Liberals in the Church


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet

Really? So my choice of tie this last Sunday could have been greater then? The yellow was inferior to the blue?

 

Yes, absolutely.  Here let me 'splain.  No let me sum up.  Yellow is very close to orange which is an evil color, for so I have decreed.  Blue is almost Celestial, also by my decree.  So always choose the blue and you will be in good stead.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

It's not a good example if you're trying to show a righteous Democrat/Liberal stance on the issues.  The video shows how the Conservative stance on the issue on Ferguson is more in line with the American value of Freedom while the Liberal/Democrat stance with Black Lives Matter is not.  You can research the facts presented about the history of the Democrat party's race relations or the positions of Malcolm X, but as far as a BLM rebuttal it's not necessary (although it's a really good thing to study to understand how the plight of the Black people seem to still not have improved as an "issue" even after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama).  The application of Conservatism to this position is more relevant juxtaposed with the application of Liberalism on the issue.

 

I think I understand what you are trying to tell me. At any rate, I'm trying to.  :)   I don't think politics are necessarily the answer to the race problem, so 16 yrs of Democrats in office not resolving it does not surprise me.  I still think we are talking about different things though.  Perhaps I have not communicated my position as well as I had thought.  I'll try again.

 

I grew up with red-necks so I was raised to be very Conservative...I'm from Arizona (think Police Chief Arpaio).  But over the years, I stopped looking at things from a political party perspective and just took it's each on it's own merit and made up my mind about it.  Imagine my surprise when I did an online quiz and realized that my ideas are most aligned with a certain Democratic candidate.  I was very surprised!!!  I don't actually think of myself as Democrat, but apparently in the areas of environment, domestic policy, immigration and health care my views align more with Democrats.  On abortion and gun control I'm still solidly with the Republicans.  

 

Now where the BLM part of the conversation came in was this...recently a friend I've had for 20 years said to me (after debating with me about BLM "you sure have become Liberal since you moved to Washington".    She's not the only one that thinks so.  (BTW, I've pondered that and it wasn't moving to Washington that did it, but that's another story.)

 

I hope that clarifies things.  And so, I'm willing to consider what you said and the video...since we can't talk about the current political race, I won't say how that configures into this except to say that for now, I agree with the Democrats on the race issues.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The race issues in politics baffles me.

 

1) I've personally experienced racism from all sides and all walks of life.  But the greatest number of individuals who exhibited strong, hate filled racism has been from self-described liberals.  Yet liberals continue to take the high road on this issue.

 

2) Most of the blacks I've known are Democrats, yet they align personally with 90% conservative ideals.  Yet they will never vote Republican.

 

3) Political correctness chaps my hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

The race issues in politics baffles me.

 

I'm equally baffled as to why my POV is considered Liberal....but to my Conservative friends it certainly is.  There are many issues that I am passionate about that I don't consider political in nature, but other people seem to.  I'm also baffled by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure? ALL of us who vote have limited choices in who we want to run the country - sometimes the party we elect is the 'lesser of two evils'. A party can have great economic policies but support the legalization of late-term abortion on demand, or any number of combinations that may be conflicting with one's fundamental religious views.

 

Even worse would be to vote for a bumbling fool as leader of the country, just because he goes to church on Sundays and appears to have 'wholesome values'.

 

Right.  If you have limited choices for who/what to vote, you have to make the best with what you have.  Nevertheless, one should still use gospel principles to help make that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest concern with the so-called conservatives and liberals  is what I consider a gross double standard.  It seem that all conservatives can all agree about the evils of centralizing power and influence in a large and all encompassing federal government - as well liberals all agree about the evils of centralizing power and influence in large and all encompassing companies and corporations.  So it seems that liberals want governments to be unchecked and controlling everything whereas conservatives  want businesses and corporations to be unchecked and controlling everything.  

 

Neither seem to be able to get it through their thick skulls that big government and big business are just different sides of the same corrupt coin.  - this is why there is no actual differences in the two parties - they both sell the same freedom restricting crap just in different fancy packaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, on 17 Nov 2015 - 11:38 AM, said:

My biggest concern with the so-called conservatives and liberals  is what I consider a gross double standard.  It seem that all conservatives can all agree about the evils of centralizing power and influence in a large and all encompassing federal government - as well liberals all agree about the evils of centralizing power and influence in large and all encompassing companies and corporations.  So it seems that liberals want governments to be unchecked and controlling everything whereas conservatives  want businesses and corporations to be unchecked and controlling everything.  

 

Neither seem to be able to get it through their thick skulls that big government and big business are just different sides of the same corrupt coin.  - this is why there is no actual differences in the two parties - they both sell the same freedom restricting crap just in different fancy packaging.

 

But this just isn’t true. I don’t know one conservative, not a single one, who wants business and corporations to be unchecked and control everything. This is the narrative that the elites in education, business, media and politics have put out. Because they are lying about conservatives I think it’s probably safe to say that all liberals don’t want an all controlling government.

 

Most hardcore liberals I know are all high up the chain of major corporations. I remember in the 90’s seeing signs at left wing protests “no corporate welfare!” and that is something we just don’t see anymore.

 

Tell me, is “too big to fail” a conservative or liberal principle? I’m a conservative and I say “let them fail” and all I know who claim to be conservative seem to echo my sentiment and were shocked when our leaders took our money and rewarded and propped up failure caused by greed and corruption.

 

What we have now is rich fertile ground for fascism to flourish where business and government are one, our middle class is getting snuffed out and replaced by dependents and our education system is pumping out useful idiots to help widen the gap and support the occupants of the “cool kids club”, the elites while they squash each other in their attempt to enter the great and spacious building.

 

Those who recognize what is happening (most are conservative) have been conveniently marginalized as racists, xenophobes, homophobes, religious fanatics etc.

 

The problem is that we as a people have been divided and conquered and our only hope is to live the gospel, teach our children and watch the tragedy, which has been foretold, play out before us. 

Edited by Windseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...whereas conservatives  want businesses and corporations to be unchecked and controlling everything.  

 

I agree with Windseeker---your claim is patently false.

 

Regarding "thick skulls" there is no skull thicker than one which tries to equate conservatism with crony capitalism. They are NOT synonymous!

And as far as "corporations controlling everything", they can't control anything absent the heavy hand of government. It's government which gives them whatever coercive power they possess. 

Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crony capitalism is a term generated by so called conservatives that do not understand big business and big government are the result of the same thing - a small minority taking control and exercising dominion over the rest of the population.  The order of secret combination organizations to take control is always based first in economics and control of money.  This is what inspires all the corruption on government - the corruption follows the money.  If this was not true, governments would always be responsive to public opinion rather than propaganda to change and alter public opinion.

 

The money to corrupt has to come from somewhere - and it always comes from businesses that are successful and through economic success seek to control the market place and to eliminate competition not just to compete better.  Lets take Microsoft for example.  Back in the 80's when personal computers were starting to have an economic impact in the market place - Microsoft was doing all it could - not to build a better OS (DOS) but to control the market place.  Several products were better than Microsoft - for example Word perfect was better than Word and there were other OS's(DOS's) better Microsoft's. 

 

In this mix there was a small company in Oregon that developed stacker software that allowed disk space to be logically expanded.  Microsoft wanted the copyrighted and patented software to give them the competitive edge - but Bill Gates was not willing to pay what the company was asking.   Long story short Microsoft stole (pirated) the software and became the #1 PC DOS OS provider.  The little company in Oregon sued but Microsoft delayed for over 20 years before there was a settlement of $300,000.  The little company in Oregon was bankrupt and had to settle for basically nothing and Microsoft made hundreds of millions.  Today Microsoft makes sure no one pirates their software.  Microsoft also did some semi illegal things to put Word Perfect out of business.  If you listen to the so-called conservative candidates - they want to deregulate - which is code words to change the regulations for their crony advantage.

 

The idea of capitalism is wonderful - but like so many "good" ideas is never a part of the actual landscape.  If you ever watch "Shark Tank" on TV you will realize it is not ever just about money - it is always  about control.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crony capitalism is a term generated by so called conservatives that do not understand big business and big government are the result of the same thing - a small minority taking control and exercising dominion over the rest of the population.

 

If so-called conservatives don't understand that big government and big business are the result of a small minority taking control and exercising dominion then why did they generate the term in the first place?

 

You seem to insist on mixing the country club neo-cons in with the larger, much ignored and ill represented libertarian constitutionalist base. If it helps, understand true conservatives much less in line with their Republican leadership than liberals are with their Democrat leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If so-called conservatives don't understand that big government and big business are the result of a small minority taking control and exercising dominion then why did they generate the term in the first place?

 

You seem to insist on mixing the country club neo-cons in with the larger, much ignored and ill represented libertarian constitutionalist base. If it helps, understand true conservatives much less in line with their Republican leadership than liberals are with their Democrat leadership.

 

I tend to observe that the corporate world is not really capitalistic.  In general, pseudo economic conservatives (I consider Milton Friedman a true economic conservative) tout capitalism but practice more of what you call crony capitalism themselves - BTW I am both a student and major fan of Milton Friedman - if you can give me a better economist that represents the capitalism you champion -- i would be most interested.  But I cannot align my self with the

Donald Trump capitalism that seem to currently be popular - which is the leave the economy to those that know how to be successful.  The problem is that no one actually practices capitalism.  The reality is that control is more important than profit.   But most are stuck thinking that the bottom lines rules business - but that is simply not true.

 

I am also a student and fan of the political conservative Frédéric Bastiat.  In essence I do not believe that anything should be free but that all citizens should be vested and at a minimum, pay taxes - including the poorest of the poor citizens.

 

If you can give me any actual idea what you believe - I would be interested.  For example are you the kind of capitalist that believes that we should buy black market crud oil from Mexican sources - because it is the cheapest crude oil in the world market place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I'm equally baffled as to why my POV is considered Liberal....but to my Conservative friends it certainly is.  There are many issues that I am passionate about that I don't consider political in nature, but other people seem to.  I'm also baffled by that.

 Lit-you are more independent than liberal. What I love about you is that you can't be put into a corner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I am going to have to learn how to do the part-quote thing here... sorry for the weird quote to start the post. I'll just have to put your comments in italics for now. 

 

"Right" means nothing in the sense of access to vital services.

 

Thank you for sharing your definition of what  "Right" means. I come from a society where vital services are most definitely considered "rights", so obviously that has shaped my understanding.

 

 

Look at the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

Rights are liberties granted by God (or, if you prefer, natural, as opposed to something granted by the fiat of a king). The duty of any government is to protect such natural rights. So, for example:

  • You have a right to speak your mind, politically. The duty of the government is to insure that you can exercise that right, and that your neighbor doesn't shut you up because he doesn't like your politics.
  • You have a right to religious expression. The government's duty is to protect your right to believe and worship as you choose, without the interference of others.
  • You have the right to own property. Your property may not be seized by others without due process that establishes that you do not actually own the property, or that you have forfeited that ownership for some legitimate reason.

Well, yes, that all seems logical. No problem there.

 

It is not the government's duty to procure you some health care, any more than it's the government's duty to feed you.
 
How can it not be the government's duty to provide health care, food and shelter for people who cannot afford such things? Surely, as a signatory to various international agreements, the government is obligated to uphold certain principles underpinned by the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If I pay taxes, and I uphold the democratic (and in some cases socialistic) principles of my government which states that every person in the country has the right to access certain basic necessities - then it IS the government's responsibility to provide for it's citizens in this way. 
 

Quality of life also depends on having friends. Do you suppose this means that the government is required to make friends for you?

 

Perhaps I should have specified that what I meant by quality of life, was related directly to basic healthcare issues such as infant mortality, etc. And yes, the government SHOULD be required by voters and taxpayers to uphold the basic rights of citizens as per its national and international agreements to uphold those rights.

 

"Freedom" means that we get to choose our own path. "Freedom" does not mean that we somehow get to choose the consequences of our free choices, or that the government exists to take care of us. That is what children need, not adults. The government exists to protect our rights, not to take other people's goods and give them to us.

 

To some extent I agree with you, but if as a society we agree to our taxes being used to help the most vulnerable, we form a safety net whereby we too can benefit should we some day become one of those vulnerable people. This isn't a 'taking' as it is a kind of reciprocal contribution to ensure that no person ever becomes completely destitute without access to food, shelter, basic education and healthcare.  

 

No, it does not. There is no such "right".Publicly funded health care may, or may not, be chosen by a society as a desirable thing. It may, or may not, work well. But it is in no way a right.

 

Not in the sense that you originally defined "right" as, but surely it is a right if it is set down in government legislation or international agreement?

 

I think of the wording contained in the Geneva Conventions or the UN Convention Against Torture  which use terms such as "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family...Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person...which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,".  This wording makes it clear that simply by virtue of our humanity alone, we are entitled to certain rights, and carries over to other documents that most civilized countries are signatories to with regard to the basic rights of human beings to food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.

 

Signatories to international agreements on human rights do imply that our governments agree with the wording on the documents they signed, so I'm not sure how we can say that 'no such rights' to healthcare and other basic human rights do not exist. 

Edited by lagarthaaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm curious where this "inalienable right" came from, lagarthaaz?

 

Where did the term 'inalienable right' come from? It came from minds more analytical and articulate than I can ever hope to be. In this modern world it comes from the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

According to Cornell University,human rights are defined as  "inalienable rights of all members of the human family...Thus, human rights are, in principle, applicable to every person, regardless of their nationality." 

 

Did it come from God?

 

Not specifically as it's stated in the sources above, but I believe both the Bible and the BoM make it clear that human beings were created in the image of God and are of infinite worth. The Savior's life and example was centered around upholding with compassion the dignity of all human beings, of service to others, of valuing the poor and oppressed, no matter if they were lepers, children, widows, tax collectors or prostitutes. He taught us to care for the downtrodden. Every single one is deserving of God's love. If we are all inherently valuable to the Savior, then I don't find it a leap to support a document that promotes the 'inalienable rights of all members of the human family'.  

 

And if it didn't, can you explain how it can be "inalienable"?

I mean if we acquired that right from men then it certainly can't be described as inalienable, can it? What men have the right to bestow, they also have the right to take away.

 

The UN Declaration describes human rights as 'inalienable' - whether men can take those rights away or not is hardly the point. What matters is that the ideal is at least promoted and that nations, in principle, agree that people's rights should be protected.

 

The fact of the matter is, there is NO SUCH THING as an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Otherwise you must argue that you have the RIGHT to force someone to supply you with whatever it is you believe you're entitled to; that you have the RIGHT to forcibly conscript someone to do your bidding.

 

I couldn't disagree more. As a civilized society, and more importantly as people who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity, we should protect the basic rights of every individual to at the very least, food, shelter, education and healthcare.In turn, we too should expect to be taken care of should we become vulnerable at some point in our lives. 

 

How any member of the Church can believe that they have a God-given right to the capitol or labor of another person is beyond me. :huh:

 

Aside:  That's just really rude - don't speak to me as if you know anything about my church membership or that I'm somehow not a good enough member if I don't have the same views as you do.

 

Back on topic: Do you have children who attend public schools? If so, then you must believe you have the right to the capitol and labor of every taxpayer whose money goes into paying for your children's education. Shame on you then, for thinking you have that right - right? What would you do if the government decided that from now on, all elementary and high-school education should be paid for because after all, they decide, 'education' is not a right. Anyone who insists that education is a right must be relying on some esoteric perspective that is not grounded in human logic or spiritual understanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lagarthaaz, I appreciate your honest and open responses. I am going to try to respond to what you have written in the same spirit. But I am not sure when I will be able to do so.

 

There is a difference between a government protecting rights, a government defining responsibilities, and a government doing its duties. Rights have to do with allowable actions, exercise of conscience, and human interaction, never about possessions. In no case is health care a human right to be protected, any more than education is a "right" or property is a "right". We have a right to possess such things, but you have no right to demand that I give you such things.

 

A simple and pretty good way to test if something is a "right" is to ask: "Can I reasonably demand my neighbor to supply me with this?" If the answer is "yes", then the thing under consideration might be a right. If the answer is "no", then it is not a right. Examples: In general, can I reasonably demand that my neighbor give me:

  • My exercise of religion, without interference? Yes.
  • An automobile? No.
  • The freedom to speak my mind about politics, even if he doesn't like them? Yes.
  • Health care insurance? No.

So exercise of religion and freedom of political speech are true rights; cars and health insurance are not. If the UN doesn't understand that, that just goes to show that we should not take our legislative understanding from the UN.

 

A government has a few primary responsibilities. Foremost among those is defending the rights of its citizens.

 

What other things a government takes responsibility for is up to those who establish the government. In the case of US and western democracies, that means it's up to the people, since it is the people who establish the government. But people must then be wise about what they demand of their government, because government is a huge and immensely powerful tool. It is a genie that, once out of the bottle, won't go back. Americans have traditionally understood this, and many Americans have thus argued forcefully for a very limited government. Thus we have the apocryphal quote, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least."

 

If the people get together and decide they want their government to tax people and use the money to pave roads, then that becomes a duty of that government. But "paved roads" do not magically become a human right. There is no human right to paved roads, any more than there is a human right to automobiles or health care. Similarly, people might decide they want their government to tax everyone and use the proceeds to fund public health care. If they so decide and legislate -- and that is a foolish choice, in my estimation -- then that becomes a duty of the government. But never confuse that with a right. it is no right.

 

A good, righteous government might very well do away with publicly funded health care, publicly funded child support, publicly funded education, publicly funded welfare payments -- heck, even publicly funded roads. But by definition, a good, righteous government can never do away with defending the rights of its citizens.

 

I said I could not respond to you at this time, yet I have gone on and on. I will try to write a better response later.

 

[For the record: My children do make use of the public school system. But I have absolutely no delusions that such is any sort of "right". I -- not the government, but I, the parent -- have the duty to educate my children. I think it would be correct to say that my children have the right to demand education from me -- though not from the government. How I choose to fulfill that duty is my business. If I homeschool (which I do), that is one way of fulfilling that duty. If I buy tutors or pay for private school, that would also work. In our case, our government uses tax money to fund public schools, which are available for my use if I decide to go that route. So to some extent, I do take advantage of publicly funded, government-run schools to educate my children.]

 

[bUT PUBLIC EDUCATION IS NOT A RIGHT. That's the point.]

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did the term 'inalienable right' come from? ...In this modern world it comes from the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

No it doesn't, lagartaaz. The Declaration of Independence preceded the UN Declaration of Human Rights by 170+ years. What's more, the UN Declaration fundamentally proclaims that "rights" are derived from government, while the Declaration of Independence proclaims that rights come from God. 
If a right derives from government then it can just as well be prohibited by government. Ergo, UN "rights" are NOT inalienable, and in reality are no rights at all!  You'll note that in virtually every instance where a right is proclaimed by the UN, there will be this caveat: "Except as prescribed by law". Contrast that to our Constitution which reads, "Congress shall make NO law".
 
Not specifically as it's stated in the sources above, but I believe both the Bible and the BoM make it clear that human beings were created in the image of God and are of infinite worth. The Savior's life and example was centered around upholding with compassion the dignity of all human beings, of service to others, of valuing the poor and oppressed, no matter if they were lepers, children, widows, tax collectors or prostitutes. He taught us to care for the downtrodden.
 
Yes he did. 
But did he teach anywhere or at any time that we should FORCE each other to care for the downtrodden? 
Or that we can steal money from each other to provide for the downtrodden?
Or that we can jail or otherwise punish someone who doesn't wish to provide for the downtrodden?
 
The UN Declaration describes human rights as 'inalienable' - whether men can take those rights away or not is hardly the point.
 
What????? 
Whether men can take those rights away or not is PRECISELY the point!!
If men can take them away then they are NOT inalienable, are they??
Sheesh!  :confused:
 
I couldn't disagree more. As a civilized society, and more importantly as people who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity, we should protect the basic rights of every individual to at the very least, food, shelter, education and healthcare.In turn, we too should expect to be taken care of should we become vulnerable at some point in our lives. 
 
And I couldn't disagree with you more! Those who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity understand that Charity CANNOT be forced! Otherwise it isn't charity, is it? Otherwise it deprives an individual of his/her agency. As a member of the Church is that really what you advocate?
 
Aside:  That's just really rude - don't speak to me as if you know anything about my church membership or that I'm somehow not a good enough member if I don't have the same views as you do.
 
No it isn't rude. It's a legitimate question to ask, so I'll phrase it as a question instead of a declaration.
"As a member of the Church, do you believe you have a God-given right to the capitol or labor of another person?"
 
Back on topic: Do you have children who attend public schools? If so, then you must believe you have the right to the capitol and labor of every taxpayer whose money goes into paying for your children's education. Shame on you then, for thinking you have that right - right?
 
How so, lagartaaz? I pay a tremendous amount in property and other taxes to pay for my child's education. And if what I pay isn't sufficient to cover the cost I am more than willing to pony up the difference, provided that everyone else does the same. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that someone else has the obligation to pay to educate my children.
 
What would you do if the government decided that from now on, all elementary and high-school education should be paid for because after all, they decide, 'education' is not a right.
 
What would I do?
I'd probably do cartwheels in the street and throw some sort of celebration. Because education ISN'T a right, and no one should be forced to pay to educate my children, nor should I be forced to pay to educate theirs!

In my opinion, public (government) education should be eliminated entirely! So your scary scenario is lost on me.

 

Anyone who insists that education is a right must be relying on some esoteric perspective that is not grounded in human logic or spiritual understanding. 

 

I love it when an argument ends in agreement.  ;)

Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crony capitalism is a term generated by so called conservatives that do not understand big business and big government are the result of the same thing - a small minority taking control and exercising dominion over the rest of the population. 

 

Crony capitalism is a symptom of big government, NOT a symptom of big business. If you believe it's merely the result of a small minority taking control then I believe it's you who doesn't understand.
I think you place entirely too much blame on business, Traveler. If government was prohibited from playing favorites (in all its myriad forms) it wouldn't matter in the least how much money a business had or how much control it desired. A business, no matter the size, cannot use force to get what it wants. Only government can do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the word "right" means in the sense of access to vital services? For me it means having an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Health care to me is as basic a right as food and shelter - quality of life depends on having access to it.

But there is no right to any of these things. The only rights one has are to his person and his labor and the property he has legitimately acquired. Rights come with concomitant obligations and responsibilities.

If you have the right to food, for instance, you have the right to force someone else to give it to you, in other words, to make him your slave. If you have the right to housing, you must have the power to make someone else give it to you, or, in other words, to make him your slave.

In the case of health care (which is not the same thing as health insurance), in order to have the right to it, you must have the power to make a doctor, a nurse, a hospital give it to you, in other words, to make them your slaves. Absent that power, you must have the power to force someone else to pay the doctor, the nurse, the hospital when you use those services. In other words, to make him your slave.

I find no mention in scripture where it gives you or me or anyone the right to force others to pay for my education, for my food, for my home. There is no right to make others my slaves.

You bring up the abomination of "public" schools. (Please note I did not say "public education" because the laws pertaining to them require attendance, not learning.) The issue is that when Horace Mann imported schools from Prussia in 1852, he did it for one reason (and only one): to divorce children from their parents, from their parents' values and their religions. (See Mary Peabody Mann, Horace Mann: A Life.) Any education that happens in a government-run, tax-funded welfare school is purely by accident or is the bait to get parents to turn their children over to bureaucrats to raise them and instill acceptable value to those children. When John Dewey described the effects of grtf-welfare schooling, he wrote, "What can they do in their one hour of Sunday School when we have their children six hours a day?"

Charity stops being charity the moment it is forced. Welfare in any form is immoral: it takes from those who produce and gives a tiny portion of the proceeds to the group the government deems "needy" and keeps the majority for itself. Charity is vastly better than welfare. Welfare destroys, welfare weakens, welfare undermines the Family, God's fundamental unit of civilization. Charity builds up, ennobles, and builds the Family.

Finally, government is incapable of doing anything without taking something from someone, and taking it by (the threat of) force. The force is potentially lethal. All laws are based on lethal force and will be enforced by potential lethality. Government has perverse incentives. Government cannot make good decisions because it cannot understand all the parameters and cannot turn on a dime when that's the necessary action.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share