Record Stock Market

[Religious Dick]

That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"?  Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military.  Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now?  Too many people are able to create their own militias?

It used to be paid for by tarriffs and excise taxes. If "provide for the common defence" was interpreted now as it was when it was written, it still could be.

Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies?  Police forces?  Fire Departments?   Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned?  Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries?  Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?

It's been done in the past. Also, besides the military, most of those functions are handled by local governments, whose powers are limited.

Let me ask you this - you don't like the Bush administration, but what other type of government do you expect to get when you entrust so many powers to government? In all of history, power has never attracted nice people. I'd point out that nearly every obnoxious deed Bush has committed, from initiating an undeclared war to his novel interpretations of the constitution, has a precedent in a liberal administration. If it weren't for the expansions of government power facilitated by past liberal administrations, Bush wouldn't have the power to amount to more than an annoying yapping poodle.

It's all very nice to believe governments should have the power to intervene constructively in people's lives. The problem is that having the power to intervene constructively is also the power to act destructively. You can start out with a government of the most benevolent people in the world. But when there's sufficient money and power at stake, it's going to attract a whole different breed of politicians and interests. And there are few examples in history of them acting benevolently.

As one witty pundit put it, Bush is no conservative, but he's the kind of conservative liberals deserve. They made him possible.

[Plane]

That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"?  Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military.  Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now?  Too many people are able to create their own militias?

It used to be paid for by tarriffs and excise taxes. If "provide for the common defence" was interpreted now as it was when it was written, it still could be.

Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies?  Police forces?  Fire Departments?   Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned?  Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries?  Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?

It's been done in the past. Also, besides the military, most of those functions are handled by local governments, whose powers are limited.

Let me ask you this - you don't like the Bush administration, but what other type of government do you expect to get when you entrust so many powers to government? In all of history, power has never attracted nice people. I'd point out that nearly every obnoxious deed Bush has committed, from initiating an undeclared war to his novel interpretations of the constitution, has a precedent in a liberal administration. If it weren't for the expansions of government power facilitated by past liberal administrations, Bush wouldn't have the power to amount to more than an annoying yapping poodle.

It's all very nice to believe governments should have the power to intervene constructively in people's lives. The problem is that having the power to intervene constructively is also the power to act destructively. You can start out with a government of the most benevolent people in the world. But when there's sufficient money and power at stake, it's going to attract a whole different breed of politicians and interests. And there are few examples in history of them acting benevolently.

As one witty pundit put it, Bush is no conservative, but he's the kind of conservative liberals deserve. They made him possible.

GOOD POST!

[Plane]

One party wants a welfare program for inner-city crack-heads, the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers. Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs seem to be largely interchangeable components.

Awesome line.

Well, that's certainly a salient point. If I had my druthers, government wouldn't be helping itself to other people's resources for either one.

That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"?  Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military.  Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now?  Too many people are able to create their own militias?

Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies?  Police forces?  Fire Departments?   Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned?  Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries?  Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?

Privately run prisons are a comeing thing .

In my area a privately owned city is being proposed for a location between Warner Robins and Hawkinsville presently known as "Okie Woods".

I don't prefer it , but it does work.

[Amianthus]

In my area a privately owned city is being proposed for a location between Warner Robins and Hawkinsville presently known as "Okie Woods".

There's a "Sammyville" in Oregon that is privately owned, by a guy named Sammy. I discovered this when I watched the indie movie "Sammyville" (also known as "Dark Woods") which is partially set there.

Excellent movie, BTW. Production quality and acting were not so great, but it was a fantastic storyline.

[_JS]

Christianity has almost nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.

Jesus' family was middle class: his father was a carpenter. One assumes that he made furniture. New furniture is typically purchased by members of the middle class and aristocracy. There is no indication that Jesus was a beggar chid. Begging was what the pooest did. They did not have a shop.

We know that Jesus wore clothing worth the Romans casting lots for. He probably had some relatively snazzy duds.

One would imagine that after all that flogging, his threads might have been a bit bloody. Maybe that was a come-on for a Roman troop.

On the contrary we know that the Holy Family is poor from their offering in Luke 2:24 and to offer the sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons," in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. From Mosaic law we know that the turtledoves are the substitue offering of a poor family for what should be a bull or ram (along with wine and flour). Also notice that Mary did not give the five sheckels to any of the priests (or at least Luke nor any of the other Gospel writers give an account of it). We would at least expect Matthew to speak on it as his Gospel is most directly written towards Jews.

I think one of the largest mistakes here is to believe that economics was similar to today. Yes Jesus and Joseph were carpenters, but that does not make them wealthy or "middle class." In fact, the middle class was virtually nonexistent in most cities outside of Greece and the Italian peninsula. Even in Rome, at the height of the Roman Empire - roughly 97 to 98% of the population were either very poor or slaves. Israel and Judah were no exception to this, in fact it was likely that outside of Jerusalem there were few who lived well. Also note that it is likely that Joseph died while Jesus was young and certainly before his ministries. 

[_JS]

A) I never made the claim that it was part of Christian Doctrine
B) You're the one bringing the 2 together
C) Watch following references by yourself later in this post

A) You said you are a Christian when you discussed the issue with Brass.
B) Yes, so? You said the two can coexist.
C) I never claimed otherwise.

Ummm, if you say so

You aren't a libertarian because you don't believe in individual freedom to that extent. You like government control over social issues. Yet, you support the free market, or at least I gathered so from your comment to Brass.

But to answer your query, Christian principles apply to individual acts

Really?? So Christianity is not to be practiced at a community or society level? Just an individual level?

I endeavor to do my best.  Have you stoned any prostitues lately?

No, nor do I think Christ demands that of me. That is almost a pathetic atheist's response (and note I mean a pathetic atheist as opposed to an astute atheist).

Strangely all again requesting to help others, and give generously.  And none of which commands to hand over anything & everything at the voice of the ruling government, in order to help others.

None of it seems to indicate support for free market economics or Christians acting only as individuals either.

To be painfully honest with you Js, you're all over the ballpark on this one.  Is there a Separation of Church and State, or not?  If so, at what point do you claim it goes over the line, as it relates to Domestc Government Policy?  Are you indicating your support for Bush's Faith Based Initiatives?

From my point of view you are the one lacking consistency.

The state is irrelevant in my opinion. If they can do some good for society (and I think they can) then that should be pursued. I don't believe the unemployed should be left out in the cold as an "incentive" to find work. Nor do I believe that the aged should be left to work at Wal-Mart or a convenience store once they have reached an age where they should be able to retire. I believe everyone should have a right to proper healthcare services, regardless of race or income. So in those cases the government as a representative of society should be able to make a positive difference.

Otherwise the Church does not need the state to pass along its message or further belief in Christ. The Church does not need to rely on state indoctrination, She has a message that goes far beyond posting Mosaic laws in man-made buildings and forcing children to say Protestant prayers. Those are false victories and wholly unnecessary. Peter and Paul did not win converts through such useless methods.

I have no problem with the Government allocating money to faith-based resources in areas where they are proven to be succesful. I do worry that the Government may lay down stipulations that overreach its natural boundaries. As for Bush, it wasn't his idea and from what I've read he and his people basically used it as a political vote-gathering ploy rather than a real initiative.

[Lanya]

Sirs: <<Where DOES Jesus advocate taking money/property from others by force/coercion to help others?>>

Matthew 22:17-22  Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give
tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image
and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

We vote, we live in a free society.  Taxes are due from us as citizens.   We vote on how they will be used: To help others by creating Social Security, Healthy Start, lunch programs for kids,  the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Health system, the system of highways across the nation, the meat inspectors, health inspectors, postal service, military, firemen, policemen,  etc.   All those things help others.

[Brassmask]

We vote, we live in a free society.  Taxes are due from us as citizens.   We vote on how they will be used: To help others by creating Social Security, Healthy Start, lunch programs for kids,  the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Health system, the system of highways across the nation, the meat inspectors, health inspectors, postal service, military, firemen, policemen,  etc.   All those things help others.

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say but couldn't.

Excellent, Lanya

[Plane]

Sirs: <<Where DOES Jesus advocate taking money/property from others by force/coercion to help others?>>

Matthew 22:17-22  Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give
tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image
and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

We vote, we live in a free society.  Taxes are due from us as citizens.   We vote on how they will be used: To help others by creating Social Security, Healthy Start, lunch programs for kids,  the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Health system, the system of highways across the nation, the meat inspectors, health inspectors, postal service, military, firemen, policemen,  etc.   All those things help others.

Is it impossible to vote to do wrong?

I vote for what I like , and I occasionally agree with enough peoiple to get it.

More often I vote against what I don't like and accept for the sake of fairness what results.

If we were to vote thatthe government commit theft and make everyone dependant on the government , this would be wrong , it doesn't become right just because most of us like it that way.

[Lanya]

Thank you, Brass.
I wanted you to look at a post at Berube's site.  He has stopped blogging, but he left his archives up.  I thought of you right away when i read this. He describes his encounter with a preacher when he was a grad student, and he explained why he was  agnostic. Very interesting.

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/credo/

[Brassmask]

Is it impossible to vote to do wrong?

Of course not, we can look at the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections and se that is true.

I vote for what I like , and I occasionally agree with enough peoiple to get it.

As do we all.  (Although at times, I feel that voting is an opiate for the masses to make them feel like they have some control.)

More often I vote against what I don't like and accept for the sake of fairness what results.

That is how we are all supposed to do it but sometimes a SCOTUS decides to take us out of the equation.

If we were to vote thatthe government commit theft and make everyone dependant on the government , this would be wrong , it doesn't become right just because most of us like it that way.

Well, your use of the term "theft" is subjective but I know what you mean and I take issue with your other subjective term use "dependent" but I know what you mean there too but I have to disagree with what I assume is the point of your sentence.

That universal health care would be "wrong".   It would actually be right and would make this nation stronger.  Health care costs are outrageous in America.  Most of us liking it that way is not what makes it "right".  A healthier, wealthier populace makes it right.  Schwarzenegger is already moving on it and the US as a whole will follow suit shortly.

[Plane]

Is it impossible to vote to do wrong?

Of course not, we can look at the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections and se that is true.

I vote for what I like , and I occasionally agree with enough peoiple to get it.

As do we all.  (Although at times, I feel that voting is an opiate for the masses to make them feel like they have some control.)

More often I vote against what I don't like and accept for the sake of fairness what results.

That is how we are all supposed to do it but sometimes a SCOTUS decides to take us out of the equation.

If we were to vote thatthe government commit theft and make everyone dependant on the government , this would be wrong , it doesn't become right just because most of us like it that way.

Well, your use of the term "theft" is subjective but I know what you mean and I take issue with your other subjective term use "dependent" but I know what you mean there too but I have to disagree with what I assume is the point of your sentence.

That universal health care would be "wrong".   It would actually be right and would make this nation stronger.  Health care costs are outrageous in America.  Most of us liking it that way is not what makes it "right".  A healthier, wealthier populace makes it right.  Schwarzenegger is already moving on it and the US as a whole will follow suit shortly.

I consider Universal health care to be experimental , and I can imagine it failing.
If it were to fail we would be worse off than before.
And poorer too.
I think it appropriate that it be tested in a large state or two .

[Brassmask]

Yeah, it's sooooo failing in nearly every industrialized nation from Costa Rica to Israel to Canada to the UK.  Just failing its ass off.

I bet it won't suck so bad when we have it across the board and you need a hip replacement in twenty years.

[Plane]

Yeah, it's sooooo failing in nearly every industrialized nation from Costa Rica to Israel to Canada to the UK.  Just failing its ass off.

I bet it won't suck so bad when we have it across the board and you need a hip replacement in twenty years.

If I have paid twenty times the cost of a Hip replacement before I need on it will suck.

I might have chosen some purpose for the money that I thought more important , but my choices should be restricted to what the government deems wise.

[Brassmask]

I might have chosen some purpose for the money that I thought more important

Yeah, like insurance?  Well, that money that you used to pay for insurance is now just going somewhere else.  What's the diff?