Denver Bible Buying a Church!

[Delmar]

Who puts out fires?

I'm willing to talk about what rightly qualifies as infrastructure.

Who educates future generations?

Who did it before the government took it over?

How much are safe roads and bridges, air traffic control, disease management, military and law enforcement worth to you? In other words, if 10% does not provide for the services you want, what else are you willing to give up?

I'm quite confident that, if the government got out of the business of the Church and the family 7% would be more than enough.

 

[Doormat]

Who puts out fires? Who educates future generations? How much are safe roads and bridges, air traffic control, disease management, military and law enforcement worth to you? In other words, if 10% does not provide for the services you want, what else are you willing to give up?

Your question assumes the government couldn't just print up debt-free money and spend it into the economy without having to directly tax the people.

 

[Delmar]

Your question assumes the government couldn't just print up debt-free money and spend it into the economy without having to directly tax the people.

I too assume that doesn't work. Not for very long at least. The money would become worthless!

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your question assumes the government couldn't just print up debt-free money and spend it into the economy without having to directly tax the people.

I too assume that doesn't work. Not for very long at least. The money would become worthless!

Printing money ruins the value of a currency. In Germany, after WWII, they printed money. I remember a picture of a man wheeling a wheelbarrow full of money to the store to buy a few simple groceries. Printing money only makes a bad situation worse.

 

[Delmar]

Printing money ruins the value of a currency. In Germany, after WWII, they printed money. I remember a picture of a man wheeling a wheelbarrow full of money to the store to buy a few simple groceries. Printing money only makes a bad situation worse.

Yup

 

[Doormat]

Printing money ruins the value of a currency.

What is the U.S. government doing now? Printing money ... and charging the people interest on what is created out of thin air. It can be done without charging the people interest.

 

[Doormat]

I too assume that doesn't work. Not for very long at least. The money would become worthless!

Yet, that's basically what you have a version of now. Presently, every bank in the Federal Reserve System banking system creates money out of thin air every day through the mechanism of deposit expansion. Our government creates bonds (as easily as they could create debt-free dollars) and gives those to the Federal Reserve Bank in exchange for money they create out of thin air.

 

[Delmar]

What is the U.S. government doing now? Printing money ... and charging the people interest on what is created out of thin air. It can be done without charging the people interest.

and it will come back to bite us!

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't even see why the government should do infrastructure. I could accept it, I guess, if you really got the tax rate down to 7% I'd be thrilled (I don't even have a freaking job* and I already pay more than that on sales taxes alone) and I wouldn't necessarily want to fight that much better a government on every little thing, but I don't see where its Biblical either that infrastructure should be done by government. I'd privatize the roads and highways as well.

All that said, good luck funding the "conservative" drug war and wars around the world at 7%. Or do you oppose one or both of those as well? My experience with conservatives (In case it wasn't clear, I'm a pro-life libertarian, not a conservative) is that they want both, they want really low taxes but they also want to spend more and more resources on regulating the drug trade (All the while claiming... correctly... that government should be kept out of healthcare) and waging wars around the globe.

I don't want to make any assumptions since I don't know you, do you support the drug wars and the foreign wars?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Just wanted to clarify, since I put a asterisk on the "I don't have a job" part and forgot to clarify, but that's because I'm in High School. I have every intention of getting a job.

He is prophecised to overthrow the Roman government, but not at that time.

Yes, I agree.

You can say another way as defending liberty. That is what government is for. You defend liberty by taking the sword to the wicked who would steal it from you. The common man does not get to kill the wicked. Only certain people can do that function.

Honestly, the only reason I'd agree with that statement is because just killing people without trial is going to lead to innocent people being killed. However, abortion doctors in this country have killed far more people than Hitler as a group, and we KNOW who they are. Was it wrong to for private citizens to kill the Nazis? If not, why is it wrong to kill abortion doctors?

(To be clear, I am not advocating any illegal action, I'm asking a philosophical question. There are plenty of things that I think are philosophically justifiable yet pragmatically ill advised.)

As for Jesus defending liberty, I don't think that was his goal there. My ideal government is a bit more limited than yours, but I don't have any problem agreeing with you that a limited government is better for liberty than none at all. But the Roman government was WAY past the point of limited government, and honestly, I do really believe human society could function better under no government than it did under the Roman government. When faced with a choice of too much government, or too little, I'll go with too little every single time.

It is more than implied in Deuteronomy. He gives every reason under the sun to send a man home from war.

You know, good luck implementing the full neo-con agenda without the draft. There's no way you're destroying Iran without one unless you want to kill that many innocent people.

That isn't so.



Neither is that.

You have to give reasons. Biblical, logical, philosophical, I can live with all of that. But you've got to say something more than "That's not true" or I'm going to just disregard it.

It is Biblical.

Where? I can see where you get morality enforcement from, even if I think its wrong to use the Old Testament as a form of law for the modern day outright (That is not to say anything in the OT was WRONG, I think that strict system of law was special for God's Holy Land and was intended to make a point), but at least I can see the argument. But I don't remember anywhere in any part of the Bible that justifies taxation for things like roads.

It is neither theft nor slavery, it is a system of our own creation. We, as a people, have determined what services we want the government to provide for us. A defense force. Interstate commerce regulation. Social welfare programs. Drug enforcement. Criminal investigation. Security. And the list goes on. Money to pay for those programs must to come from somewhere. They can't just print it; that is the single most inflationary thing a government can do and will destroy any country who tries to do it. By taxing labor and wealth and trade, the inflationary pressures are kept down. But that is the simple fact: whether or not we agree with or condone government programs, as a society, "we" have demanded them. And now that we have them, we must pay for them. This is not immoral, illegal, theft or slavery. It is something of our own creation.

Who the crap is "We". This is just collectivist crap. I never agreed to any of this crap. If it was up to me, I'd only pay for real defense and real security, not the phony crap we have now (I'd cut the military budget by at least 3/4ths, and eliminate every single other Federal program, leaving the states to do law enforcement and courts and abolishing everything else outright). God clearly calls any government taking 10+% tyrannical. You apparently support a government that takes even more than God says is tyrannical.

The premise that, anything the masses demand is just, is lunacy, and certainly not based in scripture.

This.

And yet here we are. It is why this country separated from England in the first place. America is not a Christian country and never has been. It is comprised primarily of Christians and that has influenced our laws. But when America was founded it was founded in part on the idea that the masses could and should have an influence on policy.

It really wasn't, and thank God it wasn't. America was created as a constitutional Republic. Personally, I do believe the constitution was a mistake, the Articles of Confederation were a much better system for the protection of our life and liberty, even though they weren't perfect either. I'm not really a huge fan of just pulling out Bible verses and saying that we definitively have to use those laws in every society, but I'd take straight Biblical rule over the unadulterated mob mentality of the masses any day. Most people are stupid. I don't think a "Benevolent Monarchy" is possible, but find me one that leaves us alone and I'll support him. I honestly don't give a CRAP about democracy. I want liberty, and whatever government allows me to have it (Note for you lefties: I do not want government to "Give me" freedom, I want them to stop taking it away) is a good government.


The best government is the smallest.

The Democratic Majority is a tool of tyranny. Most people are fragile and don't think for two seconds before they make decisions that affect everyone else. You have a right to screw your own life over as much as you want to, and I mean AS MUCH as you want to. You have no right to swing your fist at my nose, nor do you have a right to create an organization, call it "Government" and ask it to do it for you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I don't even see why the government should do infrastructure. I could accept it, I guess, if you really got the tax rate down to 7% I'd be thrilled (I don't even have a freaking job* and I already pay more than that on sales taxes alone) and I wouldn't necessarily want to fight that much better a government on every little thing, but I don't see where its Biblical either that infrastructure should be done by government. I'd privatize the roads and highways as well.

Do you honestly think that you would pay less to use a privately owned road? I hope you understand that you will pay to use it as the owner has to pay for up keep and make a profit. Or is it that you would prefer to pay a private company?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you honestly think that you would pay less to use a privately owned road? I hope you understand that you will pay to use it as the owner has to pay for up keep and make a profit. Or is it that you would prefer to pay a private company?

I've actually seen private roads in somewhat rural locations that don't charge tolls. That said, yes, I fully expect to pay for them, and that's fine. I'd much rather these things be funded on the marketplace rather than through institutional violence. And I believe competition will drive prices down. But no, I don't think they'll ever hit 0. I do think traffic fatalities and prices will go down as competition creates improvement.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I've actually seen private roads in somewhat rural locations that don't charge tolls. That said, yes, I fully expect to pay for them, and that's fine. I'd much rather these things be funded on the marketplace rather than through institutional violence. And I believe competition will drive prices down. But no, I don't think they'll ever hit 0. I do think traffic fatalities and prices will go down as competition creates improvement.

Institutional violence? What, exactly is that in your estimation?

Now where do you think competition will come from? How many different highways do you think we need between New York and Chicago? Accidents may go up if highway one is limited to 65 and highway two is unlimited speed. Gets worse in the cities. Does one company get a monopoly on all the roads in a city? Do they get to bid on each street? How do they collect the tolls that will inevitably be charged?

Your ideas are idealistic but impractical in practice.

 

[Jukia]

The government should be responsible for infrastructure (roads, bridges, air traffic control and probably disease quarantines) and defense (military and law enforcement). Family, church and charity should handle the rest.

Who funds basic research---physics, chemistry, biology?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Institutional violence? What, exactly is that in your estimation?

Now where do you think competition will come from? How many different highways do you think we need between New York and Chicago? Accidents may go up if highway one is limited to 65 and highway two is unlimited speed. Gets worse in the cities. Does one company get a monopoly on all the roads in a city? Do they get to bid on each street? How do they collect the tolls that will inevitably be charged?

Your ideas are idealistic but impractical in practice.

Nobody would get a monopoly. As for how many? However many the market demands. Road owners with good business practices get rich, the bad ones get put out of business because people choose the good roads.

How do they collect the tolls? However they want. Its private property.

If people choose the unlimited speed road and that has more crashes (Not sure that would happen, see the autobahn) then the free market decides that the convenience of being able to drive fast outweighs the risk of harm. Otherwise, they'd use the slower road. But the thing is, you get a CHOICE. With government, there is no choice.

 

[Nick M]

And yet here we are. It is why this country separated from England in the first place.

You are confused or deliberately misleading.

But when America was founded it was founded in part on the idea that the masses could and should have an influence on policy.

Really, then why didn't they let non male property owners have a say?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nobody would get a monopoly. As for how many? However many the market demands. Road owners with good business practices get rich, the bad ones get put out of business because people choose the good roads.

How do they collect the tolls? However they want. Its private property.

If people choose the unlimited speed road and that has more crashes (Not sure that would happen, see the autobahn) then the free market decides that the convenience of being able to drive fast outweighs the risk of harm. Otherwise, they'd use the slower road. But the thing is, you get a CHOICE. With government, there is no choice.

Now you need to deal with the issues of liability. Will you replace my car if its stolen off your street? If I get in an accident on your street I am going to sue you because the bad condition of your road caused the accident. Are you going to clear the snow from the street in a timely fashion? If I'm late for work, it's your fault and I'll have sue. What about police? Police cannot enforce traffic laws on private property. Who will investigate accidents?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are confused or deliberately misleading.

Neither. History classes.

Really, then why didn't they let non male property owners have a say?

Cultural norms of the time. They used a more restrictive definition of masses than we understand today. And they didn't really fully trust the masses either. Hence, the electoral college we all know and love.

 

[Delmar]

Who funds basic research---physics, chemistry, biology?

Business

 

[Jukia]

Business

You're dreaming.

My daughter is a PhD in Genetics. She is working at a large university connected hospital on a project attempting to find cellular markers for a particular type of cancer. It is really more like basic biological research. It may never develop into a treatment or diagnostic tool for cancer, yet it will most likely expand our knowledge of how the cell works. Absent any real potential for $ coming out of the other end of the pipeline, what type of business do you think would fund that? Fund an entire lab---equipment, space, staff etc.

Business looks at the bottom line--and often on a quarterly basis. I repeat--you're dreaming. Although it does appear to be a nice Republican dream