Re: POLITICS RELIGION Absolute property rights (was ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR)

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Well, right - I think that it's possible to construct such a person, but

> most libertarians of the ron paul, chris masterjohn, and similar on this

> list, place for instance property rights above all else - and this, to me,

> is by definition heartless. 'yeah - i'm all for poor people, but not if it

> means restricting the right of Bill gates to make a billion a year'.

> Heartless.

Just for the record -- speaking for myself alone and not Ron or

other libertarians -- I don't hold to this position, nor do I find

there to be anything Christian about it.

Under the Old Covenant, property rights were not absolute. All

property was owned by God but given to humans to be stewards of,

provided that they used it to defend the poor, the orphan and the

widow, which was the standard constantly repeated by which everyone

would be judged. The Mosaic law included restrictions on property

rights, such as leaving a certain amount of the harvest so that those

who did not have food could come and harvest it from your property;

this was law rather than ethical suggestion. The New Covenant is very

explicit that the government has the right to levy taxes, though it

gives no prescription to the government how to spend them.

Historically, Christian governments used tax money to alleviate the

burdens of the poor.

Now, I believe there is a certain value to markets and civil

liberties, but no, I don't think there is any moral or ethical

imperative that anyone should go hungry in order that someone with

massive amounts of money should keep it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Now, I believe there is a certain value to markets and civil

> liberties, but no, I don't think there is any moral or ethical

> imperative that anyone should go hungry in order that someone with

> massive amounts of money should keep it.

But do you believe this just because your religion tells you to, or

also because it accords with your internal moral sense of things?

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > Now, I believe there is a certain value to markets and civil

> > liberties, but no, I don't think there is any moral or ethical

> > imperative that anyone should go hungry in order that someone with

> > massive amounts of money should keep it.

> But do you believe this just because your religion tells you to, or

> also because it accords with your internal moral sense of things?

This question isn't even answerable to me. I think it would be

difficult to discuss, too, since you and I have completely different

conceptions of what " religion " is.

But, I guess, to the best of your satisfaction I would say it is in

accord with my " internal moral sense of things. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> This question isn't even answerable to me. I think it would be

> difficult to discuss, too, since you and I have completely different

> conceptions of what " religion " is.

In some respects, yes, of course, our conceptions of religion are

different -- you believe in the factual accuracy of your religion and

I don't believe in the factual accuracy of any religions, at least as

far as creation myths and whatnot go -- but with that admittedly

significant exception, I can't imagine that we'd profoundly disagree

on the functional characteristics of religions in a day-to-day, planet-

bound sense.

> But, I guess, to the best of your satisfaction I would say it is in

> accord with my " internal moral sense of things. "

As I expected.

But if your moral sense and your religion line up (even if we disagree

about why) don't you expect other people's often do too -- even when

the " religion " is more figurative than literal?

-