of transportation, and they took far longer.)

But even if some people were dying working on trains, it doesn't seem like it is the feds place to keep people from causing harm to their own body if they are of sound mind. Should the govt. tell us what to eat, or tell us we can no longer smoke or play sports because of damage we could cause to our bodies?

If you haven't noticed, people tend to not think about their own safety or sometimes just assume that it's taken care of, even if it's not. Why do we need to have speed limit signs? Shouldn't you know not to know 75 now a residential neighborhood? You should, yet people get caught everyday speeding. Wearing a seat belt is another example. Let us also take the time element into consideration, how much time do you have to research all the various modes of transportation to figure out what one is safest? Also, how do you know these companies are not simply lying to you and telling you something that isn't true? So shouldn't' we have some kind of outside agency to be sure that companies remain honest and be sure they don't screw over their customers (because yes, many of them will and have been caught doing it too).

I thank you for your kind responses thus far. If you want me to take this to another thread I will. But the OP person doesn't seem to be around any longer, so maybe it doesn't matter.

That is because I feel you are worth my time, respectful, and in edition give some good feed back. Respect is an earned thing and as of now, you've more than earned it. If you'd like, go ahead but I don't mind continuing in this thread just so long others don't mind.

[lilpixieofterror]

LilPixie is wrong about the railroads. The government was involved, especially during the Lincoln administration and afterwards. The industry would not have evolved the way it did otherwise.

I said the government stepped in because railroads were not doing what they should be nor did I say one word about the time frame. Maybe you should try paying attention?

As to the issue of desertion rather than do an immoral action, I don’t understand why it’s immoral to break a contract in order to avoid doing an immoral act. Suppose you were working for a company, and out of the blue your boss orders to murder someone. What would you do?

Too bad that when you join the military you know that you are going to go to a war with a real possibility you might have to shoot somebody, eh? If you don't want to shoot somebody, don't join the military. But calling us immoral when it was those 'immoral acts' that gave you the right to say it in the first place is absurd. We don't go out and just shoot people at random, there are a lot of rules and regs to follow before you can actually shoot somebody and people have got in some serious trouble for not following those rules and shooting when they shouldn't of. It would do a great service with your credibility to actually study military law and take a close look at the law of armed conflict before you believe whatever other people tell you.

[Amazing Rando]

For a multi-faceted statement to be true, all facets should be true.

I think they are. But I approach the text with very different faith convictions than you do.

Rando, you cannot take what the text claims was a false accusation as an accurate analysis of Jesus' teachings.

I don't. But I take it to witness to the inherent ambiguity of Jesus' response. It is that ambiguity that makes it so famous and memorable. The Pharisees missed the boat and understood precisely the opposite of what Jesus wanted them to hear because they did not have ears to hear.

[Augustine2004]

I said the government stepped in because railroads were not doing what they should be nor did I say one word about the time frame. Maybe you should try paying attention?

Maybe it occurred the way you say it did. I will have to do some research. How do you know, though, that the railroad companies would not have eventually gotten their acts together on their own?

Too bad that when you join the military you know that you are going to go to a war with a real possibility you might have to shoot somebody, eh? If you don't want to shoot somebody, don't join the military. But calling us immoral when it was those 'immoral acts' that gave you the right to say it in the first place is absurd. We don't go out and just shoot people at random, there are a lot of rules and regs to follow before you can actually shoot somebody and people have got in some serious trouble for not following those rules and shooting when they shouldn't of. It would do a great service with your credibility to actually study military law and take a close look at the law of armed conflict before you believe whatever other people tell you.

OK, let’s say you’re a German solider while Germany was busy conquering Poland. You just got incontrovertible evidence that some of Hitler’s henchmen had manufactured the casus belli that started the Poland invasion. Well, then?

[technomage]

How do you know, though, that the railroad companies would not have eventually gotten their acts together on their own?

It is impossible to know that they would not have. The point, however, is not whether or not they would have done so eventually--the point is that they were not doing so, and that failure was already causing logistics problems for the country.