Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    So let's imagine that some pinko-liberal-Christian Democrats sweep the three branches of government and decide that, going forward, everyone starts out with $100,000 in the bank. Every 50 years, whether you like it or not, we reset and everyone gets $100,000 in the bank again. Moreover, any outstanding debts are cleared every 10 years and you can't refuse a debt just because you know the decade is ending soon.

    The howls of "Communism!" would be undying, would they not? "Forced redistribution!" would be on the lips of just about every card-carrying capitalist -- and rightly so. You're twisting around here trying to fit Israelite law into a system that better fits the current Conservative economic platform but it can't be done: ancient Israelite law, at least as its written in Scripture, is much, much more distributionist than anything we have or has been proposed by politicians today.
    God was in charge - not a bunch of so-called pinko-liberal-Christian Democrats.

    In God we trust - Democrats, not so much!


    And I don't think you can actually use "Christian" and "Democrat" in the same sentence.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to comment on Deut 15.

      Edit: So you just did. Excellent.
      I did?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        God was in charge - not a bunch of so-called pinko-liberal-Christian Democrats.

        In God we trust - Democrats, not so much!


        And I don't think you can actually use "Christian" and "Democrat" in the same sentence.
        Yes, that's the last refuge: it was redistribution mandated and enforced through the State but it was a theocratic policy and that makes it different.

        That doesn't seem particularly strong to me — really, it seems like a dodge when tied to an argument that redistributing wealth today from the "deserving rich" to the "undeserving poors" would be necessarily immoral. But if it's not necessarily immoral, one has to explain why it would be immoral in a particular instance, say through progressive taxation or higher minimum wage law. And that's a much heavier lift.

        At the very least, at least we can agree that statements like "taxation is theft" are not to be taken seriously.
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post

          Wealth being given from the rich to the poor isn't redistribution?


          If there is something we're missing, presumably you will eventually spit it out. Otherwise one can only conclude that you have nothing of substance to raise as an objection, and are merely stalling with an terrible excuse.
          I'm tired of trying to explain this to you and Sam. Maybe you will listen to actual ancient Jewish law scholars instead:

          Source: Windows Onto Jewish Legal Culture: Fourteen Exploratory Essays


          These verses mandate that monetary assistance be provided to the poor. The Torah recognizes that the giver may resist doing so out of concern that, due to the forthcoming Sabbatical year remission of loans, any money lent out will be forfeited, and seeks to allay these concerns by promising that all the giver's endeavors will be blessed. Clearly, then, the precept in question refers to assistance in the form of a loan, which is subject to remission, rather than an outright gift, which is not affected by the law of debt remission. Moreover, the Hebrew verb translated as "you shall surely lend him"— haavet taavitenu—is derived from the root av"t, meaning 'collateral,' something given to the lender as a pledge that the loan will be repaid.

          That is, the literal meaning of the verse is "you shall take collateral against the loan you are obligated to grant him." And indeed, this is how the great medieval exegete R. Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it: "you shall give him [something that is] yours in exchange for his collateral. And [the meaning of ] "taavitenu" is "accept his collateral."Th What, then, is the essence of the assistance that is rendered to the needy by loaning them money? A loan will provide effective aid only if the borrower is prepared to keep his nose to the grindstone and use the loan productively, so that he can both repay the loan and benefit from its potential fruits. If the borrower tries to benefit from the loan immediately, it is likely that when the time for repayment comes, he will be left with nothing, or more likely, with a loan he cannot repay. Granted, a borrower struggling to repay a loan can rely on the fact that it will ultimately be remitted and thus transformed, in effect, into a donation; but this will not occur until the Sabbatical year, and does not relieve the borrower of the responsibility to work hard to pay off the loan in the intervening years. Loans, like gleanings, forgotten produce, and corners of the field, provide the needy with effective assistance only to the extent that the beneficiaries themselves actively work to reap the benefits in question.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Deut. 15 was NOT wealth distribution. Period. And no, I am not going to do your homework for you again. If you are serious enough, you will look the rest up youself. Or am I asking too much from you?
          "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam
            The debt-slave isn't necessarily working on land his family already owns, nor would his labor necessarily benefit his extended family. Certainly, it's not the same kind of labor that a farmer exercises of his own free will to bring forth a harvest. The man owes a debt and offers to pay for that debt through his (or a family member's) sustenance labor — that's a debt-slave. And while Israelite slaves were to be treated significantly differently than foreign slaves, they were not treated as one might treat an employee. Exodus 21:
            Yes the debt slave IS working on land that is already owned by his family. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge how Jubilee works is not my problem. You can try to shift this any way you like. The fact of the matter is, there was no redistribution of wealth here or in the Deuteronomy passage you three like to throw around.

            Originally posted by Sam
            On the topic of "slavery today," you're going to have to explain what you mean. There are many different types of slavery today. If you're referring to the chattel slavery ended by the Civil War, I think you're ignoring the ways that slavery continued in the form of share-cropping, "company store" model labor camps and other examples of slavery-in-all-but name.
            You were the one that brought up the term "slave" in the ANE as being "semantic". Why would I have to explain that to you? There was nothing semantic about the term. There were clear definitions involved.

            Originally posted by Sam
            If there was no indication that Israelites ever punished same-sex unions as a matter of practice (and come to think of, I'm not aware of any historical verification on that), would the Deuteronomical or Levitical strictures against homosexuality be irrelevant to a discussion of same-sex marriage? Somehow, I find it hard to imagine that folks who use those verses as a proof-text would decide that they are irrelevant absent clear historical evidence of their use.
            I have no idea what your point is. We have historical data that shows the ANE view on homosexuality in practice. You are comparing apples and oranges here.
            Last edited by Jesse; 03-22-2015, 01:45 PM.
            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              Yes, that's the last refuge: it was redistribution mandated and enforced through the State but it was a theocratic policy and that makes it different.


              That doesn't seem particularly strong to me — really
              Well, of COURSE, cause you're mind's already made up!

              it seems like a dodge when tied to an argument that redistributing wealth today from the "deserving rich" to the "undeserving poors" would be necessarily immoral.
              Where have I ever made that claim, Sam?

              But if it's not necessarily immoral, one has to explain why it would be immoral in a particular instance, say through progressive taxation or higher minimum wage law. And that's a much heavier lift.

              At the very least, at least we can agree that statements like "taxation is theft" are not to be taken seriously.
              Perhaps you should argue this with somebody who has actually made a claim that this is "immoral".
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Yes, that's the last refuge: it was redistribution mandated and enforced through the State but it was a theocratic policy and that makes it different.

                That doesn't seem particularly strong to me — really, it seems like a dodge when tied to an argument that redistributing wealth today from the "deserving rich" to the "undeserving poors" would be necessarily immoral. But if it's not necessarily immoral, one has to explain why it would be immoral in a particular instance, say through progressive taxation or higher minimum wage law. And that's a much heavier lift.

                At the very least, at least we can agree that statements like "taxation is theft" are not to be taken seriously.
                For the record, I ACCIDENTALLY amen'd this foolishness.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I did?
                  Do try to be aware of what the context is when you're quoting.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                    I'm tired of trying to explain this to you and Sam.
                    You have explained nothing re: Deut 15, only made assertions and tried to cast doubt.

                    And look: here you are again quoting authorities that doesn't make your case

                    Deut. 15 was NOT wealth distribution. Period. And no, I am not going to do your homework for you again. If you are serious enough, you will look the rest up youself. Or am I asking too much from you?
                    Jesse: here you have shown yourself incapable of proper argument. You merely assert, and claim that your opponents aren't doing the homework and that you're "tired of explaining". When backed to the wall you quote chunks of texts from authorities in place of actually verbalising and defending an argument.

                    Deut 15 is wealth distribution. Nothing in what you cited contradicts the facts that people are mandated to loan money to the poor which will often become a gift due to remission of the debt every seventh year- as God himself recognised. In spite of this God still commanded his people to give freely to the poor.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      You can call it that if you wish, but it's GOOFY to try to tie that to redistribution as we know it today.
                      It certainly isn't FORCED redistribution.
                      Do realise that the part of my post you quoted was talking about the relevant passages in Deut 15, which was Law mandated by God.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Do try to be aware of what the context is when you're quoting.
                        I'm not even in the post, your petulency. DO try to be aware of who you're addressing.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          Do realise that the part of my post you quoted was talking about the relevant passages in Deut 15, which was Law mandated by God.
                          What is this - your attempt to save face from your prior error?
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            That doesn't seem particularly strong to me — really, it seems like a dodge when tied to an argument that redistributing wealth today from the "deserving rich" to the "undeserving poors" would be necessarily immoral.
                            To be fair I don't recall Cow Poke having argued anywhere that forced wealth redistribution is immoral. But it is a reasonable conclusion to come to, given that he was digging in his heels to not recognise that redistribution was a reasonable interpretation of Jubilee because he thought it was to be used to support Obama's policies or some other.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              I'm not even in the post, your petulency. DO try to be aware of who you're addressing.
                              You quoted that post in this post of yours, dumbass.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                To be fair I don't recall Cow Poke having argued anywhere that forced wealth redistribution is immoral. But it is a reasonable conclusion to come to, given that he was digging in his heels to not recognise that redistribution was a reasonable interpretation of Jubilee because he thought it was to be used to support Obama's policies or some other.
                                DRAT! I amen'd this post before realizing it was yet another load of jackassery.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                388 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X