Is the redistribution of wealth and resources just to alleviate poverty?

[LeafByNiggle]

So government is already deeply into the fairness game. THIS THEY SHOULD NOT BE. So even though it may be so does not make it right or just.

So I guess you would be I favor of letting homeless people homestead in what are now public parks. It was government that set this land aside for the common good, but that should not have been done because it was government acting outside its proper role, according to you.

 

[hazcompat]

Forgive all debt (poor man bail out), stop taxing income.

Peace

 

[tabycat]

When parents see their children being greedy, the parents will often intervene and coerce the children to share. Some kids never grow up, and remain greedy their whole life; that’s when government should step in and tax.

LOVE!

Are you saying that you think the government should be a ‘nanny state’ and come in and judge who has not ‘grown up’? Should the government step in and make children grow up?

 

[JoeFreedom]

You are insinuating that I am a heartless person, worthy of hell and that all of my thoughts and actions are unjust, ungodly, cruel and without moral truth simply because I express the opinion that the government should not dictate how much I give and that the proper role of government should not involve forced coercion in this manner.

I’m sorry I even started this. I’m not going to convince you otherwise and you me. Else we could post here ad infinitum, and I honestly don’t have the time nor the energy to wage into a written battle of ideas, not knowing whom I am facing, other than some screen name.

I actually joined this forum to deepen my faith and ask questions to broaden my understanding of the gospel, the truth and the teachings of Jesus, so that I may grow in the Lord. Unfortunately, I was tempted back into the lure of politics, of which I have decidedly given up simply because our peoples are too polarized at the moment to even consider rational* debate, and that the way back to prosperity is not a nation of men, but a nation of laws. It also needs to get back to Christ, and thus His Word is unfathomably more important than winning any war in politics, and once we all come back to Him, our nation and our world will be a much better place.

*I’m not saying you are irrational, however, I’m saying I made a mistake in even delving back into politics, when it is Christ I am seeking.

Good day.

 

[sallybutler]

Robert quoted, “So, we have no duty towards the common good of society? Government should not concern itself with this common good? Where does the Bible say that?”

My reply is that of course we have a duty towards the common good, but this is not the intent of government. This is the intent of individual rights and individual freedom. I assume you are referring to the “General Welfare” clause in the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, this phrase has been severely distorted and molded into intents never meant to become realized by those who intend to use it for power, based solely on duping people that if we can steal from the evil rich, that those who fight for that will be kept in power because of their graciousness to take from others and give to others.

The general welfare clause enumerates 15 powers to the Congress, in which they are very specific. These specific clauses do not provide power to the congress to force their views upon the will of the people.

If you are claiming that I am somehow more evil, less generous and mal-intent simply because I would rather choose to provide charity directly to those who need it and amongst those who I choose, rather than have a government provide middleman services.

Sally, you quoted, “Every law and regulation in this country was made by people getting together to make them.”

Unfortunately, our laws now are being made by fallible men and women, and thus those laws are no longer divinely inspired. What is accounted for in our Constitution are those natural laws not provided to us by any mere mortal, but by God Himself. The Constitution is a document of negative powers.

I ask then, what amount shall each of us be forced to contribute? Can I force you to contribute 50% because I believe you have a certain amount of luxury and wealth. What if I believe you could give more, shall I vote to force you to donate more because I believe you were born into an easy life with no hardships? Surely, you must be forced through government coercion to pay up your fair share.

Our laws have always been made by fallible men and women. And I have been forced to pay more because people voted taxes in that would only apply to new residents in the town. And I’ve seen the poor have to pay more because it was decided that the wealthier should not have to pay the same.

As far as I’m concerned, the only divinely inspired set of laws are The Ten Commandments, Leviticus what Jesus said were the commandant.The rest (the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, etc) are new sets of rules created by men on how people should interact, what their rights AND responsibilities are. This is required because we have a hard time with the two commandments that Jesus gave us.

The fact that the Constitution can, and has, and will be changed. I think the Constitution is one of the best (if not the best) basics for governing around. However, I don’t think it is perfect.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Are you saying that you think the government should be a ‘nanny state’ and come in and judge who has not ‘grown up’? Should the government step in and make children grow up?

Is that what I said? I said to tax them.

LOVE!

 

[sallybutler]

You are insinuating that I am a heartless person, worthy of hell and that all of my thoughts and actions are unjust, ungodly, cruel and without moral truth simply because I express the opinion that the government should not dictate how much I give and that the proper role of government should not involve forced coercion in this manner.

I’m sorry I even started this. I’m not going to convince you otherwise and you me. Else we could post here ad infinitum, and I honestly don’t have the time nor the energy to wage into a written battle of ideas, not knowing whom I am facing, other than some screen name.

I actually joined this forum to deepen my faith and ask questions to broaden my understanding of the gospel, the truth and the teachings of Jesus, so that I may grow in the Lord. Unfortunately, I was tempted back into the lure of politics, of which I have decidedly given up simply because our peoples are too polarized at the moment to even consider rational* debate, and that the way back to prosperity is not a nation of men, but a nation of laws. It also needs to get back to Christ, and thus His Word is unfathomably more important than winning any war in politics, and once we all come back to Him, our nation and our world will be a much better place.

*I’m not saying you are irrational, however, I’m saying I made a mistake in even delving back into politics, when it is Christ I am seeking.

Good day.

I did mean imply that you were heartless. I’ve seen nothing that would cause me to infer that about you. I agree that government can’t fix everything, I just think we all (me included) have our own ideas about what government should and should not do. Believe it or not, while many would say I am a liberal, I’m probably in the middle. I don’t think the government should criminalize drug use, but I do think there should be safety regulations (FDA, for example), I don’t think charitable giving should be required, but I do like that they are tax deductible, I don’t think that landlords should be forced to rent to certain people, but I don’t think they should be able to reuse to rent to someone who meets all the financial requirements, but have the wrong skin color, I am glad there are laws protecting children (both labor and pornography), I like OSHA, I like laws that protect water and the air (I think breathing mostly clean air is wonderful, after having lived in Pasadena during the 60’s), I haven’t decided how I feel about pooper scooper laws, but I do like clean sidewalks, I think child abusers should be given life sentences without parole, and on, and on and on.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Government is how communities are run by the people in the community. Some governments are single ruler (monarchies), some are governed by a committee of sorts (parliments, congress, boards of supervisors, etc). All governments determine who is and isn’t a citizen, what is required and what isn’t required, and what is legal and illegal, who will and who will not have a say.

This idea that ‘government’ is some amorphous thing that just makes up things without any human (name removed by moderator)ut drives me crazy. Every law and regulation in this country was made by people getting together to make them. I may not like all the laws and regulations, but I do know and accept that at every level of government, PEOPLE made the laws and regulations.

And yes, people do feel they have a right to tell you what, when, and where you can do things. You are not allowed to eat certain foods in this country, where you can eat or drink have limitations, you are not allowed to sleep anywhere you want to, you are not allowed urinate anywhere you want to. There are people who want to control what are acceptable religions, how one can or cannot dress in public, where you can or can not ask for money, what kind of papers you have to carry, etc.

You’ve probably voted for people that put in laws and regulations. You may have even voted directly for some laws and regulations. If so, that makes you part of the government and one of the nannies.

I am seriously being drawn in and I despise it. I reread your quote here and what you infer about me is 100% and unequivocally wrong. I vote for people that do not want nanny-states and I do believe the function of the government is to enforce some aspects of our lives, but the best government is the least government. There is also a difference between federal, state and local laws/regulations. Please don’t go putting words in my mouth and implying that I am an anarchist and vote for people who support the nonsense of communism, socialism, crony capitalism, fascism, neo-nazism, totalitarianism or any other “-ism”. And I do not vote for someone if they are halfway decent. Unless they truly embody my beliefs, I will not vote for them (this implies that not any one man can agree 100% but a foundation of principles and morals is where the heart lies).

 

[sallybutler]

I am seriou

sly being drawn in and I despise it. I reread your quote here and what you infer about me is 100% and unequivocally wrong. I vote for people that do not want nanny-states and I do believe the function of the government is to enforce some aspects of our lives, but the best government is the least government. There is also a difference between federal, state and local laws/regulations. Please don’t go putting words in my mouth and implying that I am an anarchist and vote for people who support the nonsense of communism, socialism, crony capitalism, fascism, neo-nazism, totalitarianism or any other “-ism”. And I do not vote for someone if they are halfway decent. Unless they truly embody my beliefs, I will not vote for them (this implies that not any one man can agree 100% but a foundation of principles and morals is where the heart lies).

I did not mean to imply you personally voted for someone who was not halfway decent or in support of the yucky forms of government you listed. I just meant that our lawmakers often make at least one law we don’t agree with.

We also have to follow all sorts of laws, be they federal, state, or local. Some of the local ones are even sillier than the federal ones. I love especially the blue laws and the ones regarding health.

I think if I were Empress of the world, I would create the perfect small government . It would probably be based on some stuff by Heinlein I read years ago. For example, property taxes would be based on what you said the value was. However, you would be forced to sell the property at that price if someone wanted to buy it, or increase the value and pay the back taxes. Child abusers would be in jail for life. Some eye for eye justice, but usually financial as opposed to physical.

Which is why I will never be Empress.

 

[JoeFreedom]

EDIT: I am seriously being drawn in and I despise myself for it.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Is the redistribution of wealth and resources just to alleviate poverty?

From the point of view of how governments work in practice (as opposed to how the should work), the answer is No.

Everything the government does redistributes wealth and the vast majority of the wealth it redistributes is NOT to the poor. Anybody who against government redistributing either is against all government or does not understand how government functions. The third option is that have a different name for government expenditures they agree with than ones they disagree with. To me this third option is disingenuous, since it assumes that they are the supreme authority on what government function is valid and invalid; rather than letting democracy sort it out.

Government redistribute wealth in a vast number of directions. The military complex and the housing industry are two of the biggest winners in this. But education system, transportation system, law enforcement system, garbage collection, fire departments and all the people they support. The medical industry gets money through medicare, medicaid, VA, etc. The pharmacy system gets its cut particularly under medicare part D under the Bush administration. Wealth is redistributed to the banks through bailouts and other tax breaks. It is redistributed to those who earn their money from the stock market, through the much lower tax on income earned through the stock market. Money is transferred from people who win while gambling to people who lose while gambling. Roads, telephone, mail, and electricity subsidies taxes and fees transfer wealth from the cities to the country. Since people who own more get more value from the protection of their property government transfers money from the poor to the rich. From science subsidies government transfers money to those who gain the most from the technologies it pays for the initial development of. It redistributes money to the oil industry in a variety of ways.It transfers money from those who do not have children to those who have children and from those who have not got a public education to those who have benefited the most from it. I am sure I am missing some big beneficiaries such as the Chinese banks, etc.

Further, everything the government does eliminates choices for some and give choices for others. A dollar taken from those near poverty removes a lot more choices than a dollar taken from someone who has plenty. But it is obvious that the government should not be about just maximizing the total amount of choice. How does one balance restricting the choice of some to smoke (or pollution of public air and water by coal and chemical companies) vs the many peoples lives who are cut short? In order to increase the choices of one group the government has to restrict the choices of another group; is that reasonable? And if you believe that is reasonable at what level does it become unreasonable?

Evidence says that every dollar given to the rich creates significantly less than a dollar back in economic gain; while every dollar given to the poor gives significantly more back to everybody than the dollar given. As Reagan was fond of saying ‘a rising tide floats all boats’. That does not make it right, though, by itself for a dictatorship to do that.

For a democracy, though, the question is how right is it for the government to spend money from its citizens on things that the majority approves (or sometime even things that the majority disapproves of if it is sufficiently useful, such as presumably the bank bailouts) The government spends a huge amount of ‘my money’ on thing I think is immoral such as unjust wars, unjust incarcerations, unjust deportations, etc. Should I demand a refund? At what level of outrage should the government respond to even a minority of citizens? Shall it be based on the amount of money involved, the amount of choices (which recognizes that a dollar gives more choices to those who need the dollar) or the severity of the choice involved, or the total amount of people affected, or the difficulty of monitoring it?

All of this is a long way of saying that government and governing is much more complicated than the simplistic arguments I have seen here. That does not preclude simple solutions, but one should at least acknowledge that it is a complicated problem.

 

[sallybutler]

Thank you, Tony the Mad. There are no simple answers. There is no one villain, there is no one hero.

I was joking when I said ‘If I were Empress’. I have realized over the years that I’m glad I’m not. Even God couldn’t please everyone.

 

[nmgauss]

Nope, I would not continue, especially once they developed cirrhosis… However, I have given people food, bottled water, etc. I’ve given family members diapers for their kids rather than give the parents money directly.

Of course, I could assume that they might trade those items for alcohol. So maybe I shouldn’t give them food or water either. Unless, of course you think I should watch them eat and drink all of it.

At least you would have an opportunity to know whether you are improving peoples lives. If your money disappeared into a black hole, would you continue to pour more into it?

 

[sallybutler]

At least you would have an opportunity to know whether you are improving peoples lives. If your money disappeared into a black hole, would you continue to pour more into it?

Nope. Which is why I don’t give to any of the big charitable organizations. I prefer to give to small local community organizations or to individuals. I hate that many of those big-name organizations give less than 50% to whoever (or is it whomever) they say they are helping.