[+Donny]

but this does not meant that the church is the only biblically authorized institution of giving and welfare

I didnt say it did. I said that given that the Church and family do it and that the state's purpose does not go well with the idea of welfare, it shouldn't have it.

which is who we should support

Agreed.

1. just because it doesn't exist in the Bible doesn't make it wrong

I agree, and I did not mean to argue from silence.

2. Romans 13 does not make the punishment of evil the sole purpose of government, only one of them.

1)On what basis do you assert that the State should have welfare? On what foundation is this purpose asserted?
2)You are correct, and I never thought of the argument against welfare this way. I will have to alter the way I formulate it for now on.

not unless the government requires you to pay taxes so it can help the needy

Yes, but the question is whether the government should do this.

then who did enforce it?

God. God said that if someone forsook the needy, He would judge them. This is found in Psalm 9, as well. God says that this:

The wicked will return to Sheol,
Even all the nations who forget God;
For the needy will not always be forgotten,
Nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.
Arise, O Lord, do not let man prevail,
Let the nations be judged before thee.
Put them in fear, O God,
Let the nations know that they are but men.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Benny Hicks

By what criteria do you deem welfare theft that does not also include taxes as theft?

Ben

who are you talking to?

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by Bryan

state welfare is not theft

Let me familiarize you with a little thing called Legal Plunder.
Basically put, legal plunder is where the government takes money from you and gives it to other people for free. They cover their backs by hiding uner Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, if they cover their backs at all, saying that welfare is in the powers of Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the public. Now, since the welfare of the public does not improve from this, it is a direct contradiction of the constitution, much less legal plunder, as I mentioned above. Legal plunder can also be tied into a little thing called socialism, where the governing ideal is that the government knows how to spend your money better than you yourself can. They take your money, decide that someone else needs it, then gives the money to said other person, regardless of whether the other person has worked for the money or not. Now, since the bible says that laws should be just and that people should earn their living... it is, in a sense, unbiblical. It is also theft.

[JerryLove]

Let me familiarize you with a little thing called Legal Plunder.

You can start by pointing me to the definition in a legal dictoinary or US case law.

Basically put, legal plunder is where the government takes money from you and gives it to other people for free.

As opposed to if the other people have to dance for it? I think you are fabricating this definition, but I await your support.

They cover their backs by hiding uner Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, if they cover their backs at all, saying that welfare is in the powers of Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the public. Now, since the welfare of the public does not improve from this, it is a direct contradiction of the constitution, much less legal plunder, as I mentioned above.

It seems to me that you are dsisputing the opinion, which is not a good legal ground for calling welfare "unconstitutional". Seeing as how people on welfare are not known for their large campaign contributions, the fact that every administration and congress has upheld welfare in some way, shape, or form tells me that thousands of professional law-makers over many generations disagree with your opinion of what promotes general welfare, and what is appropriate for the government to do.

Considering that your not really providing leagl prescedent from which I can evaluate your claims, it becomes "you against them"... and it should be an easy guess where I fall on that line.

Legal plunder can also be tied into a little thing called socialism, where the governing ideal is that the government knows how to spend your money better than you yourself can.

That's just rhetoric. Socialism collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Welfare is neither a means of production nor goods, and therefore is not specifically socialist.

They take your money, decide that someone else needs it, then gives the money to said other person, regardless of whether the other person has worked for the money or not. Now, since the bible says that laws should be just and that people should earn their living... it is, in a sense, unbiblical. It is also theft.

I'm not sure where the Bible says either of those things... so please cite. As to the "should be just" part, you are begging the question ("what is just") by assuming your conclusion ("welfare is unjust")

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You can start by pointing me to the definition in a legal dictoinary or US case law.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As opposed to if the other people have to dance for it? I think you are fabricating this definition, but I await your support.

How about a Frederic Bastiat summary?

Originally Posted by Frederic Bastiat

The Law
How to identify legal plunder.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

It seems to me that you are dsisputing the opinion, which is not a good legal ground for calling welfare "unconstitutional". Seeing as how people on welfare are not known for their large campaign contributions, the fact that every administration and congress has upheld welfare in some way, shape, or form tells me that thousands of professional law-makers over many generations disagree with your opinion of what promotes general welfare, and what is appropriate for the government to do.[/quote]
But they have ignored the fact that the legal plunder of citizens is banned by the constitution, and it is obvious that Welfare is no benefit to society, individuals, or the economy. The economy is being drained, in large part, by such programs as Welfare, Medicare, etc, which in turn drains the government. Also, we must remember that congress, in the past hundred years, has not been... the "wisest" establishment. I'm not using that as an argument, but it is something to keep in mind.

Considering that your not really providing leagl prescedent from which I can evaluate your claims, it becomes "you against them"... and it should be an easy guess where I fall on that line.

Quite easily. I would do the same, actually.

That's just rhetoric. Socialism collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Welfare is neither a means of production nor goods, and therefore is not specifically socialist.

I think you missed the point. There are multiple ways to apply any form of governing philosophy. Socialism is most easily defined as the government being above the people, not by the people. Welfare is a tidy little demonstration of this, if you think about it. Also, referring to Frederic Bastiat's book (The Law), he harps on socialism quite a bit. I would reccomend you get it or snag it from a library. It's a good read.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not sure where the Bible says either of those things... so please cite. As to the "should be just" part, you are begging the question ("what is just") by assuming your conclusion ("welfare is unjust")

Justice is an undefinable term (duh), but it could be hastily summed up as "what is fair for all, and what benefits all." Whether it benefits one person over the other is not the goal. Justice is, basically, an attempt at equality.

Edit: Found a copy of the book on the internet here. Enjoy!

[JerryLove]

How about a Frederic Bastiat summary?

He was a French free-trade activist... I was asking for an [American] legal prescident... hence the reference to US Case Law. Your cite does not support that the legal standard exists.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.

Even within this, the qualifying remark is "what belongs to them". Anytime you take from someone something that belongs to them, it could be argued wrong. Do your tax dollars belong to you? Then all taxes are "legal plunder".

Of course, when the government deliberately gives something, it belongs to the reciever.

But they have ignored the fact that the legal plunder of citizens is banned by the constitution

I've asked that you support it. Your support begs the question as it relies on your (unproven) assertion that welfare is a failure to promote the general welfare (which, BTW, is not the only mandate... they can conflict).

it is obvious that Welfare is no benefit to society, individuals, or the economy.

I disagree. So have the majority of law-makers for many generations. Pretty much every country in the world has some form of welfare, including ours.

The economy is being drained, in large part, by such programs as Welfare, Medicare, etc, which in turn drains the government.

The government is supposed to be drained. There's no point in the government amassing money... that means your taxes are too high. *Everything* the government does, from police to roads to the millitary drains it.

I don't agree that welfare (which redistrubites wealth) is neccessairily bad for the economy. Can you stop asserting it and make a case for it?

I think you missed the point. There are multiple ways to apply any form of governing philosophy. Socialism is most easily defined as the government being above the people, not by the people. Welfare is a tidy little demonstration of this, if you think about it.

I disagree. Socialism supports the people as a whole while capitalism promotes the person as an individual.

Also, referring to Frederic Bastiat's book (The Law), he harps on socialism quite a bit. I would reccomend you get it or snag it from a library. It's a good read.

I may.

Justice is an undefinable term (duh), but it could be hastily summed up as "what is fair for all, and what benefits all." Whether it benefits one person over the other is not the goal. Justice is, basically, an attempt at equality.

Then "justice" is not a Biblical idea. Biblical law is very uneven. Men have different standards than women, children than parents, priests than non-priests, Jews than gentiles.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Whoever does not provide for his own family is worse than an infidel.

This isn't really saying much.

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

He was a French free-trade activist... I was asking for an [American] legal prescident... hence the reference to US Case Law. Your cite does not support that the legal standard exists.

His ideals and the ideals of the founding of our government are intricately intwertwined. Our "democracy" (originally a Republic) was founded on the ideas he wrote about. I'll see if I can dig up a case. Supreme Court rulings count, right?

Even within this, the qualifying remark is "what belongs to them". Anytime you take from someone something that belongs to them, it could be argued wrong. Do your tax dollars belong to you? Then all taxes are "legal plunder".

Not necessarily. Let me use an analogy. I won't address all of your post tonight, as I'm sleepy as it is, so pardon me if the analogy is a bit whack.
Imagine a child. His parents are well off, they have a nice house, they're supportive of him... but he does not have too big an allowance. One day, his mother give him a ten dollar bill. She tells him to run down to the store (quaint idea, I know) and get a few gallons of milk before supper. So he goes, but he can't help but stop when he sees an enticing item. And so, rather than buying what his mother (representing the citizens) told him to get, he splurges and buys what he wants, fulfilling his own agenda. In so doing, he stepped outside of the authority given to him, and used his mother's money to buy something for him, and not for his mother. Now, since he used his mother's money to do something he did not have permission to do, what did he do? Stole, "borrowed," plundered... whatever you want to call it. The point is, he took someone else's money and spent it to fulfill his own agenda. When we, the taxpayers, give the government our money, it remains ours. The government simply uses our money to support itself, to pay federal law enforcement, standing military, etc. All the things specified in the constitution. The money never becomes the government's money since, strictly speaking, the government is not an entity, to own what it wishes. When the government takes this money, steps outside its boundaries and fulfills something other than what we wish, by giving it to someone else, it is legal plunder, or what Mike Farris calls "the Robin Hood Congressional Action."
Again, apologies if this is hazy. It's late, so I'll clarify later this morning/tomorrow if you wish.

Then "justice" is not a Biblical idea. Biblical law is very uneven. Men have different standards than women, children than parents, priests than non-priests, Jews than gentiles.

Ah. Excellent point. I'll give you that, so we can move on to other things.

[JerryLove]

His ideals and the ideals of the founding of our government are intricately intwertwined. Our "democracy" (originally a Republic) was founded on the ideas he wrote about. I'll see if I can dig up a case. Supreme Court rulings count, right?

Our "democracy" is still a republic. We don't even get to elect a president. I don't agree with you assertion but will again await your support. Yes, US Supreme Court rulings would be on-point.

The point is, he took someone else's money and spent it to fulfill his own agenda. When we, the taxpayers, give the government our money, it remains ours. The government simply uses our money to support itself, to pay federal law enforcement, standing military, etc. All the things specified in the constitution. The money never becomes the government's money since, strictly speaking, the government is not an entity, to own what it wishes.

We elect representatives to determine what is the will of the people. These representitives (who we continue to empower by continuing to elect) have consistantly supported welfare. We have given them that right, we have said it's OK. Your analogy would kick in when we look at "misappropriation of funds", which welfare is not. Despite the fact that you personally don't like it, it remains within their power, by our own mandate, to do. You are welcome to push to elect people to remove it, but it is not theft nor unconstitutional.

["BrooksB"]

I think welfare is a great thing for America. There's so many people in this country that there's not enough jobs for them all. There's also so much money in this country that we couldn't possibly find enough things to do with it. So, I think it's a good idea to take money that rich folks don't even need and give it to people who actually need it.

Theft? You could call high prices and low wages "theft". You could call our capitalist money sucking machine "theft" from the rest of the world. Why call charity theft? It's both greedy and ridiculous to think that someone really did something to earn $1 billion. Yet, somehow, they get $1 billion. How did they get it? Probably by no honorable means. So, be Robin Hood. Steal from the rich (they don't need all that money anyways) and give it to the poor. Jesus would appreciate it, I think.

There's probably better ways to go about this, but it's virtually impossible to make such changes because of our society's reliance on mega-corporations to bring wealth to our country. It's not the only way it could work, but with the growing conservative sentiment, most people probably believe that's the only way.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I think welfare is a great thing for America. There's so many people in this country that there's not enough jobs for them all.

I know, I mean we practically live in a utopia. We've cured death and all illnesses, we have an infinite supply of food and energy, and we've mastered teleportation. What should we spend our time doing now?

There's also so much money in this country that we couldn't possibly find enough things to do with it.

Let's see... I could use a new BMW, a new computer, a college education, a PS2, a vacation, a snowmobile, a mansion...

Theft? You could call high prices and low wages "theft".

Except that no one is forced to pay high prices or work for low wages.

It's both greedy and ridiculous to think that someone really did something to earn $1 billion. Yet, somehow, they get $1 billion. How did they get it? Probably by no honorable means.

In a capitalist economy, someone earns money by working for it. It is no small task to start a business, and there is often a large risk involved. I think probably a good many of the people in our society who are wealthy worked pretty hard for it.

A welfare system that is too liberal in its giving will always discourage labor within the society.

[JerryLove]

I know, I mean we practically live in a utopia. We've cured death and all illnesses, we have an infinite supply of food and energy, and we've mastered teleportation. What should we spend our time doing now?

Go somewere else to compare. Try Ziare or Nigeria.

Let's see... I could use a new BMW, a new computer, a college education, a PS2, a vacation, a snowmobile, a mansion...

Bill gates has all that, and still has hundreds of billions... did someone claim that you personally had more wealth than you knew what to do with?

Except that no one is forced to pay high prices or work for low wages.

Nope, they can also starve and be jobless. (actually, food prices are good... how about "live outdoors till they are arrested for vagrancy and be jobless).

In a capitalist economy, someone earns money by working for it. It is no small task to start a business, and there is often a large risk involved. I think probably a good many of the people in our society who are wealthy worked pretty hard for it.

I refer you back 100 years to steel barons and shanty towns and a country less socialist than we are today.

A welfare system that is too liberal in its giving will always discourage labor within the society.

Yes, but "should we have welfare" and "what should welfare be like" are different questions.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Go somewere else to compare. Try Ziare or Nigeria.

So do you believe, then, that there aren't things that our society has yet to accomplish? There aren't any jobs or tasks left for members of our society to occupy?

Bill gates has all that, and still has hundreds of billions... did someone claim that you personally had more wealth than you knew what to do with?

I do consider myself to be a United States citizen, yes.

Nope, they can also starve and be jobless. (actually, food prices are good... how about "live outdoors till they are arrested for vagrancy and be jobless).

Or, if they don't want to pay the prices for food then they could start growing their own and earn their own money this way.

I refer you back 100 years to steel barons and shanty towns and a country less socialist than we are today.

Yes, but "should we have welfare" and "what should welfare be like" are different questions.

We can't say that we should or shouldn't have welfare without first defining what welfare should be like. The two questions are interrelated. It'd be like arguing whether or not we should manufacture widgets without first defining what exactly a widget is.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

So do you believe, then, that there aren't things that our society has yet to accomplish? There aren't any jobs or tasks left for members of our society to occupy?

So do you believe that there are enough jobs to give to those unemployed and the unemployed are just the lazy ones that didn't sign up for their job? Actually, there is an unemployment rate for a reason: there AREN'T enough jobs for everyone in America. I don't know how you can deny that.

I do consider myself to be a United States citizen, yes.

Sorry-- I'll try not to use figurative language, as I exaggerated my statement. A BMW, PS2, all those things you mentioned-- you could do without them. They are excesses found in few places in the world outside America. I should have said "We have in America tons more money than we need." That is a fact that also cannot be denied. We're a filthy stinking rich population over here, few countries have a better per capita income.

"confused face"

Carnegie....the guy exploited manual labor, bigtime.
So did Rockafeller.

We can't say that we should or shouldn't have welfare without first defining what welfare should be like. The two questions are interrelated. It'd be like arguing whether or not we should manufacture widgets without first defining what exactly a widget is.

I'm with Jerry on this one. It's not like manufacturing widgets, but more like sno cones. It's not whether or not we should sell sno cones, but what flavor should we sell?

When you go against welfare for the sake of those with buttloads of money, you're basically condoning their avarice to keep hold of their millions of dollars that they acquired dishonestly anyways. So you are letting slide some pretty basic evil. Greed and dishonesty. I thought Christians would be all about sticking it to the greedy folks.

What about the money, eh? Why are people in America so fixated on letting the rich stay rich? Sure, that's what our constitution is designed for, but why does the populous agree? I think it's because in America, we are brought up to believe that acquiring as much as you can in any way possible is the most important thing. Get as much money as you can in any way you can. It's like it's our motto. It's my opinion that those folks that have a lot of money (in my book, a salary of over 99k is a crapload) can go **** themselves for complaining about losing a bit to the folks that don't have any.

[JerryLove]

So do you believe, then, that there aren't things that our society has yet to accomplish? There aren't any jobs or tasks left for members of our society to occupy?

The original statement was that there are more people than paying jobs. This is a true statement (hence unemployment).

I do consider myself to be a United States citizen, yes.

You equivocate "we"... but the original poster has clarified his position.

[quote]Or, if they don't want to pay the prices for food then they could start growing their own and earn their own money this way.[/qoute] Where should a homeless person grow these foods? How much money do you think a person with no tools (and probably no skills) growing crops by hand and on no land can make? How many (for example) tomatos could he grow on, say, a $40,000 piece of property (a medium house). What do tomatos sell for (remember, they are sold to the grocery cheaper than it sells them)... how many runs a year (can he afford a greenhouse or fertilizer or pesticides?)? Is it enough income to even pay the taxes on the land, much less the cost of the land or support him? And of course the first question... on what land?

???

Are you not familiar with late 19th century labor and the rise of unionism durng the explotation of the working man by the large vertical monopolies like US Steel and Standard Oil? You might want to look a little into the history of capatalism in the US.

We can't say that we should or shouldn't have welfare without first defining what welfare should be like. The two questions are interrelated. It'd be like arguing whether or not we should manufacture widgets without first defining what exactly a widget is.

We don't know if we should or should not fight crime until we decide how we plan on doing it? We don't know if we should or should not have a millitary before we define how we will organize it?