This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Christians: how do we vote with the poor in mind?

#91SirThinkALotPosted 11/1/2013 7:32:42 PM
BashyMcFetus posted...
People's actions don't take place in a vacuum. You can mine all the gold you want, but unless you have the infrastructure to move it, the ability to enforce ownership, and a demand from people able to buy it, it's still worthless.


I dont see how this is relevant to my point, if anything it actually underscores what I was saying earlier: Nothing has value until people act to give it value. The fact that there are lots of people and a structure of production involved doesnt really change the fundamental concept I was getting at.

You should also remember that Rapture wasn't exactly a nice place to live, even before everyone started going insane.


I never said he was right about everything....
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#92myzz7Posted 11/1/2013 8:02:06 PM
Human rights mean nothing if property rights don't exist. Freedom is but a floating abstraction to the man who can't earn his sustenance by his own effort.
---
http://s10.postimage.org/mxioonsd1/gildavatar.gif http://i.imgur.com/Sv563GA.jpg
#93BronyFriendzoniPosted 11/1/2013 9:34:06 PM
Indori posted...
Brony, your comments here are interesting to me considering what you said about abortion and other issues in your "moderate Christians" thread. Do you not think those issues also fall under this line of reasoning?

BronyFriendzoni posted...
I'm a Christian because I follow the Nicene Creed. I'm a moderate because I don't see the need to force my views on other people, particularly on moral issues like gay rights or abortion, and because I don't feel like I need to agree with everything that's in the Bible or in the catechism of the Catholic Church in order to be a good Christian.


If I could effectively get abortion banned through democratic means, I probably would. I understand enough about the function of the state(secular or otherwise) to know that's not going to happen though. Gay marriage just absolutely does not bother me at all. Frankly, the Bishops are dead wrong about it. They imagine a world where god's grace touches every institution, religious or secular. That's not the world we live in. Catholic marriage is a sacrament. Civil marriage is a legal contract, nothing else.

I don't vote based on what I'm told to vote on. I vote on what makes sense. 9 times out of 10, my vote is in harmony with church teaching. While I will use my conscience to promote the Catholic idea of a just society, I'm doing that because I sincerely and honestly think that the Catholic idea of a just and good society is reasonable. I vote for what's right, not just what I'm "told" to do. I voted for Obama when plenty of fellow Catholics told me I couldn't.

So the whole argument here is futile. I vote for what's right, no matter who says I should or not. It just so happens that Christianity has honed my moral sense to better do that.
#94BashyMcFetusPosted 11/1/2013 10:48:46 PM
SirThinkALot posted...
I dont see how this is relevant to my point, if anything it actually underscores what I was saying earlier: Nothing has value until people act to give it value. The fact that there are lots of people and a structure of production involved doesnt really change the fundamental concept I was getting at.

But the infrastructure involved is so large that no one person could be able to afford it. People are only in positions to generate wealth because of the contributions of the current and former community. No matter how much a person pulls himself up by their own bootstraps, they'd be far worse off if not for the head start others were able to give them.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#95BronyFriendzoniPosted 11/1/2013 11:09:06 PM
SirThinkALot posted...
<
Wrong. No tangible thing can belong to all mankind. If I eat a fried egg, nobody else can enjoy that egg as well.


And that single good was consumed either in a way that promoted the good of mankind, or it didn't. If the former, then it served it's true purpose, if not, then it sadly didn't. The fact that a single egg can't feed everyone is trivial, every individual component of physical wealth shares a common purpose.

Does a person who works to produce something not have a right to use it for his own purposes?


No, you're arguing from faulty premises. Nobody works to accomplish something on their own thus nobody has a right to sole discretion over the wealth they accumulate. So long as every human being is born to a mother, then this will hold true.
#96BronyFriendzoniPosted 11/1/2013 11:13:07 PM
SirThinkALot posted...
Nothing has value until people act to give it value.


A human being has value, regardless of whether they, or anyone else, acknowledges it.
#97BronyFriendzoniPosted 11/1/2013 11:14:46 PM
BashyMcFetus posted...
SirThinkALot posted...
I dont see how this is relevant to my point, if anything it actually underscores what I was saying earlier: Nothing has value until people act to give it value. The fact that there are lots of people and a structure of production involved doesnt really change the fundamental concept I was getting at.

But the infrastructure involved is so large that no one person could be able to afford it. People are only in positions to generate wealth because of the contributions of the current and former community. No matter how much a person pulls himself up by their own bootstraps, they'd be far worse off if not for the head start others were able to give them.


And you can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps in order to receive life. Somebody has to do that entirely for you. When you don't even own your own existence, what else can you possibly truly own?
#98SirThinkALotPosted 11/2/2013 4:23:14 AM(edited)
BashyMcFetus posted...
SirThinkALot posted...
I dont see how this is relevant to my point, if anything it actually underscores what I was saying earlier: Nothing has value until people act to give it value. The fact that there are lots of people and a structure of production involved doesnt really change the fundamental concept I was getting at.

But the infrastructure involved is so large that no one person could be able to afford it. People are only in positions to generate wealth because of the contributions of the current and former community. No matter how much a person pulls himself up by their own bootstraps, they'd be far worse off if not for the head start others were able to give them.


...So? Just because a person is 'building off' of what came before doesnt mean their own contributions arent real, or that they dont deserve to utilize what they worked to produce.

BronyFriendzoni posted...
A human being has value, regardless of whether they, or anyone else, acknowledges it.


I was using 'value' in the economic sense, I agree people have intrinsic value.
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#99BronyFriendzoniPosted 11/2/2013 11:50:08 AM
SirThinkALot posted...

...So? Just because a person is 'building off' of what came before doesnt mean their own contributions arent real, or that they dont deserve to utilize what they worked to produce.


It does mean that their contributions are never entirely their own, however.



I was using 'value' in the economic sense, I agree people have intrinsic value.


And by virtue of that intrinsic value, they're entitled by God to the necessities of wealth. This has been Christian doctrine for 2,000 years.
#100imhungry24-7Posted 11/5/2013 9:00:41 AM
BronyFriendzoni posted...
And by virtue of that intrinsic value, they're entitled by God to the necessities of wealth. This has been Christian doctrine for 2,000 years.


and yet, in the sweat of thy face... Genesis 3: 19

It isn't entitlement, its a stewardship of Gods things.
---
"Whoah! Where's my Dingus?" -Finn the Human