Serving the Poor: The Christian Virtue of Charity

[DickSarp]

People also pay for "protection" to the Mafia, they may even get a few "benefits". That still doesn't make the transaction any less of an extortion and theft.

Taxes are not theft. Never have been in this country...except for the whole taxation without representation deal that started the US War for independence.

See? ' Taxation without representation.'

Not 'taxes are theft.'

That line of argumentation is soft and entirely selfish precluding the We The People to whom you and everyone else owes a debt of gratitude for keeping society rolling along. But here you are denying the legal, moral, and practical considerations of taxation just so you can have a little more in your pocket bc you're special...not like everyone else, we don't need money to live.

16th Amendment states:

• 
  "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
  

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Human interaction is governed by force and / or rules. Our contract is the US Constitution. It establishes state and federal powers, individual liberties and conditions on the exercise of political power created by the document. It's a living document.

No, a constitution is not a contract.

Even if it was (it isn't), your argument would still fall short:

The source of all wealth? What do I care? The source of all value comes from Mankind's labor and exploitation of natural resources.

Now what were you saying about some reductionist truth that is obvious to you but still eludes me?

You were getting close, but you veered off at the end.

I'll give you one more chance:

What is the source of ALL wealth.

This is relevant because you claimed that all money/wealth are the property of the collective. If you understand where the source of all wealth comes from, you would see how your assertion is incorrect.

I know it seems like I'm being a dick, but I'm actually trying to help you here.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

An argument that you're unable to disprove.


Your taxes aren't charitable giving, quit pretending that they are. They're extracted from you by the threat of force. Talk of any supposed "improvements" due to this taxation is nothing more than an ex post facto justification.

People don't like to think of themselves as being stolen from, that's why many will struggle to call it anything else but what it is:

Theft.



Fixed for you friend.


... to the simple minded.

I just disproved the entire silly attempt of an argument.

If you want to live in a society you have to pay taxes. Done. That's the argument.

 

[HomerThompson]

No, a constitution is not a contract.

Even if it was (it isn't), your argument would still fall short:



You were getting close, but you veered off at the end.

I'll give you one more chance:

What is the source of ALL wealth.

This is relevant because you claimed that all money/wealth are the property of the collective. If you understand where the source of all wealth comes from, you would see how your assertion is incorrect.

I know it seems like I'm being a dick, but I'm actually trying to help you here.

Reposting the same video? Pathetic. You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Simple question. Do you believe it's the responsibility of the federal government to be involved with social mandates, or is it the responsibility of the individual State governments and the people they server as citizens of that State?

Yes it's important the federal government dictates certain things on society and taxes are needed if you want to live in the real world.

Now if you want to live in a fantasy libertarian world try and find one that actually existed on earth. We're all still waiting for that example.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Taxes are not theft. Never have been in this country...except for the whole taxation without representation deal that started the US War for independence.

See? ' Taxation without representation.'

Not 'taxes are theft.'

That line of argumentation is soft and entirely selfish precluding the We The People to whom you and everyone else owes a debt of gratitude for keeping society rolling along. But here you are denying the legal, moral, and practical considerations of taxation just so you can have a little more in your pocket bc you're special...not like everyone else, we don't need money to live.

16th Amendment states:

• 
  "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

If you oppose taxation without representation as strongly as you claim, then you should absolutely be opposed to any national debt.

A national debt is a promise to tax the unborn in the future. Is there any more fundamental taxation without representation that you can think of?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Arguing with libertarians.

It's like pissing in the wind. Complete waste of time.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Reposting the same video? Pathetic. You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

You have yet to refute a single argument I put forward, or anything put forward in the video.

If all you have to post are insults, you should have not even bothered posting anything, and save yourself the embarrassment.

It confesses a lack of brain power in this particular subject on your part.

 

[HIMBOB]

Give a man a fish...
Teach him to fish...

I guess a more modern analogy would be bring a person out of poverty for a day, a week, a month and he will be poor again as soon as the wealth is taken away. But provide the infrastructure whereby he can thrive through education and opportunity and he can build a foundation from which prosperity may flow through his effort.

You are your socialist infrastructure, when will you ever learn.

Jk.

 

[HomerThompson]

You have yet to refute a single argument I put forward, or anything put forward in the video.

If all you have to pos are insults, you should have not even bothered posting anything, and save yourself the embarrassment.

It confesses a lack of brain power in this particular subject on your part.

Maybe if you post it again, it will magically become an argument. Good luck.

 

[DickSarp]

No, a constitution is not a contract.

Even if it was (it isn't), your argument would still fall short:



You were getting close, but you veered off at the end.

I'll give you one more chance:

What is the source of ALL wealth.

This is relevant because you claimed that all money/wealth are the property of the collective. If you understand where the source of all wealth comes from, you would see how your assertion is incorrect.

I know it seems like I'm being a dick, but I'm actually trying to help you here.

No problem. I'm not going to watch your videos. If you cannot articulate your understanding, then we are done.

What is a contract? What is a constitution? If the constitution is not a contract, what is it?

The USC is a compact btn the people establishing the government for powers, duties, protection and the allocation of national resources for national interests. It is amendable. It sets out the principles of the country and its people. Since all private property is force, we have to have a gameplan for keeping that force on the civil side the US Constitution was created by the wealthy for the wealthy to protect their personal wealth from Hoi Polloi.

"This is relevant because you claimed that all money/wealth are the property of the collective" no one claimed this except for you.

You have many issues to straighten out before you can discuss them here.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Maybe if you post it again, it will magically become an argument. Good luck.

I fully accept your intellectual TapouT

 

[DickSarp]

If you oppose taxation without representation as strongly as you claim, then you should absolutely be opposed to any national debt.

A national debt is a promise to tax the unborn in the future. Is there any more fundamental taxation without representation that you can think of?

National debt is a necessity to growth and advancement. In a monetarily sovereign nation, to not have a deficit or debt means the country is taking money out of the market and out of circulation. The US could stop all federal taxation tomorrow and still run the country without a hitch for years. Why? Fed. taxation destroys dollars and spending creates them. The only limit to money printing is inflation.

But what is the debt for? Is it to illegally kill Iraqis so that we can control their resources and set up a military base or two? Is debt there to make the comfortable more comfortable while 25% of the country's kids live in poverty?

I support taxation with representation but I wasn't there at the revolution. But it is a sound principle.

 

[Teppodama]

Yes it's important the federal government dictates certain things on society and taxes are needed if you want to live in the real world.

Now if you want to live in a fantasy libertarian world try and find one that actually existed on earth. We're all still waiting for that example.

I wasn't attempting any kind of zinger on you with the question. Just an honest question to see you draw a line of distinction between the responsibilities of the Federal vs State government when it comes to the management of the citizeney.

Not every question is hostile.

 

[uncommon]

Interesting - I appreciate your input. So if I understand you right, you don't think hedge funds (a 3+ trillion market) and others would gladly sell long positions in other equities or exit fixed income positions to get the cash to get Facebook shares at 10% or 20% or 30% off?

im factoring that in.

average volume with the hedge funds and everybody already chiming in is 2.7 billion a day.

and then zuckerberg smokes some dope as says to the broker sell half my shares at whatever the price you feel like.

he theoretically has something like 35 billion at current market price.

the hedge funds lets say they sell long positions, but so are everyone else so they cant get any spare cash to buy more shares. so they have 2.7 billion dollars to buy up 35 billion worth of marks shares. marks shares could drop by more than 90% for all i know.

and then you have to factor in mutual funds that possibly will no longer participate in facebook since they crashed by 90% that day it might have permanent damage to the company.

bill gates has been selling his stake in microsoft for years and years. i think its something like 250 million $ per quarter. so a billion a year at whatever the average price is that year. if he sold his shares in microsoft in a single day he would be completely fucked as well. like he would go from having 80 something billion down to 2.7 billion in a day

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I wasn't attempting any kind of zinger on you with the question. Just an honest question to see you draw a line of distinction between the responsibilities of the Federal vs State government when it comes to the management of the citizeney.

Not every question is hostile.

Fair enough.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I would not look to Jesus for charity. He clearly thought the world was coming to an end quite soon, and thus told his followers to basically take no thought for tomorrow. He tells them to sell everything they have, like, a lot.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Pretty sure the top 8 are atheists (excluding maybe Ortega or Helu) so not sure quoting bible scripture is going to appeal to them.

But if anyone in the bottom 50 want me to consider buying their Operating System or purchase from their Dynamic retail operation or even use / advertise on their social media platform -- I would be interested In their sales pitch.

Because according to the GOP tax thread -- liberal wealth class should not be expected to donate to support their political ideology.

 

[Teppodama]

While I know it certainly isn't, I believe the Federal governments role is the management of the States as a whole. By providing a common set of general guidelines by which they interact and enforcing those guidelines. I believe it's also for the protection of the Republic against both foreign and domestic threats that endanger the States as a whole or as individual entities. I believe it's also their duty to arbitrate in disputes between States.

I believe everything else is within the purview of the State in how it interacts with its citizenry and the social contracts by which their slice of society thrives or founders. Taxation in my opinion should be paid to the State for the maintenance of the State alone and the State pays to the Federal government for stewardship and Federal infrastructure to carry out its mandate. It can also pay into a communal fund for Federal disaster relief in the event of a natural disaster where the States available funds are insufficient to meet the costs of repair and recovery.

You want better roads? Your State pays for it through taxation.
You want better schools? The State pays for it through taxation.
You want better social programs? The State pays for it through taxation.
You want specific rules and regulations? Your State enacts them
You want universal Healthcare? Your State pays for it through taxation.

But all of that is specific to your State and your State alone unless also adopted by other States based on their own citizens desires. The Federal governments only intervention should be to ensure that the wishes of the citizenry of a particular state are heard and enacted in a legal manner and that any election is carried out legally.

Every State should basically be autonomous with minimal oversight or direct influence from the desires or wishes of other States.

 

[luckyshot]

Origins, that simple;

Genesis 1: 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The entirety of Christianity is based on the Bible, not the Bible based on the various denominations or religious sects of Christianity and how they perceive it. This is where you are commenting in error.

I'm under the belief of let the Bible interpret the Bible, not adhering to what I think the Bible is really saying is this. The Bible is self satisfactory in answering all questions, unfortunately corruptible man doesn't always like the answers he's given (regardless if he/she is saved)

In regards to addressing the Bible's authenticity let's see what the Bible has to say about that.

2 Timothy 3: 16
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.

Your complaint isn't against myself. As I've mentioned earlier, you don't like the institutions of religion. I agreed with you on that point. Now I've addressed origins not out of my own wisdom, but letting scripture tell you what those answers are. I hope I have answered you're question.

I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this to you before, forgive me if I have:

Even as a “bible based” Christian, you shouldn’t disparage Christian tradition because without Christian tradition, you wouldn’t HAVE the Bible. This is especially true of Catholicism.

You believe in the four gospels? Well, thank Bishop Irenaus- he’s the one who chose them from dozens of other “gospels” in 202.

You like the inclusion of the letters of the New Testament? Thank the council of Nicaea in 325.

You can absolutely think the church has gone wrong, but to say you believe in the Bible then talk bad about Christian tradition is really biting the hand that feeds.

tl;dr- The Bible never makes it through 2000 years and into your hands without an organized church.

I think the important thing a lot of people miss about the teachings of Jesus and Paul is the focus on self-restraint, self-discipline, self-sacrifice, self-responsibility and love of others (agape). All people are expected to live a life of discipline, sacrifice and love to the best of their ability regardless of their wealth, physical ability, social status and sex.



The Widow’s Offering
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Mark 12:41-44
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12:41-44

Saint Paul:

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you (2 Thess. 3:7–8).
https://www.bible-bridge.com/pauls-income-four-reasons-why-paul-worked-day-job/

This is true for sure. Charity is everyone’s obligation, not just the super rich. But Jesus also said, “From everyone to whom much has been given, much shall be required.” Lk 12:48

I do agree with your principle, though. It is more important to worry about what you are giving than to worry about what other people are giving.