AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

No, you didn't Cyclop. You did respond, but you did not answer the question.

Another response but not responsive to the question.
What makes it a moral right for the government to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who chooses not to earn?

Perhaps we could do it this way.

Let's say you have a 4.0 grade average in college and you worked damn hard for it.
Your friend has a 2.0 grade average because he never studies and spends all his time partying and playing games.

You both need a 3.0 to get a minimal job at the place are applying but you can get a much better job with your 4.0 grade point.

Why wouldn't it be okay for the authorities to reduce you to 3.0 and raise him to 3.0 so you would both have at least something?

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

Ya gotcher faith, ya gotcher hope, and then ya gotcher biggie...charity.

Foxfyre wrote:

Another response but not responsive to the question.
What makes it a moral right for the government to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who chooses not to earn?

What makes you think it's a question of morality? It's a question of legality. The citizens of America have elected to have a gradated system, and lo, such a system is what we have. That's the end of it.

It's a question of practicality, and of running our nation. Morality doesn't come into the issue, and I don't believe that I've ever heard anyone claim that our government operates in a particularly moral fashion before...

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps we could do it this way.

Let's say you have a 4.0 grade average in college and you worked damn hard for it.
Your friend has a 2.0 grade average because he never studies and spends all his time partying and playing games.

You both need a 3.0 to get a minimal job at the place are applying but you can get a much better job with your 4.0 grade point.

Why wouldn't it be okay for the authorities to reduce you to 3.0 and raise him to 3.0 so you would both have at least something?

But would you condone the apostles confiscating Barnabas's field against his will because they thought others needed it more? That is the question.

Quote:

But would you condone the apostles confiscating Barnabas's field against his will because they thought others needed it more? That is the question.

No, that's half the question.

I responded before you added the bullshit example, again; see my post before this one for a detailed dismantling of your position.

Cycloptichorn

Fox; here's the link. Read the f*cking post and you'll see my response.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-86#post-3444995

You have stated a position in this argument, don't play dumb.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox; here's the link. Read the f*cking post and you'll see my response.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-86#post-3444995

You have stated a position in this argument, don't play dumb.

Cycloptichorn

Yes I read that but it does not address the question.
What makes taking what somebody has earned and giving it to somebody else, whether or not that is done legally, a moral act?

Or are you saying that morality is not a component of what is legal?

So what's the other half?

I'll answer your question after you answer mine. But let's say none of the Citizen A's agreed that the government should take their property and give it to Citizen B's. Only the Citizen B's decided that's the way it should be.

So what make it moral to have a law that allows Citizen Bs take what Citizen As earn?

Quote:

So what's the other half?

How can a government which remains unconcerned with suffering be considered a moral enterprise?

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll answer your question after you answer mine. But let's say none of the Citizen A's agreed that the government should take their property and give it to Citizen B's. Only the Citizen B's decided that's the way it should be.

So what make it moral to have a law that allows Citizen Bs take what Citizen As earn?

The citizen B's outnumber the Citizen A's something like 40 to 1. That's called the 'majority,' which you may recognize from lessons about our 'majority rules' system of government. Seeing as all citizens are covered by the same taxation scheme, there's nothing immoral about it.

Now listen, Fox. I know you're never going to answer my questions, b/c you can't do so without poking holes in your own argument. But, can't you at least come up with analogies which accurately describe our system of taxation? The stupid 3.0 analogy isn't even close; so how can it be answered in any other way than the one I gave you?

I ask you again: after taxation, are the Rich still Rich? This question is vital to our moving forward with this conversation.

I would also add, that any citizen who wishes to pay less income tax, can choose to get a job that pays less. What's wrong with that option?

Cycloptichorn

I agreed to answer your question after you answered mine Cyclop. I will not move on past the initial question for one that is unrelated to the initial question. It does not matter how much Citizen A has so long as he acquired what he did in a legal and ethical manner, nor does it matter how much he has left after some is taken away from him.