Why government stealing can't be stopped

I believe that the doctrine of 'care' for the populace is a paternalistic medieval holdover.

Under the banner of 'Care', Lenin, Hitler, and Mao swaept to power in their respective unfortunate countries. In America, Washington and his associates claimed no such fatherly goal.

Where can one justifiably draw the line on the balancing of 'inequities' once that road is travelled down?

Never mind the socialist Rats in Congress; look at the record of America's activist, and socialist, courts!

Spoken like an true ex-democrat....or worse a current one

Ah, yes. On Free Republic, if you aren't suitably extreme, you must be a closet Democrat. Given that the leftists are trying to enact their agenda through the courts, UN, and other institutions in which the will of the people is poorly represented, I'll reply with a hearty, "I know you are but what am I?"

...democracy: 3 wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner.....

Without democracy, you wind up with one wolf and three sheep deciding what's for dinner and the sheep don't get a vote. Do you really pine for a Monarchy or Despotism instead of a Republic?

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.-Thomas Jefferson

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776

Pure democracy is not the answer but neither is removing all power from the people to govern. This is why the Founders, who had more sense than you apparently give them credit for, instituded a Republic and not a Monarchy, though I'm sure that there are those on Free Republic that wish George Washington had taken the Napoleon route. It is, after all, so much easier to rule by decree without going through the messy process of actually convincing other people that you are right.

It's the same thing, just a different scale. Helping individuals recover helps the state as a whole, just as helping a state recover helps the nation as a whole.

Not the same thing at all. Helping one of the states of the nation helps every citizen in it. Giving money to an individual means that individual can spend it anywhere on anything. Giving money to individuals fosters laziness, unlike giving help to a state in the form of government services, kills motivation and direction.

A state is made up of millions of individuals, so individual attributes of dependence like lack of motivation, laziness, aimlessness and irresponsibility don't apply to a state as a political entity, unless most of the individuals are that way. Issuing dependence to individuals in a state is the way the state reflects those attributes, doing damage to all in the state that aren't like that.

The difference between the United States and Cuba is that a lot of Americans don't vote because they don't care. They are happy. If Americans were not happy with (or at least indifferent to) the trade off between services and taxes, they'd vote.

Actually, the trick is that most Americans are still somewhat honest, and they know that there is no way they could understand the mess we call a government. Of course, this is also true for our dishonest legislators, which is the real secret of our success, If we ever truly learn what we are doing to ourselves, we are likely to cut our own throats, but what's the rush? We are already doing quite well at it.

"Helping one of the states of the nation helps every citizen in it. "

It's still helping one group of people at the expense of another whether it's done on an individiual basis or not.

Giving money to an individual means that individual can spend it anywhere on anything. Giving money to individuals fosters laziness, unlike giving help to a state in the form of government services, kills motivation and direction.

This is the crux of your issue. You have a policy difference with the government. I dissagree with you. I think giving money to individuals is sometimes nothing more than a helping hand that gets them back on their feet and allows them to become productive instead of lanquishing and filing bankruptcy and causing ripple effects through the economy.

In some cases I agree that giving individual aid causes dependency and does not serve to be helpful as intended.

But how is this theft? If our duly elected representatives have the power to give to the states, don't they also have the power to give to individuals? Just because you disagree with the policy doesn't make it Theft.

"Please site scripture that shows charity is to be a function of government (with civil penalties for noncompliance) rather than something that comes from individuals, churches, and families. "

The first was said by God to the son of King Josiah and says that if "we the people" want to rule, we must "judge the cause of the poor and needy". The second to King Nebuchadnezzar and says mercy to the poor will extend the days of his reign. The third is general advice to a king that the length of reign is tied to treatment of the poor. The fourth is a messianic psalm that is clearly talking about Jesus, nevertheless, if Jesus is our example, and if "we the people" are the rulers, then we cannot turn a blind eye.

Jermiah 22:15 Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? 16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD.

Daniel 4:27 - Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

>Prov 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.

>Psalms 72:1 Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son. 2 He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. 3 The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. 4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. ...12 For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. 13 He shall spare the poor and needy, ...

Now I know that some of our programs are counter productive. None of this is to say that how we help the poor isn't critical. A hand up is much better than a hand out. But don't throw the baby out with the wash. That there are some counter productive programs do not relieve us of responsibility.

I thank you for your reply. It is from the scriptures and I accept them as divinely inspired and profitable for instruction.

Those scriptures DON'T make the case for social programs. They only insure that the king does not abuse the rights of the poor because they are powerless. I am in full agreement with that.

It is also written that we are not to favor the poor. This is in Exodus 23:3 and Leviticus 19:15. Impartial justice is God's standard. Most of the time, rulers favor the rich, so their are many warnings against that. But there are also warnings against favoring the poor, as transfer payments do.

BTW, my household income is such that I am on the lower end of the scale. I am not saying this for my personal benefit. I am saying that government welfare is immoral because it is theft, and it is showing partiality, and it promotes coveting, all of which are forbidden by God's Word.

"It is also written that we are not to favor the poor. "

Those verses are for judges in a civil or criminal court, not for rulers. That means that if a poor man sues a rich man the judge shouldn't give the poor man a judgement just because the judge had compassion on the poor man. That is very different from a King collecting taxes and having mercy on the poor.

"I am saying that government welfare is immoral because it is theft, and it is showing partiality, and it promotes coveting, all of which are forbidden by God's Word. "

It's not theft if it is appropriately administered under the law. It is not showing partiality in civil or criminal judgements of the kind forbidden by scripture. Helping the poor does not necessarily promote coveting and might even prevent it.

What do you think "rescuing the children of the needy" means? It doesn't say rescuing the children of the abused or oppressed, it says "needy".

What's more look at how God managed when He was King of Israel, prior to Israel requesting an earthly King, King Saul.

Not only was every third or fourth year of the levitical tithe given. But the corners of the fields were to be left for the poor, any spillage was to be left for the poor, and not everything was to be harvested and was to be left for the poor. In addition, the fields were to be left fallow for the poor every seven years.

That worked in a farm economy, but in the modern economy we can't do all of that. So what do you suggest we do to make up for that?

"We the People" are the rulers of the land. If we wish to remain so, we must consider the "cause of the Poor".

I 100% agree that we are to give to charity and be merciful with the poor. God's Word commands this, and in the Old Testament it even gave certain guidelines, like the one you listed.

HOWEVER, and follow me real close on this one, because it is the absolute critical distinction, there were no civil penalties for failure to do any of the things you listed. There were no civil penalties attached for failure to bring the levitical tithe, or for failing to leave the corners of one's fields for the poor, or for any of those other measures of compassion that God commanded.

Let me repeat that, because it is an important distinction. God never authorizes the state to punish people for not being charitable. He does command indivduals to be charitable, but you will not find a single instance where He authorizes the government to punish people for failure to give to chairity.

God commands individuals to do lots of things. The key here is what does He authorize GOVERNMENT to use force to do?

There are PLENTY of laws in the Old Testament in which God ordained civil penalty for failure to comply with the law. In NO CASE do ANY of the chairity laws come with attached civil penalties. These were commands from God to individuals, not to the GOVERNMENT.

All sorts of pernicious evil follows by putting the state in charge of what God has ordained as an individual, family, and church matter. Such evil is copiously documented in "The Tragedy of American Compassion".

I agree that God wants a king who is the type that will rescue the children of the needy. I do not agree that He wants it done under complusion with other people's money.

I respect your willingness to use the scripture as your guide. I hope that you will follow them to the philosophy of government that they support.

..."The Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights and powers of the states and the people. But we now have a sloppy presumption in favor of federal power. Most people assume the federal government can do anything it isn’t plainly forbidden to do..."

There is NO narcotic so intoxicating as the power to spend someone else's money."

I think you either have the addiction or the "presumption".

"I think you either have the addiction or the "presumption". "

Actually, I don't. Unfortunately most of the limits on federal powers are limits to restrict rights. However the Federal Government does how the power to tax and spend. Including spending on social programs. At least the earliest congresses interpreted it that way.

I think the Federal government is very bad about using it's power of tax and spend to effectively regulate in areas that have not been delegated to it. So called matching fund programs are terrible in this regard and I think constitutional challenged should be launched against them, anytime the power of the purse is used to enforce state regulatory compliance.

But at the same time I do think that the government has a civil duty to the poor which it must not fail to do if it (we) wish to remain in power. If done right it stabelizes the economy by stabelizing individual lives and the benefit to the economy is greater than the cost. If done wrong, it generates depencency on government as well as bloated bureacracies.

I think that even if both federal and state governments forsook their responsibility in this matter there will allways be people complaining about the tax burden and calling the most pure governmental project "theft".

The colonial states dealt with these matters long before the constitution. Every one of them had a form of poor laws.

"He does command indivduals to be charitable, but you will not find a single instance where He authorizes the government to punish people for failure to give to chairity. "

It's clear that when he is referring to these kings, he is talking about their capacity as government, not as individuals.

When Israel demanded a King, and God warned them what they were in for, he told them the King would collect 10% in taxes.

It's true that we are commanded as individuals to be generous to the poor too. But government is also "a minister unto God" and should not turn a blind eye to problems in the society. In fact to do so, will cause God to change the government.

In other words, if we got the government out of the helping business. And then we failed as individuals to take care of the poor, I feel certain that God would take the responsibility of government away from us.

The fact remains that in the colonial states, the reason the states got involved in "poor law" cases was because certain localities were not living up to their responsibilities and dumping their poor and disabled on other towns. I'm pretty sure that the same problem existed at the state level, too. Which is one reason why the Fed is involved and uses matching fund schemes to insure the states provide the care.

Concerning the Kings, it is clear that when He is speaking about rendering impartial justice for the poor that He is talking about their capacity as government. It is NOT clear that the one sentence fragment from Jeremiah concerning "delivering the children of the needy" is scriptural justification for impounding trillions of dollars of your fellow citizens income to fund social programs that have had perverse consequneces.

Really, you are going to need more than one questionable sentece fragment to justify the welfare state. Its not scriptural. Its not in the Book.

As for your alluison to 2nd Sammuel Chapter 8, that was a warning of all of the BAD things that a king would do, not what God WANTED a king to do.

IN your next paragraph, when you quote a sentence fragment that says government is a "minister of God", you are correct, but you fail to note what government's ministry is to be. It is not the same as the church- the government is God's minister to bring wrath on evildoers and honor those who do good. That is about a direct quote. The Church ministers God's mercy, the state His justice. They are both His ministers, but they have distinct, bibical roles, which the welfare state violates and makes a travesty.

I do agree with your last point. In fact I make the same point myself near the end of an article here..

http://www.cparkansas.org/jesusvswelfare.htm

That does not change what the goal should be. Governement welfare should be abolished, albiet slowly while the nation buids the heart and infrastructure to do the job without government.

I don't argue with your historical facts about poor laws. Right now I live 3 miles from the state line. People move from my state to the bordering state because it pays higher welfare benefits. The answer is not to make my state or city pay more, its to stop all payments period! If those people want money from the rest of use, they should find some way to be useful to us in exchange for it.

Government's jobs is also to manage the economy. There are a lot more to the "poor" than the welfare recipients you see moving across the state line. There are invalids, developmentally disabled, Young adults who are disabled, children with special needs, elderly and widows who don't have children and for one reason or another can't afford care. There's also business men who have contributed to society who took risks in the economy and played the capitalist game and who ended up bankrupt. Go tell an orphan that they should make themselves useful.

You talk like the whole thing is just freeloaders and that there are no "legitimately" poor.

You acknowledge the "historical" facts that some people didn't live up to their responsibilities, but you want to take the problem out of government's hands and give it back to the people knowing that their hearts haven't changed. Do you really think we are a better people today than the colonists?

But I still recognize that we have a democratically elected republic that arguably is the best form of government. And therefore it's SLANDER to call lawful actions of the government theft, just because you disagree with it.

I see, so your government supremacism extends to my speech as well as my wallet. I openly invite slander charges. A brief glance at previous 1st Amendment case law indicates this would be quite profitable.

Well here's what the Bible says about taxes. It says pay them.

This is not a theocracy.

And so nobody tried to prove that the 16th wasn't properly ratified in civil court? Or the judges didn't want to hear? or what?

You're kidding, right? Lower courts do not rule on issues of constitutionality. In many cases you can't even mention the Constitution in the lower courts unless you wish to be jailed for contempt. The path to the SCOTUS is long and hard, in most cases, especially ones crucial to government's interests, you will be denied cert. Game over.

That you have the right to SLANDER the government, doesn't make it less SLANDEROUS or TREASONOUS to do so.

It is not a theocracy, if you wish to view all taxes as theft, that's your right, but you will still be wrong.

"You're kidding, right? ... The path to the SCOTUS is long and hard, in most cases, especially ones crucial to government's interests, you will be denied cert. Game over. "

I'm not kidding, I don't know the history of appeals against the 16th. Did anybody try? You claim that the 16th is not properly ratified. There must be some way of appealing the enforcement of that. Why hasn't anybody tried and if so what were the results?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.