S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I would argue that he is talking about princes who wage war to steal others goods for their individual enrichment.
- Status
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Perhaps you and Leaf should read the complete work.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
What does he specifically say about redistribution?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Come on now! You had your chance to quote the best, most relevant passage from Augustine that you claimed equated legal redistribution with robbery. So I assume the passage you quoted was it. Now you are saying that wasn’t really it and we should look elsewhere in the complete work?!!! Remember, it was you who claimed what Augustine said. Therefore I would think you would be the one who would have to support your claim by citing the specific passage that supports your point.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Come on…yourself.
Stink asked “What does he specifically say about redistribution?”
I quoted the phrase that, in my estimation, best exemplifies Augustine’s thoughts on the difference between just taxation and legal plunder. A similarity between kings and robbers, Both extract resources by force from productive members of society.
If Stink (and you) are expecting to find the word “redistribution” in Augustine’s text…it ain’t there. But “…what are kingdoms but great robberies?” is a pretty descriptive phrase that conveys the same meaning.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You will see what you want to see there, I guess. But you would understand the quote better if you didn’t ignore the qualifying phrase about justice at the very beginning if it.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Here is the full text. From the original Latin. " Booty" can mean taxes and the unjust
“distribution” should be clear.
Open for discussion…
HOW LIKE KINGDOMS WITHOUT JUSTICE ARE TO ROBBERIES.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”
“distribution” should be clear.
Open for discussion…
HOW LIKE KINGDOMS WITHOUT JUSTICE ARE TO ROBBERIES.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This quote, including the title (HOW LIKE KINGDOMS WITHOUT JUSTICE ARE TO ROBBERIES) is more consistent with my explanation than with yours.
The title clearly indicates this passage is about “kingdoms without justice”, not about all kingdoms in general. And if you look at the text, it is mostly about how a robber is like a kingdom, if only you add the impunity of a kingdom and retain the covetousness.
You must also remember the audience that Augustine was addressing. He was not addressing 21st century modern people, who have come to see legitimate government as normally requiring, for their legitimacy, that they represent the will of the governed in some sense, whether through democracy or through enlightened monarchy. In the days of Augustine, it was more common to expect that government need not represent the will of the people. You were lucky if it did, but you had no reason to expect it, and most people just resigned themselves to their ruler. So what he was arguing against in this passage was the automatic assumption that because the king decreed something, it must be so. Augustine was showing that if the king has no more concern for those he rules than a robber does for who he robs, then that kingdom is really no different than a robber, except on a much larger scale, and without the fear of opposition.
It would really be misreading this quote to assume Augustine was arguing that all actions taken by a ruler or a government were unjust, or were equivalent to robbery. He was quite clearly arguing only against rulers who were unjust. What you have** not** shown is that any program that uses general funds to give aid to those in need is necessarily robbery of the public treasury, or is otherwise unjust. Until you do that, this passage by Augustine does not prove your point.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Actually, Augustine does not say anything about taking from productive members of society. In the case a plunder, both the productive and unproductive are taken from, although one can argue how productive they actually were because they could not defend their resources from plunder. But the point is, Augustine does not say anything about taking from the productive, which is not surprising because productivity does not have much meaning in a spiritual sense. A woman that stays home to take care of children is not productive in terms of GDP, but that does not mean that it is less desirable in any way.
Let’s face it, this passage is the best you can do and to get it to say what you want it to say you need to make torturous inferences. Like they often say about empirical economists, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
OK fellows…
Here is how I see it:
A JUST king collects taxes (or tribute) from his subjects and provides for their collective well being. (Justice) What he keeps for himself is of no concern…if his subjects are happy. Should this Just King decide to show compassion and provide for his poor or disabled subjects…he can because he is the king. He RULES.
History shows that there were, indeed, such monarchs.
Another king collects taxes (or tribute) from his subjects and lavishes the funds on himself or his cronies while his people are forced to live in squalor. Essentially he plunders his subjects. He can get away with this because he is the king. He RULES.
Without getting too very deep…I am sure you both will agree who is the good king.
Moving on to modern times…
A people revolt against their king and establish a new form of government. These people held liberty and freedom above all else. They knew that if a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled. They knew that the actions of a government have to be rigidly defined, limited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be like an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. So they created a government that was controlled, limited and authorized to do only certain things. Unlike a king, this government served the people.
The people knew they had to support their government so they paid their taxes. The government operated smoothly doing only what it was AUTHORIZED to do. Providing welfare was not a function of this government. The government, itself, has no power to provide welfare. Yet people within the government violated the laws that controlled the government and provided government welfare to certain citizens and corporations. That may seem like a good and charitable thing but remember…THAT IS NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO DO. The people within the government are not kings. They are bound by law in their every official act.
The tax money paid by the people is authorized to be spent according to law. Not the whim of those within the government. Therefore taking money from some and giving it to others (without legal authorization) is theft.
Just as the pirate was a robber…so are those within a government who spend taxes without the proper authority.
Here is how I see it:
A JUST king collects taxes (or tribute) from his subjects and provides for their collective well being. (Justice) What he keeps for himself is of no concern…if his subjects are happy. Should this Just King decide to show compassion and provide for his poor or disabled subjects…he can because he is the king. He RULES.
History shows that there were, indeed, such monarchs.
Another king collects taxes (or tribute) from his subjects and lavishes the funds on himself or his cronies while his people are forced to live in squalor. Essentially he plunders his subjects. He can get away with this because he is the king. He RULES.
Without getting too very deep…I am sure you both will agree who is the good king.
Moving on to modern times…
A people revolt against their king and establish a new form of government. These people held liberty and freedom above all else. They knew that if a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled. They knew that the actions of a government have to be rigidly defined, limited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be like an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. So they created a government that was controlled, limited and authorized to do only certain things. Unlike a king, this government served the people.
The people knew they had to support their government so they paid their taxes. The government operated smoothly doing only what it was AUTHORIZED to do. Providing welfare was not a function of this government. The government, itself, has no power to provide welfare. Yet people within the government violated the laws that controlled the government and provided government welfare to certain citizens and corporations. That may seem like a good and charitable thing but remember…THAT IS NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO DO. The people within the government are not kings. They are bound by law in their every official act.
The tax money paid by the people is authorized to be spent according to law. Not the whim of those within the government. Therefore taking money from some and giving it to others (without legal authorization) is theft.
Just as the pirate was a robber…so are those within a government who spend taxes without the proper authority.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Since Augustine knew nothing about the US Constitution, we really can’t conclude anything about what Augustine would have said about the US system of government. So I suppose we are abandoning Augustine now to support your view and turning instead to the constitution. But as we have seen before, the constitution can be amended legally. So if welfare is not authorized, it could be. So welfare is not intrinsically illegitimate. The most you can claim is that it is not currently legitimate. I might disagree with you, but that would be a different argument. Also, you cannot use the US constitution to conclude anything universal about welfare programs in other countries. So any conclusions you do reach this way would only apply to 5% of the world’s population. What about the other 95%?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I believe that if you look closely at the Constitution you will find quite a bit if Augustinian, as well as Thomasian influence.
You may abandon Augustine if you like but my claim that unauthorized government programs and expenditures are illegitimate remains true.
You said it before and I agree that a program or expenditure could be authorized. So could slavery for that matter. But should it?
I am arguing about the government/welfare of the U.S. so the Constitution plays an important role. The governments of of the rest of the world have their own rules and laws. I am not speaking to them. However, if a foreign government outlaws slavery and then continues a slave trade because no one really wants it to end …that becomes an illegitimate function of that government. A government that was founded on the principle of slavery could be legitimate (from a legal standpoint) but highly immoral.
A government, ANY GOVERNMENT, that must use force or coercion to collect taxes and then spends those taxes on anything it is NOT authorized to do…is stealing/plundering it’s people.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
Deprive the poor of the right to vote? :bigyikes:
Not everybody on welfare is there because they want to be. You yourself are proof of that, and you deserve praise and respect for what you accomplished.
.
But some people can’t – not* won’t *but cannot-- accomplish what you did.
Your idea would punish misfortune.
Yes, there are welfare cheats. That does not mean everyone on welfare is a cheat. You weren’t. Why then assume that all the other people must be?
5
57classic
Guest
It’s not about punishment. Congress is the problem. The drive to get more votes leads corrupt Representatives and Senators to give away the tax dollars collected from hard working Americans. It is so easy for Congress to give away money in the form of programs and benefits because they (Congess) did not invest their money in that small business or their sweat for for a wage or salary. If you can fix that, I would have no problem with one American one vote.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It isn’t intentional punishment, but the effect of your preferred policy is to punish misfortune. You can say “it’s not about punishment” all you want, but the reality for those affected is the same as if it were intentional.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
But the effect would be to punish the poor for being poor.
And if the poor could not vote the drive would be to pass laws restricting and depriving them in order to get more votes from those better off.
But you currently do?
What happens when someone decides there is gain to be had in taking the vote from some other group? Once you deprive one group of the vote you set a precedent for depriving other groups. No votes for former convicts perhaps. That one would be popular in some circles. After that maybe no votes for Muslims.
Never happen, you think? Look what happened to Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. They didn’t only lose the vote; many of them went into interment camps for the duration.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
We could cut spending dramatically if we said nobody who receives government benefits can vote. That would mean that farmers, old people, military retirees, etc cannot vote.
5
57classic
Guest
Is no one concerned about corruption? The government is not a good steward of our money and we do nothing about it.
Farmers justify taking government payments “because the government constantly surveys us for number of acres planted to what crops, how many head of livestock, etc. They then use this information to manipulate the price of commodities world wide.” Those governments that are able, keep food cheap to avoid food riots seen in other countries. Increasingly, I hear more farmers wanting to get off government payments because it is just wrong. Crop insurance is subsidized just like Obamacare and it is a mess but as far as I know, there is no other crop insurance out there NOT tied to the government. Is any other industry as closely monitored as agriculture?
Social Security and Medicare are specific taxes paid in to the treasury by individuals to be used after retirement and in case of disability. Those funds have been raided and misused to the point that it will not support those for whom it was intended. When will we as taxpayers, who were told we could expect those funds to be there for us, stand up and demand reform, not just talk about reform?
Not all the food aid we send overseas reaches the intended poor and starving, it is used by the government as rewards to their cronies or bribes. Other commodities rot in warehouses undistributed. Reminds me of the stories of the Indian Agents who cheated those who were absolutely dependent on the government because they had to stay on the reservations, no hunting for themselves.
And still we give and give. How is this good stewardship of our resources? If we have given away our resources foolishly, what will we have to give a truly poor person?
So my no voting idea doesn’t set well with you. When will we address the corruption in the system so that poor people will be lifted up and the helpless will be cared for not used? It is not a job for government. It is a duty of the church working with the laity, the Year of Mercy is a perfect time to implement this working out the Corporal Works of Mercy.
crisismagazine.com/2015/will-poverty-really-always-be-with-us
Please read this, the comments are also very interesting.
Farmers justify taking government payments “because the government constantly surveys us for number of acres planted to what crops, how many head of livestock, etc. They then use this information to manipulate the price of commodities world wide.” Those governments that are able, keep food cheap to avoid food riots seen in other countries. Increasingly, I hear more farmers wanting to get off government payments because it is just wrong. Crop insurance is subsidized just like Obamacare and it is a mess but as far as I know, there is no other crop insurance out there NOT tied to the government. Is any other industry as closely monitored as agriculture?
Social Security and Medicare are specific taxes paid in to the treasury by individuals to be used after retirement and in case of disability. Those funds have been raided and misused to the point that it will not support those for whom it was intended. When will we as taxpayers, who were told we could expect those funds to be there for us, stand up and demand reform, not just talk about reform?
Not all the food aid we send overseas reaches the intended poor and starving, it is used by the government as rewards to their cronies or bribes. Other commodities rot in warehouses undistributed. Reminds me of the stories of the Indian Agents who cheated those who were absolutely dependent on the government because they had to stay on the reservations, no hunting for themselves.
And still we give and give. How is this good stewardship of our resources? If we have given away our resources foolishly, what will we have to give a truly poor person?
So my no voting idea doesn’t set well with you. When will we address the corruption in the system so that poor people will be lifted up and the helpless will be cared for not used? It is not a job for government. It is a duty of the church working with the laity, the Year of Mercy is a perfect time to implement this working out the Corporal Works of Mercy.
crisismagazine.com/2015/will-poverty-really-always-be-with-us
Please read this, the comments are also very interesting.
- Status