Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

One could ask you the same question. Are you so covetous that all you can think about is getting your hands on someone else's money?

It wasn't that long ago that libs were trying to tell us that wanting to keep what you legally and rightfully earned was "greed" and wanting to confiscate another mans earnings was "charity".

 

...

 

To answer the OP question People can be anything they wish but some things not simultaneously.
For example, I'm more liberal with family, friends and acquaintances and more conservative with strangers and persons I know very little about.

 

Jesus was a liberal and so were the majority of the Founding Fathers who were Deists rather than christians.

 

Absolutely agree. When the RW likes something, they try to claim it. Like George Orwell, who was completely against fascism and totalitarianism. The opposite of rightwing politics. They read Animal Farm in 8th grade and saw the movie 1984 and think they are about Communism. They aren't. They are about how power corrupts, and against totalitarianism and fascism. They even have a poster of Andy Griffith that is pro-Right Wing ideology, but Andy was deeply Democratic, working for Democratic causes and supporting Democratic candidates.

I would suggest to any of you people who actually want to understand George Orwell, read Down and Out in Paris and London.

 

No, Jesus was smart, liberals are not.

 

Communism always ends up being totalitarianism.

 

When did I ever say “ if a parent wants their kid to be “idiots”..they should homeschool. First of all kids absolutely do learn social behavior in school. My students learned not to call out, learned to respect each other, learned about appropriate behavior etc. is that a bad thing?
I notice you tend to be an extremist. Either /or nothing gray
When did I ever insinuate public schools are the only correct place for education? You make up these extremist viewpoints And attribute them to me . You project what you think I think, and then make it fact. Trump knows his base!

 

Jesus was a nice Jewish boy who disappointed his mother because he wasn’t a doctor and didn’t get married. ...probably gay

 

"the greatest good for the greatest number" …..on reflection, there are likely to be individuals who lose, and individuals who gain under that policy. So I cannot claim a clear case of a false dichotomy. OK you win that point.

But in any case the current problem is a shrinking middle class, and low wages growth for the majority of the population, while CEO pay is soaring to stratospheric levels (c. 300 times average wage), and 40 million people (In the US, the world's richest economy) are trapped in poverty. (And Trump is accusing his allies of 'unfair trade'... I think the truth is, we are all burdened by a dysfunctional global economic system - except those who are doing just fine, thank you very much)

So getting back to the purpose of law, ie, to promote well-ordered relations between naturally self-interested individuals, to avoid chaos:

A lot of negatives in that sentence; sounding a bit like the meaning of my statement: "The greatest good for the greatest number" is not necessarily incompatible with individual liberty ", so let's move on.

Note: the preamble to the US constitution - to establish rule of law with certain specified (if general) universally sought-after community outcomes - does not contain items such as access to pornography and drug use (nor food choice, though good food is a factor in individual health, and if widely adopted, no doubt contributes to community health as well).

Again, a nice attempt to erect "Utilitarianism" as a decoy for your insistence on the primacy of individual liberty, without consideration of individual responsibility to other individuals.

I say again, it's a question of balance between competing individual and community rights.

 

It's a debate forum and somebody started a debate on the topic.
Why are you worried about my concerns?

 

The topic of the thread is Jesus not our founding fathers

 

Well yeah! They don't deserve their money, she deserves their money.

 

It's possible Karl Marx would agree with that statement!.....Workers of the World Unite, overthrow your oppressors in the Ruling Elite...

In the meantime Trump has turned out to be a bit of a disappointment....his solution is to erect fences and crank up those old coal and steel industries in the US.

Some Tea Party mythology there I think.

Progressive tax code? Fact is, even Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than a typical secretary, and Bill Gates has agreed with that assessment of the US tax code.

 

Central control of currency is the fifth plank of the communist manefesto, a core component of consolidating ruling power.
Sorry if you are routing for the communists while thinking you are promoting liberty and free markets. You are not

 

The US government is not a charity and needs to be funded according to ability to pay. As to your own assessment of your ability to contribute via taxation, it would be very interesting to get hold of the actual data re the most common pay levels, with particular regard to the mean, in contrast to average - wage, and the tax paid at different income levels (not withstanding large scale tax avoidance), to find out exactly who is being "covetous" (assuming you think it is a good idea to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity")

 

This is your mistake; central oversight of national currencies and trade was an idea of JM Keynes, presented at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. He was not a communist, but he was a brilliant economist. As for free markets, Trump thinks they stink, because they don't play according to his 'America First' policy.

Just ask Justin Trudeau!

 

It is very progressive, especially to those who have managed to work and scrape themselves into a position of making a few hundred grand, the ones who don't make enough to take advantage of the tax codes, must continue to work every day, and have zero influence.

That person supports the leeches on both ends of society. For them, the progressive tax code significantly inhibits them from accumulating significant wealth. Our progressive tax code is a wealth stealing mechanism for the wealthy and politically connected

 

I bet if Starbucks or Amazon was going strong back then, he might of considered it. lol
Im not talking about people who work hard and do financially well in life. Those are the values I grew up with. ~work hard, take care of your own, give to others. ect...
Im refering to huge corporations who never pay their fair share and also have way too much influence/control.

 

Perhaps you should read Marx's manefesto so as to not appear ignorant of the subject

 

I agree. The principles of classical liberalism state just that. This can be achieved without utilitarian justification for law. To some degree there is an aspect of utilitarianism in these principles.

There is no doubt that not enforcing monoploy/oligopoly law, price fixing, collusion, anti competitive practice - combined with Tax law and regulations skewed towards the oligopolies has resulted in the problems you cite. This is the problem and I have discussed this at length in other threads.

Extreme capitalism and extreme socialism (totalitarian communism) meet at the far end of the spectrum - in both cases you have a few elite owning most resources and means of production. Both extremes are bad - thus -it is very important to guard against ideologies that lend themselves to totalitarianism and unbridled utilitarianism is one of those ideologies.

Classical liberalism posits a state of nature - no law - no Gov't. People naturally come together in groups. This is for social reasons but also for protection from harm "strength in numbers".

Codes of conduct develop. It does little good to be protected from harm from the outside when one is not protected from within. It does little good to have codes of conduct if there is no punishment for violators. The "collective" then agreed to give power to some authority to punish. At the same time it was recognized that "no man wants to be ruled over by another"

So while an authority was given power to punish it was recognized that this power must be extremely limited - only to the purpose of that authority which was protection from harm - direct harm - one person on another. Murder, Rape, Theft and so on.

This construct by which people give power to an authority is called the social contract.

The point of putting individual liberty above the legitimate authority of Gov't is to check Gov't abuse of power. The Gov't then has no legitimate authority to make any law - outside its legitimate authority - of its own volition - that messes with individual liberty.

Any law can be made legitimate but, this requires a change to the social contract - an appeal to "we the people". The caveat here is that the law (allowing the authority to use physical violence to punish some action) must have overwhelming consent.

NOT - 50+1/ simple majority mandate. This was called "Tyranny of the Majority" in both classical liberalism and republicanism. It needs overwhelming approval. There is no point in having individual liberty above the legitimate authority of Gov't if "Simple majority mandate" is enough to violate individual liberty. Every elected official has simple majority mandate.

Take Pot vs Heroin for example. Clearly there is no overwhelming majority (at least 2/3rds) that thinks Pot should be illegal. Our pot laws are then illegitimate.

Heroin/Meth/Fentanyl - is a different story. It would not be difficult to hit that bar.

The point here is that almost no one thinks murder/rape/theft should be legal. Its an overwhelming majority. The bar is no different for any other law - especially in relation to individual liberty. This is how we keep Gov't power in Check.

The problem with Utilitarianism is that it does an end run around these principles. One of the problems is "who gets to decide" - One mans poison is another mans pleasure. Utilitarianism puts all the power in the hands of the Gov't and takes it away from the people.

What is even worse is "fallacious utilitarianism" where the argument is not even a good utilitarian argument ... such as the examples given previously.

"If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" as sole justification for law. This gives Gov't a license to engage in totalitarianism. The balance can come from "we the people" - it does not require dictatorship.

The problem is that we do not follow our founding principles. 12 years of school and we manage not to educate our kids in the basic principles on which this nation was founded. In addition 12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basics of Philosophy ( logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking"

Without these most basic of tools - how is a person supposed to wade through cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on them on a daily basis from politicians and the MSM ?

Every sitting member of Scotus should be removed for failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principles.

We have fallen so far down the slippery slope we can no longer even see the mountain top. Our Gov't has way too much power and it is controlled by the Establishment (political and bureaucratic elite with the international and national financiers pulling the strings).

I call it the "Oligopoly Bureaucracy Fusion Monster" - this beast is hell bent on turning this nation into a quazi totalitarian police nanny state and driving the people in to a state of indentured servitude.

The solution to this problem is NOT - to give the Gov't yet more power via acceptance of Utilitarian (never mind fallacious utilitarian) justification for law.

This justification sounds good on the surface "who does not want to save one life" ? - but it is an ideology that lends itself too easily to evil.

The primacy of individual liberty is balanced by the ability of "we the people" to alter the social contract.

If something is so harmful to society - that we must give some authority the power to use physical violence to stop people from doing some action - then the people will agree.

High sounding platitudes "we must strike a balance between individual and community rights" are just that in the hands of the politician. This is an argument to give them more power .. what is really being said is "I will decide - I will strike that balance" regardless of whether this is the case.

It is the people who can strike this balance - not some authority figure dictating down from on high.

Classical liberalism is based in individual responsibility to others. The "golden rule" - do unto others/ treat others as you would be treated - is the foundation of this contract.

If two make an agreement - "If you do not kill me or my family I will not kill yours" infers a moral obligation to others.

If you do not want people coming and stealing from or killing you , then you have a moral obligation not to do this to others.

Oddly enough - this also strikes a balance between Secular justification for law and the teachings of Jesus !

Matt 12:7 "do unto others as you would have done to you - This sums up the Law and the Prophets"

Jesus of course did not invent this rule (it was in Hamurrabi's law code - 1800 BC - Buddha and Confucius touted this rule") but it was the rock on which his teachings were based.

It is also the rock on which Classical Liberalism (secular justification for law) is based.


I do not completely negate Utilitarianism as useful - as stated previously, in grey areas , and there are many - we can use some of the ideas to help us move towards civil society. As "Sole" justification for law however - it is an abomination in the hands of the powerful.

 

For housing (and cost of living in general) the problem here in Seattle and in many other cities is not taxes.

The problem is that people want to live there are are willing to pay large amounts to do so.

Housing prices here in Seattle are still rising at a rate that is the same or more than all but a few cities in America. And, the reason is demand.

The same is true in San Francisco and the bay area in general.

People want to live in these places, so the population is increasing and the prices for housing are going up, up, up and up.

 

I just read and understand your posts. You are clear in your ingrained bias.

 

And I suppose it's an accident that Washington, Oregon, New York, and California are dominated by the Democrat party. AND the taxes are sky high.

 

The states you mention have a significant percentage of their population living in urban areas.

You can look at a county by county election map and notice that areas of greater density tend to have a greater percentage of those of us who see mutual cooperation as important/necessary. That includes Texas.

The thing about these population centers is that people want to live there. So, the price goes up.

If they wanted to live in Wyoming, then THAT would be expensive.

Of course, in areas of greater density there are things everyone wants that are best provided by working together - taxes! In Wyoming, I can dig a well for water. In LA, they have to pay taxes to create a gigantic water system that reaches far and wide for water and delivers it to millions upon millions of people. In LA, a new freeway to provide transportation requires bulldozing mile upon mile of people's homes. In Wyoming, it doesn't.

Yes - taxes is higher. But, people like it and come to live there anyway, and that makes it get more and more expensive. If people didn't like it, they would leave and it would get less expensive.