rfburn

If a person does not own the place where they wish to work, live, sleep, eat, shop, etc... then those who do own where a person wishes to work, live, sleep, eat, shop, etc... should indeed be able to deny them access to those areas if that is what they desire to do with their home/business/venture/interest/property/resources... It may not be nice. It may not be fair.

That is my general thought. Though I think I often over analyze a feeling. Feelings of family, friends, in my political activities, etc... I most often trust those kind of feelings right away. Feelings on matters of God, I am far more cautious. Perhaps, overly cautious at times.

Fancy, I am not. However, if he enjoys fancy... I suppose it would still be my problem for asking a question and not recognizing the answer. Smashed buttocks. I'll keep my eye out for an opportunity to "borrow" this. At any rate, I'll accept his answer as being a "yes".

As I said, I may be a little dense. Your expansion makes more sense to me. The original did not make much sense to me. That does not mean that my not understanding is the fault of FunkyTown.

I guess. I was looking/hoping for an actual "yes" or "no". Rather than an "if Bill Gates were or were not omniscient". I could be slightly dense, but that does not seem to be much of an answer.

I have no idea what that means. If he saw you taking something that belong to him, he certainly would not consider you anything other than a thief. He may then choose to defend his property. Would he be justified in defending his property?

And, if he shot you during your attempt, would he be justified?

theSQUIDSTER. I'll think on those things. I, by nature I suppose, compartmentalize. Those things you mention, for the most part, seem more tangible. I can see a person, poke them in the eye, etc... Visually, I've not seen God or those things about Him. I long ago made the *choice* to believe in God, based upon the bible and, when I was younger based upon the BOM. I later came to reject the BOM (currently reevaluating that rejection), but I never rejected the idea of God. So far as memory serves, I never embraced the idea of God because I felt as though He existed. I accepted that He exists based upon, what I believed (and continue to believe) was logical. I accepted the bible and BOM in my youth because I believed the logic within both demonstrated God exists, and that God is holy. That is not to say that no faith was required or leaned upon. But, the bible and BOM made sense to me. I honestly do not recall ever being lead by a feeling in the belief that God exist and is holy. I have had feelings/emotions in the sense of feeling very blessed by God, and feeling grateful that He is holy. So, there is some separation there. Accepting a belief system/worldview based upon feeling, or using a feeling as evidence, as my cousin suggested to me, is something different. Something I cannot exactly wrap myself around and understand very well.

I can very much relate. I need logic. If I cannot find it, I may well become a tad confused and misdirected for a time. I seek clarity constantly, in almost everything. It is not always found though.

They can be manipulated, as you note. I've wondered in the past, in various things, if I, myself, do not sometimes manipulate my own feelings.

Good stuff.

Thx Just_A_Guy. Good thoughts. I appreciate it.

A friend/acquaintance of mine, Dr Thomas Krannawitter, just wrote this on Facebook. I think it fits, somewhat, within this discussion. "There's a widespread notion today that financial success requires a deep and morally suspect kind of selfishness or greediness. There's an often unspoken corollary to this notion, that being poor is morally respectable or even noble. That is why many people feel morally right in demanding that government take from those who have more and give to those who have less. If the taking is from immoral people, and the giving is to moral people, then that redistribution of wealth must be morally right, yes? I disagree, respectfully. In a free society, where people are free by law to keep what they produce, or the sale to others of what they produce, then there is nothing moral or noble about being poor. More, there's nothing intrinsically immoral or unjust about being wealthy. The wealthiest people are those who have figured out some way to make lots of people happy. Aside from parenthood, no human phenomenon combines self-interest and a selfless regard for the well-being of others more beautifully than entrepreneurship. Directly or indirectly -- through inventiveness, innovation, or choices about how capital is allocated -- wealthy entrepreneurs have provided things that many, many others want, need, or otherwise value. That is the source of all wealth. Yet this simple moral, economic, and political self-evident truth is denied today by many people the world over, especially the most "educated" among us. In relatively free nations, we speak as if it's the fault of the wealthy that some people are poor, when in fact the burden should be on the poor: Why aren't more of the poor finding ways to make others happy while creating wealth for themselves in the process? In relatively unfree nations, we speak as if its the moral duty of free, materially prosperous peoples to give aid to the poor living in unfree conditions. But this is not the first or even the most important question. Whatever burden free, materially prosperous peoples have toward those living poorly in unfree conditions, we might ask first: What is the duty of those living poorly in unfree conditions to change their conditions, perhaps even revolutionize their conditions, and turn unfreedom into freedom, poverty into the the creation of wealth? Why should people who have risked everything, including life itself, staged a revolution, and created a regime of freedom and prosperity have a duty to give aid to other nations, if the people of those other nations have no duty to improve their own conditions at their own risk? If X does not have a responsible duty for the well-being of X, then how can anyone suggest that Y has a responsible duty for X? Unless and until we can talk frankly about these basic moral, economic, and political subjects, the problem of poverty will remain...a problem."

As I have come to a point in life where I suspect, but have not yet confirmed in anyway, that I was very mistaken in leaving the LDS church (having my name removed from membership), I have had conversation with some family members (everyone on my dads side of the family is LDS), and with a couple of LDS friends. During this time of again reading the BOM and D&C, I feel very peaceful. Inner peace I suppose is the term. One of my family members insists that this is evidence that the LDS church is the right church. I've asked them to explain. They cannot explain. I am very, often to my detriment, very black and white in those things I believe. That part of me is, in part, what caused me to leave the church. I was sure of a particular something, I allowed no room for a gray area. So, sometime the black and white thing doesn't work out so well. Sorry, I diverted there for a moment. Being black and white, the way I *feel* does not always mean much to me. I think folks are often mislead by their feelings. I can think of instance, for example, where I let me feelings turn me into a big jerk for a moment when in an argument or disagreement with my wife. Anyway, I just wonder if any here would consider the feeling of peace as evidence that the LDS church is true. I have a hard time with that idea. But, there is no denial, that I do feel an increased sense of peace since I began again reading the BOM and D&C (reading seriously), and attending LDS church services again. Where as when I was attending mainline Christian churches and reading only the bible, and Christian theology books (I do love theology), it seemed like I was always questioning and doubting something that is believed/taught by such churches. I am positive that part of this sense in me is from the way services are organized within the LDS church. There is order. People take it seriously and act respectfully. Such a thing is not as common as you might expect within mainline Christian churches. But, I assume most of the sense comes from reading the BOM and D&C. Still, I cannot grasp the idea of a feeling being actual evidence.

I would add one more thing concerning charity. If anyone is my brothers keeper.... it is me, not the government. In many instances, the government has usurped my role as brother.

I don't need the Gov to take my resources, and be charitable on my behalf. I am charitable. In that charity it is my preference that I make the decisions as to who, and for what cause, my charity goes. The Gov being charitable on my behalf, takes away some measure of control from me in my charity. The Gov being charitable on my behalf also takes away from me some measure of, what I believe to be a socialite duty, my ability to be charitable to the degree I might like. In that, I have fewer resources to be charitable with. The Gov being charitable on my behalf also takes away some measure of my joy in being charitable. The Gov, despite what many might wish you to believe, helps to fund Planned Parenthood. It makes me absolutely ill to know some portion, even if a tiny portion, may be funding an organization that ends the life of an innocent child. I have six children. They are all homeschooled, yet I pay property tax to fund public school. I believe that public schools battle parents in the task to mold and shape their children. Yet I have to fund this. America is not a hippie commune. America was not intended to be a socialist nation... yet, here we are.

There is nothing that is not currently taxed at some point or another. Everything produced or sold is taxed at some point. Often taxed many times. Perhaps if we had a responsible budget. A budget where the only things which were funded by Gov (funded by you and I) were those things that are necessary and proper for the Gov to do. So, the tax on all those things is currently already there in some form. We would not need to *find* more things to tax.

How did we pay for the military before income tax? We paid via excise tax, and import duties (though in general, import duties are not wise for the economy). Why would such a thing not work now? Of course it would work. The income tax allowed the Gov to do some very bad things. It involved the government in your budget. When the government is involved in your budget, they have a level of control over you that they did not have before. When the government increases its control over you, you obviously become a little less free. When you become a little less free, you become a little more dependent. The income tax made the Gov more powerful in that it had more money to work with. Have you considered the things the government does with your money? You support the military, as do I. But can you think of things the government does with your money that you would rather it did not do? I can think of countless things the government does with my money that I would rather it did not do. There are things it does with my money that I in fact consider sinful. Not to mention, the Gov really does not handle our money in a very wise way. I could go on, but I won't as I know all to well that on this topic, I can be more than a tad annoying.

It seems very apparent that income tax is, in fact, theft. It is theft of your time, your labor, your money. Sales tax, that is something different. You have a choice to purchase, or to not purchase an item. Which then means, you have a choice to pay the tax or not pay the tax. In income tax, you have no such choice. It is certainly theft for exactly that reason, the removal of choice. It is theft in that some of your tax money goes to fund things that you certainly would not fund if you had a choice. The removal of choice means there is force, or the threat of force. When force or the threat of force is used to separate yourself, from something that is yours... you have been stolen from. Even if you would have given that thing voluntarily.

Yes, 20 years ago. I'm not claiming my experiance is what Bini can expect. Just relating it.

I received a letter of confirmation from the church (not a bishop) not long (a couple weeks maybe) after I sent my letter requesting my name be removed from membership rolls.No one ever tried to contact me. But,I was in a new area where no one knew me. Finding the letter in the mail that day, brought me no comfort or relief by the way. Whatever I thought I'd get from it... I did not get.

Have you not heard? President Johnson began a war on poverty. He brought us the Great Society, to improve upon the FDR New Deal. We love us some redistribution of resources and wealth here in America. And its worked out just wonderfully so far. What could possibly go wrong in a society, when by threat of force a Gov takes the fruit of someones labor, and provides it to another? Utopia, especially one created by stealing from others, is a myth. We'd do well to stop chasing it.

Yes, "distributing" wealth, or redistributing it... that is theft.You know, stealing. Mandated redistribution (by Gov) is theft. Redistribution of wealth by personal choice, we call that charity. Robin Hood economics are theft, and harmful.

I labored for the money I earn, which I then use to purchase various kinds of property, or to purchase those things I need to sustain my family. Taking those things from me is not only stealing the actual items, but stealing my labor and time as well.