 | | Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (URL) (21 years ago, 8-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) Xtian church. If we were to be guided by what Jesus might have done in our stead, how different things would be. Usually though, you just get some Bible thumper that wants to use Biblical teachings to put you under his thumb -- so that he can (...) (21 years ago, 8-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, I'm a pragmatist, after all! 8^) Besides which, I think the beauty of this story is not the issue of church/state separation but rather the apparent church/church separation! The fun will come in watching the Christian Coalition scramble (...) (21 years ago, 8-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | (...) Charity is absolutely a Christian (and most other religions', at that) value. The problem is, the government is not a charitable organization. God wants us to give money not because He needs it (televangelism aside <g>) but for what the act of (...) (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Rearranged slightly to make a point (...) All good. Assuming you did your research, that is. (...) Terrible idea. Why would you want to do that?(1) ALL your examples above are worthy charities (based on the assumption that you as donor have (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | (...) And here I was thinking that "all rights are property rights" was a strange belief. Adieu Richie Dulin (2 URLs) Port Brique Somewhere in the South Pacifique (2 URLs) Misérable Building a safer South Pacifique (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I grant that the assertion that altruism is a bad idea sounds a bit unusual. It's not a new assertion, however. I've made it before. Either review what was said then, or feel free to demonstrate that altruism IS a good idea, if you like... But (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <anip> (...) Perfectly said, Larry. Walking down the street years ago, guy says, "Hey, spot me some coin for a coffee?" Well, we just happen to be close to a Tim Hortins (Canadian version of 'coffee (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Allow me a maudlin, over-wrought digression: We're *all* street people. It's just that some of us have had the good luck to be related to wealthy people, and others have had the good luck to achieve a personal wealth by what they perceive as (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like you're working from a Randian definition of altruism, which is like working from a Falwellian definition of pornography. I don't know why we'd want to pick that particular slant as the "right" definition (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Isn't it pretty sad to think that there is nothing you could do to "earn" charity? Wouldn't it be better if you went up to a church (or any other building) and offered to pick up trash in their parking lot for a hot meal and a roof to sleep (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) You propose a valid system, but any kind of work-to-earn-charity scheme seems either to disqualify the relevent gift as charity or else to qualify all payment-for-work as charity. Do you consider your paycheck a charitable contribution from (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No. If you give me a roof to put over my head for a nite, that may well be worth a lot more than an hour's time picking up the parking lot is worth. (best I could do on short notice on the way back from BF was around 50-60 a nite but it's a (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) This may simply be a matter of our differing perspectives. If you are a uniquely qualified brain surgeon and you agree perform a highly complex operation for $5.00, then that particular operation is worth (in dollar terms) exactly $5.00. (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) But if you're saying paying 40k for a 1978 Pinto isn't charity, and that any exchange where both sides assign a "value" to the exchange, then altruism or charity can only happen when one side assigns no value whatsoever to the transaction, (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind —David Goeb
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Just my 2c Altruism: Carpooling (with some non-car-owners too). Charity: Picking up a hitchhiker (now and then). Best DaveG (21 years ago, 15-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!) —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) -snip- (...) Where did that definition come from? Did you make it up by yourself? It seems to be a very nice definition for your purposes. But wait, you said "it's better if..." in there! That's pretty odd for a system determine if an act is (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) Point taken--probably not the best illustration of charity. "Buy a panhandler a meal" would have been a better example. Religiously speaking, Jesus would have helped the panhandler to overcome addiction, adversity, laziness, or whatever other (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote: <snip> (...) I don't believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me. After all, he was the walrus.... I could be the walrus... still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car... "...I recall Central (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Everyone who buys anything (excepting a few items like food and, in some cases, clothing) already pays taxes, so this particular fallacy as you frame it does not exist in the governor's reasoning. Dave! (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) They share part of the tax burden. But if they don't share the full tax burden, aren't they just, as you put it in another reply to me, squatters? Best regards, Carl (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) No moreso than if they pay the $10 per annum tax that you proposed. And I would suggest the person in my example is less of a squatter, since yearly sales tax (plus hidden taxes like tariffs, etc.) would almost certainly exceed $10. Dave! (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) Then it's a matter of degrees--the more you pay in taxes the less you are a squatter? Dave K (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | | (...) Beat me to it! :) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) If $10 per anum was considered a satisfactory level of payment, then surely a greater tax (sales tax, etc.) is at least as satisfactory? Indeed, I believe the proposal suggested that welfare (gleaned from taxes) be provided to the poor so that (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) I concur--I just wanted the clarity. (...) The idea of 'pay what you owe' is ingrained into my nature by my parents. Those folks who 'take the system for granted' without putting into the (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Paying one's "fair share" is only relevant to WHERE one owes it. I think you are failing to understand precisely why the royal family of England owns so much property in the U.S. -- because it's cheaper for them here than in their own country! (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) But they don't 'dodge a tax burden' here. If they have land here, then they pay property tax here. Further, if they own land here, chances are they visit said land and therefore spend other monies here as well. Whether or not they spend more (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Ah, the myth of the global economy rears its ugly head! The global economy is only good for people that can move hundreds of millions from a country doing poorly to one that is doing better. If you are not dealing in hundreds of millions then (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | | | Good points, but like most fictions in life, we stick to entity status for corporations because it largely works. For every bad corporation that makes the news, there are handfuls of good ones that promote employee welfare and good corporate (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Strongly disagree -- as you knew I would. Your statement ignores the social contract that corporations have with the societies that provide them with the fiction that makes any of their business possible in the first place. It is not for (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well-put, and I don't disagree with the sentiment. After all, I'm supporting a position that good works are a reward in and of themselves without regard to any fiscal gain or loss! But to be a contrarian, a social contract isn't enforceable (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) One primary recourse is for the government simply to declare off-shore tax-shelters illegal for corporations that do not maintain their primary base-of-operations there (Corporate Shills in the Legislature have squawked that this is an (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) My point is that the *amount* isn't what's at stake, but the participation in the specific tax--sales tax, income tax, franchise tax, VAT, etc. Otherwise we're arguing about magic numbers--if $10 is sufficient, why not $11, etc.--and that's (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) All right, but the point remains. Under my example, the low-wealth person *is* participating in the tax framework, just as readily as if you'd assigned some low figure as an appropriate level of taxation. I don't think it's material to quibble (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thus one problem with our tax system--gas tax to pay for roads, federal income tax to pay DC, and local to pay the county school board. If I don't pay gas tax I'm not paying my part for the roads, am I? And it doesn't address the central (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote: **snip of the points I think we've identified as mutually un-convinceable** (...) Definitely. The analogy I was looking for but couldn't recall was the frog in the pan of boiling water. If you drop him (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I don't know about Dave!, but I favor any of the above over our current system of taxation. FWIW, the question of how the tax is levied leaves to the side two main issues: how much to tax and how to handle corporate taxes. I unequivocally (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Wow--I kinda had the feeling from reading this NG for a while that you & I might never agree on anything! :) I lean towards a national sales tax for several reasons: 1) Given 3 common economic behaviors, production (including reinvestment), (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) 'Twas ever thus... We are all of us prostitutes and it's always about price. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | (...) Of course, if that is true, we're also all clients. Do we gain both ways? ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) And what, exactly, does it do for us? If charity is performed to achieve a space in heaven, then it's a simple economic transaction designed to favor oneself with a payoff disproportionate to the act of charity. (...) On the contrary--public (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | (...) Generosity makes us better people (at least in my code of values--if it doesn't in yours then there's nothing but for us to agree to disagree). If our "generosity" is fueled only by a desire to earn a space in heaven, we are buying, not (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) But that just postpones the argument, rather than resolving it. (I continue this point below.) (...) Here we may be at a crux of our disagreement. Why doesn't the public good qualify as charity? Are there circumstances under which it might (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) The key word is "wealthy benefactor;" it's charity because a person has decided to do something of no advantage to himself or herself that does enormous good to others. It's also not charity by proxy; it's charity at an individual level. I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) Et tu, Dave!? This is the same "love it or leave it" crap that one normally hears from the right. It is also a straw man, there is of course the alternative of simply staying and trying to "improve" the system. Improve is in quotes because one (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Hey, you stinker--I've told you before that if you don't actually agree with me, you're supposed to pretend that you do. And anyway, I don't use strawman arguments--my fallacy was the false dilemma, thankyouverymuch. 8^) Anyway, I didn't quite (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
