Guaranteed Income Supplement

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Of course it's accurate.  If you, @MormonGator, and I are in a room and the two of us vote to beat you up and take your clothes, were you robbed?

If the minority beats you up and takes your clothes, it's still Robbery.  Robbery is Robbery regardless of number of votes.  Welfare is Welfare regardless of number of votes.  The issue is simply Liberty - you have the liberty to Rob or not Rob, you have the liberty to Provide Welfare or not Provide Welfare. The theory of Democratic governments can be distilled in the jury of 12 - justice (that which promotes Liberty) has a bigger chance of getting dealt by 12 arguing over it than by 1.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

If the minority beats you up and takes your clothes, it's still Robbery.  Robbery is Robbery regardless of number of votes.  Welfare is Welfare regardless of number of votes.  The issue is simply Liberty - you have the liberty to Rob or not Rob, you have the liberty to Provide Welfare or not Provide Welfare. The theory of Democratic governments can be distilled in the jury of 12 - justice (that which promotes Liberty) has a bigger chance of getting dealt by 12 arguing over it than by 1.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm saying that your position that because you voted No to taxation then it becomes theft is wrong.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I'm saying that your position that because you voted No to taxation then it becomes theft is wrong.

That isn't my position.  My position is that as a free man just because the majority of people vote to take something from me under threat of violence doesn't make it just.   How I voted makes zero difference.  If @zil and I vote to beat you up and take your shoes, the fact that we declared we own that room and get to make the rules and our rules are you take a licking and lose your shoes doesn't mean it's just.

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ahh... we're back to the Money vs Goods argument.

Contributing cash to a terrorist organization is governed by completely different laws from the government taking money from those who Have to give to those who Have Not (who may not believe they are accountable to any god).

I hope we agree that we are all accountable to G-d - regardless of belief.  Or to believe otherwise does not mean that in truth G-d will not hold us so accountable or not accountable.   As to money - I do not believe money is as valuable as good and SERVICES.  And I do believe in a G-d that does not sell his goods or services for money.  And to be honest - I do not understand the love and appreciation so many show for money - especially such appreciation to be greater than for the goods and services (especially the service of love - even the pure love of Jesus Christ).  I cannot explain in details how but I believe love is the greater or better concurrency of the Saints of G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

21 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If you break into my house with the intent to harm me and I shoot you, who protected my right?  

If it is really your house - why do you pay property taxes thinking to keep it?  If you are paying rent (property tax) to someone else is it really yours?  If the real owner (or their agent) breaks into what you think is your house with the intent to do you harm (remove your rights and put you into custody) and you shoot them - what or who do you think will protect your right?  Your gun?  I submit that if you think so - you will - at the day's end - have less liberty, freedom and rights.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

Just now, Traveler said:

If it is really your house - why do you pay property taxes thinking to keep it?  If you are paying rent (property tax) to someone else is it really yours?  If the real owner (or their agent) breaks into what you think is your house with the intent to do you harm (remove your rights and put you into custody) and you shoot them - what or who do you think will protect your right?  Your gun?  I submit that if you think so - you will - at the day's end - have less liberty, freedom and rights.

 

The Traveler

 

You just proved my point.

[Traveler]

28 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Is the Constitution inspired of God?   

I believe parts of it for sure.  But I do not believe it is without flaws and will be the singular source of governing the Saints in the Celestial Kingdom.  What do you believe?

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe parts of it for sure.  But I do not believe it is without flaws and will be the singular source of governing the Saints in the Celestial Kingdom.  What do you believe?

 

The Traveler

Quote

5 And that ^alaw of the land which is ^bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the ^aconstitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you ^afree, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the ^awicked ^brule the people mourn.

Quote

77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondageone to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

I agree with Heavenly Father.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That isn't my position.  My position is that as a free man just because the majority of people vote to take something from me under threat of violence doesn't make it just.   How I voted makes zero difference. 

I agreed.

 

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If @zil and I vote to beat you up and take your shoes, the fact that we declared we own that room and get to make the rules and our rules are you take a licking and lose your shoes doesn't mean it's just.

Nobody is beating you up to take your shoes.  When the Democratic Society decides they need a bridge it doesn't suddenly become theft just because you voted No to it - unless they are preventing you from using the bridge.

 

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I agree with Heavenly Father.

Do you believe that the Saints of G-d in Missouri (or Nauvoo) should not have given surrendered their guns but should have kept them and shot anyone trying to break into their homes and do them harm?  Was Joseph Smith a false prophet for surrendering and commanding others to do so?

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

Just now, anatess2 said:

I agreed.

 

Nobody is beating you up to take your shoes.  When the Democratic Society decides they need a bridge it doesn't suddenly become theft just because you voted No to it - unless they are preventing you from using the bridge.

 

This discussion isn't about building a bridge, which I discussed many posts ago.  It's devolved into that.  This is a discussion about taking something from you, and giving it directly to me.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Do you believe that the Saints of G-d in Missouri (or Nauvoo) should not have given surrendered their guns but should have kept them and shot anyone trying to break into their homes and do them harm?  Was Joseph Smith a false prophet for surrendering and commanding others to do so?

 

The Traveler

What does that have to do with this discussion?

[zil]

29 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 If @zil and I vote to beat you up and take your shoes

Please!  Shoes, schmoos.  Take her fountain pens!

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

This discussion isn't about building a bridge, which I discussed many posts ago.  It's devolved into that.  This is a discussion about taking something from you, and giving it directly to me.

That's not the discussion as I was understanding it.  The discussion is about taxing you to give to EVERYBODY.  That's what guaranteed income is.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

That's not the discussion as I was understanding it.  The discussion is about taxing you to give to EVERYBODY.  That's what guaranteed income is.

Tomato Tomato.  You aren't giving to "everybody".  You're taking from me.  I'm part of everybody.

 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Tomato Tomato.  You aren't giving to "everybody".  You're taking from me.  I'm part of everybody.

 

Exactly.  Which is the same as the Bridge.  You're not excluded from using the bridge.

"Taxing the Rich" to provide "Welfare for the Poor" is not theft either even as it is stupid because in the USA, Everybody can be Rich and Everybody can be Poor.  Now, taxing everybody White to give to everybody Black (reparations) can be theft - because a white person will never end up receiving and will never stop giving regardless of what Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal say.

Edited December 3, 2019 by anatess2

[Grunt]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Exactly.  Which is the same as the Bridge.  You're not excluded from using the bridge.

"Taxing the Rich" to provide "Welfare for the Poor" is not theft either because in the USA, Everybody can be Rich and Everybody can be Poor.  Now, taxing everybody White to give to everybody Black is theft - because a white person will never end up receiving and will never stop giving regardless of what Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal say.

I'm excluded from receiving the money that was taken from me, though.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm excluded from receiving the money that was taken from me, though.

Incorrect.  You are going by the un-American principle that the poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.

[Grunt]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Incorrect.  You are going by the un-American principle that the poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.

Absolutely correct.  It is taken from me.  It is not given to me.   It has nothing to do with who will be poor or rich.  It's an indirect transaction.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Absolutely correct.  It is taken from me.  It is not given to me.   It has nothing to do with who will be poor or rich.  It's an indirect transaction.

Absolutely incorrect.  It is taken from you today.  You may have been receiving it yesterday or tomorrow.  The Bridge doesn't become not-a-Bridge just because you had no need for it today.

[Grunt]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Absolutely incorrect.  It is taken from you today.  You may have been receiving it yesterday or tomorrow.  The Bridge doesn't become not-a-Bridge just because you had no need for it today.

"May".  Not "will".  I can never receive that money unless I forgo my current income.  I can use the bridge whenever I want.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Grunt said:

"May".  Not "will".  I can never receive that money unless I forgo my current income.  I can use the bridge whenever I want.

Just like the collection is for the Bridge, similarly the collection is for the Poor.  And like I said - you are going by the un-American principle that the Rich will always be Rich and the Poor will always be Poor - Permanent Classes.

You can argue that it's a bad idea because you strive your hardest not to end up poor and so would like to retain the option of spending that money for other things like a Bridge or to keep in your wallet.  That doesn't make Welfare for the Poor theft.  And the irrevocable evidence of this is that the Church instructs its members to avail of government Welfare before asking for Church Welfare.  The Church doesn't make a habit of encouraging its members to use funds accumulated through theft.

Edited December 3, 2019 by anatess2

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just like the collection is for the Bridge, similarly the collection is for the Poor.  And like I said - you are going by the un-American principle that the Rich will always be Rich and the Poor will always be Poor - Permanent Classes.

You can argue that it's a bad idea because you strive your hardest not to end up poor and so would like to retain the option of spending that money for other things like a Bridge or to keep in your wallet.  That doesn't make Welfare for the Poor theft.  And the irrevocable evidence of this is that the Church instructs its members to avail of government Welfare before asking for Church Welfare.  The Church doesn't make a habit of encouraging its members to use funds accumulated through theft.

No, I can argue that it's a bad idea because it is taking from one to give to another.   It's unjust.  

[Traveler]

50 minutes ago, Grunt said:

What does that have to do with this discussion?

I thought to provide and example that demonstrates that G-d is the means by which freedoms, liberties and rights are preserved.  Especially to counter your argument that you can defend your home, your rights, your liberties and so on with your gun.  The Book of Mormon testifies that this land is a choice land and that to have freedoms and liberties we must serve G-d.  It may appear unjust that the Saints suffered so in Missouri and it may appear that they lost their rights under the Extermination order (executive order 44).

What I am trying to make clear is that G-d and G-d only defends our freedoms, liberties and rights.  It is interesting that had the Saints remained in Missouri - that they would have suffered worse during the Civil War.  That in essence G-d was protecting them in their sorrows, making them stronger and establishing - not just the freedoms of his Saints - but the preservation of the United States and its constitution.  

We are watching our political parties divide and tear our country apart.  Our Constitution will not prevent political insanity from destroying our freedoms - Neither will our guns.  The single most critical element is faith in and reliance in G-d and his called and chosen prophets.  Those that created our constitution and split their blood to establish this nation did so with faith in G-d and in recolonizing  that our rights are inalienable and enabled by G-d our creator.  We do not fight just for our rights but for our G-d.  And if we undertake to justify our pride or our vain ambition - the heavens will withdraw and we will stand alone and unprotected.  

I would encourage that you have faith in G-d and in all things - especially in the preservation of your right and liberties, give credit to him.

 

The Traveler