quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Scott, it sounds like your view implies that if poverty were somehow eradicated (let's say through a variety of government programs), that would be a bad thing. Because then we'd be robbed of any chance to better ourselves through charity.
Or maybe you'd say it would be a good thing overall, but there would still be a downside to it, in terms of a diminished opportunity to be virtuous?
The latter, sort of. It's more like...I believe that poverty will exist in some form until individuals and communities give their wealth and time freely and intentionally in order to aid those in need. I think generosity is a lesson we have to learn individually and collectively, and until we do, it's a lesson that will continue being taught.
I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
The commandment to give aid is unequivocal; but it takes the wisdom of God to judge who is most benefited (from an eternal/religious perspective).
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you asked if there are any Scriptures that indicate that preserving property rights should be a priority of government, and that address how laws will affect the weakest members of society.
Some of the provisions of ancient Israel give such examples. Here are three that come to mind:
(1) Landowners were commanded not to harvest the corners of their fields, and widows and others who qualified were allowed to glean those unharvested leftovers.
(2) Every 49 years was a year of Jubilee, when all slaves were freed, all debts forgiven, and all lands that had been sold were automatically restored to the families that previously owned them. The presumption seems to be that all land ultimately belonged to families, not to the government.
(3) Everyone who had an issue with another party had the right to come before the judge seated in the city gates and seek justice. No fee was required. The poorest person was entitled to seek justice. The role of the court or seat of judgment was to uphold the peace and order of society, not just to declare winners and losers, though that of course was often involved.
I have often wondered if modern society would have been better off if it had modeled its judicial system after the Hebrew system, rather than after the Roman system. One of the few things in our modern system that seems to be based on the provisions of the Jubilee year is our bankruptcy laws. And that, notice, is a modern innovation in the past couple of centuries. England used to send debtors to debtors prison, and at one point began shipping them off to Botany Bay (Australia), and to some other colonies.
[ February 29, 2012, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
Huh. This seems like a very easy question to me (emphasis for how strongly I feel it's an easy question). I arrive at my answer-the needy person receiving food-because I rate minimum required sustenance as one of the highest, most urgent needs and intangibles such as moral self-improvement as still important, but falling well behind.
If the greedy guy doesn't abandon his greed, he can still decide to later. If the hungry guy doesn't get food (and I'm talking malnutrition hunger), he can't decide, say, to reach his full adult height later or avoid any of the other negative effects just as an act of will: that thing he's walking around in, his body, may suffer permanent damage which he'll be stuck with even if he does get food tomorrow.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:all lands that had been sold were automatically restored to the families that previously owned them. The presumption seems to be that all land ultimately belonged to families, not to the government.
I can't see how a rational person could come to that conclusion. The fact that all lands that had been sold were automatically restored to the families that previously owned them says nothing about government. The law dealt with sale of lands between private parties, government didn't come in to it. The law indicates that land could not be bought or sold in the modern sense. A person could lease lands for up to 49 years, but ownership always remained with the family who, presumably, was given the land by God. This is pretty typical of the way land ownership was handled in many ancient societies.
Are you suggesting this should be a guide for how land ownership should be handled in modern societies? If so, how do we determine what families rightfully own the land? The land where my house sits is land I purchased. If we can determine what family rightfully owns my land, should I be required to return it to them in the next Jubilee year.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
I thinks its an absurd question to consider.
How could it affect any choice I might make? Nothing I can do to help provide food to hungry people is going prevent other people from engaging in acts of charity. Even if I could somehow force everyone to share all their material goods equally, there would still be myriads of opportunities for people to give charitable service to each other. Even when laws force people to give, they can let go of greed by changing their attitude toward paying taxes. Nothing I can do that would help the poor could deprive other people of the opportunity to develop Christ like love or do voluntary acts of charity.
There is no shortage of opportunity for people to help each other and there never will be. While one could reasonably argue that economic disparity creates more opportunity for people to help each other, that still wouldn't indicate that economic disparity help people develop a Christ like attitude toward helping others. All the data points the other way. Economic disparities tends to make people more self centered and greedy, not less.
[ February 29, 2012, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coincidentally, my husband just sent me the following link [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/27/upper-class-people-behave-selfishly]. The subject line he put on the e-mail was "socialogists prove Matthew 19:24".
This was truly coincidental as I haven't mentioned this discussion to him.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, in our modern system, properties are taxed (except for a few counties in a few states), and if the taxes go unpaid for too long, the lands are confiscated by the government. So the presumption is that the government is the ultimate landowner. I think this is deplorable. Government should not have the power to take away anyone's land from them, no matter what. It is like dehumanizing the people.
When ancient Israel was set up, the whole nation of Israel moved in all at once, and the land was apportioned to each tribe and family. This probably was one of the reasons why Jews have always been so zealous about keeping track of their genealogies. Since our nation was colonized piecemeal, that sort of apportionment was not possible.
But even with our system of private land ownership, the sale should convey absolute and unalienable ownership of the land. The only taxes government should be entitled to are sales taxes and use taxes. Remember, property taxes (or what came to be regarded as property taxes) began in England in the 14th or 15th centuries. Link: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us
[ February 29, 2012, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Government should not have the power to take away anyone's land from them, no matter what. It is like dehumanizing the people.
Not sure I understand this.
Why is an asset such as land different from someone's mutual funds or bonds? Or maybe I'm assuming too much, is it also dehumanizing to confiscate someone's mutual funds if they fail to pay their taxes?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, historically, land has been the living base of a person, where families build their home, where they grow their food, etc. This is not as readily apparent to some people since we have moved away from an agrarian society.
Treasury bonds and stocks are disposable assets. Land, by way of contrast, is called "real estate" for obvious reasons. No matter how the value of real estate may fluctuate, or how many times it is sold, it still exists. It may be divided up or merged together. But it is something real, not theoretical or symbolic.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically, sure many people grew food on land. But why is that relevant today to whether land can be taxed?
Edit: Actually, clearer question than what I had before. Why is it not dehumanizing to confiscate assets that are "disposable?"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does that mean that those who never had land or the opportunity to own land are less human than landowners?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No part of my humanity is incumbent upon owning land. Wealth? Yes. Comfort? Certainly. But if I own land, it doesn't give me an ounce of additional 'humanity' which is infringed upon or stripped from me because I can have it taken from me for reasons related to taxation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mucus, historically, land has been the living base of a person, where families build their home, where they grow their food, etc. This is not as readily apparent to some people since we have moved away from an agrarian society.
Some would even say it's no longer true, since we've moved away from an agrarian society.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rabbit, in our modern system, properties are taxed (except for a few counties in a few states), and if the taxes go unpaid for too long, the lands are confiscated by the government. So the presumption is that the government is the ultimate landowner. I think this is deplorable. Government should not have the power to take away anyone's land from them, no matter what. It is like dehumanizing the people.
When ancient Israel was set up, the whole nation of Israel moved in all at once, and the land was apportioned to each tribe and family. This probably was one of the reasons why Jews have always been so zealous about keeping track of their genealogies. Since our nation was colonized piecemeal, that sort of apportionment was not possible.
But even with our system of private land ownership, the sale should convey absolute and unalienable ownership of the land. The only taxes government should be entitled to are sales taxes and use taxes. Remember, property taxes (or what came to be regarded as property taxes) began in England in the 14th or 15th centuries. Link: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us
In our modern society, land is a commodity which can be bought and sold like everything else. The true owner of the land is who ever paid for it. Based on what you say, this wasn't true in ancient Israel. You could lease land for up to 49 years, but you couldn't buy it or sell it. The true owner of the land could never change. In ancient Israel, land wasn't a commodity that could be traded. It was a birthright. We don't have anything like that in modern society.
In the Bible, there is no distinction made between land that was sold freely for profit and land that was taken to pay debts or taxes. Why do you think the Bible supports making such a distinction now? In ancient Israel the permanent land owner remained the permanent land owner whether the land was sold for profit, to pay private debt or to pay taxes. Should we follow the biblical practice and make it impossible for people to voluntarily buy and sell land? If not, why should they be allowed to sell land for profit but never required to sell it to pay debts? Banks loan people money to buy land in a exchange for a lean that will allow them to seize the land if the debt is not repaid. Adopting such a practice would make it impossible for most people to get a loan to buy property. Is there some reason in the Bible, which you have not yet referenced, that this idea of the sanctity of land should only apply to debts to the government and not private debts? Note, that the government can seize your land if you don't pay your income taxes and sales taxes. That isn't something exclusive to property taxes.
Unless you are proposing that we return to a system where land belongs to families in perpetuity and can not be traded for money, then I can't see how what was done in ancient Israel has any relevance to whether or not land should be taxed. Land wasn't a market commodity in ancient Israel. It is a market commodity in our society. That means, by definition, that our laws regarding land can not be the same as theirs. You have to explain why you think Biblical land law still applies to taxes but not anything else about the way we treat land ownership and you have not.
[ March 01, 2012, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we talk some more about ancient Israel and property rights and how their views on said rights ought to guide us in the 21st century?
Because, y'know, if we're gonna have that discussion we're sort of...missing...some people, or their descendants, from the region who might have something to say on Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribal attitudes towards property rights.
I don't think I need to spell it out any further, and I'm carefully discussing ancient history here only, but this topic is positively choked with irony.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This seems like a very easy question to me (emphasis for how strongly I feel it's an easy question). I arrive at my answer-the needy person receiving food-because I rate minimum required sustenance as one of the highest, most urgent needs and intangibles such as moral self-improvement as still important, but falling well behind.
If the greedy guy doesn't abandon his greed, he can still decide to later. If the hungry guy doesn't get food (and I'm talking malnutrition hunger), he can't decide, say, to reach his full adult height later or avoid any of the other negative effects just as an act of will: that thing he's walking around in, his body, may suffer permanent damage which he'll be stuck with even if he does get food tomorrow.
Rakeesh, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus gives a partial response to this, from the perspective of Christianity.
I'd like to know if your response-- and Liz B's-- is within the context of an understanding of Christianity (which is where my statements originated from) or if you're approaching the topic from a different point of view.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get where you're coming from, Scott.And I'm having a hard time articulating why I feel so strongly about it.
Salvation is ultimately between the individual and God. Justice and mercy are our responsibility. (With God's help and grace, etc.) Charity does not necessarily lead to salvation; food definitely leads to not being hungry.
I think it's this: choices. Salvation is all about your choice. So I guess I take salvation off the table here. Lazarus and the rich man both had equal opportunities for salvation and damnation--as do we all--Moses and the prophets are there for all of us.
So the only thing missing from the equation is the actual need. Both need salvation equally; the needy person also needs the food.
I will readily admit that we may have quite different ideas of what is required for salvation. (In my belief, sanctification is not a moment but a process, and it's a response to justifying grace, not a requirement of it.)
Edited to add: And salvation may be the ultimate good but through scripture God has made it pretty clear that it's not the only good.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't disagree with any one particular thing (with the exception of the idea that charity is NOT required for salvation).
I think that depends on what is meant by charity. If by "charity" Scott or Liz meant giving aid to the poor and the needy, then I agree with Liz. Charity is NOT required for salvation.
If by charity Scott or Liz meant possessing the virtue of genuine Christ like love, then I agree with Scott. Charity is required for salvation.
I know some people might be considered splitting hairs. Love isn't genuine if it isn't manifested in how we act. If a person has genuine Christ like love they will give aid to the poor and the needy willingly whenever the opportunity presents itself. If a person has the opportunity to help the needy and chooses not to (or to do so only grudgingly), they have not yet fully developed the virtue of charity.
But despite the necessary link between feeling genuine Christ like love and ones actions, I think the distinction must be important because it is mentioned numerous places in the scriptures. I think that distinction is important because there are some people (perhaps like the beggar Lazarus) whose circumstances are such that they never have the opportunity to help the needy. Such people are likely very rare but most people will go through some periods in their life when either their capacity or opportunities to do acts of charity are very limited. I think its important to understand that even when we aren't able to give, we must still work on developing the attitude of charity. I think that distinction is important because in this world some people have a much greater opportunity and capacity to give than others. It's important for us to understand that what is most important for our personal spiritual development is not the absolute amount we give, but that we do the best we can given the opportunities and capacities with which we are blessed. I think the distinction is important because we need to understand that the actual act of giving (as essential as it is for both the receiver and the giver) is not sufficient. We must develop the right attitudes and not just the right actions. If we are giving in order to get a reward or avoid a punishment (either from God or other people), its better than not giving but still inadequate. If we aren't acting out of genuine love, we have to keep striving to improve regardless of our acts.
And while I think that the distinction is important, I also realize its complicated and tricky and probably a little dangerous. It's complicated because even though one can develop genuine love for others even if they do not have the opportunity or capacity to serve, taking the opportunity to serve can help people develop selfless love. It's complicated because an attitude of genuine love leads us not only to serve when the opportunity presents itself, but to seek out opportunities and build our capacity to better serve. It's tricky and dangerous, because its too easy for people to rationalize that there is no value in helping the needy unless they are doing it out of genuine love. Helping the needy for the wrong reasons is better than not helping. Its always better for the person who receives the help and often for the giver as well. And its dangerous because people can use the distinction to rationalize that it doesn't matter what they do as long as they have a warm fuzzy feeling toward people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm afraid I was approaching the topic from a very different point of view, one in which questions about the condition of one's immortal soul aren't even asked. My perspective was one which tied into how government ought to think about these sorts of questions, and in that context souls simply don't signify, at all.
Without that factor, then, I was left considering (what I would say) are the actual needs being compared: the need to abandon greed and the need to avoid malnutrition. Both things can ultimately lead to good overall-channeled greed leading to greater prosperity, the knowledge of hunger leading to greater compassion, for example-but even at their smallest levels, malnutrition will always have bad effects, whereas a small amount of greed might not actually be bad at all.
So, address the malnutrition first. It's higher on the hiearchy of needs than moral self-improvement for a reason.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer your question, you don't. How can you? Even admitting religious questions into a matter of our secular government, you still don't, because even then you can't. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a clearly charted scale of importance of needs, except to say that it is also important for someone who is greedy to be charitable.
As for your allowance, that may very well be true. I'm in no position to know one way or another (neither, I think, is anyone else, but that's a different discussion). But even if it is so, it is still true that neglecting charity won't kill the greedy human, but suffering malnutrition may very well help kill the needy human. Given that, even if we grant the importance of the greedy human embracing charity, the need of the malnourished human remains more pressing-even, I think, in the religious framework as I understand it, but without doubt in the secular.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, in our modern system, properties are taxed (except for a few counties in a few states), and if the taxes go unpaid for too long, the lands are confiscated by the government. So the presumption is that the government is the ultimate landowner.
No that is not the presumption and it is not what happens. If you do not pay your taxes for too long, the government can put your property up for sale and collect the taxes, interest and any expense they inccur in the sales from the proceeds of the sale. If they sell if for more than the taxes and their costs, the proceeds go to you not them. If they can not sell the property for what is owed to them, they can keep the property.
The underlying presumption is that government can place a lien on your property for taxes owed and, like other lien holders (such as the bank), the government can force you to sell your property to pay your tax debts. There is no implication that the government is the ultimate landowner. Other lien holders can do the same thing.
The presumption is that the government has a right to tax people. The presumption is that taxes constitute a legal debt. The presumption is that forcing people to pay their debts is a legitimate function of the law, even if their property must be sold to do so. There is nothing presumed or implied about "ultimate land ownership". In fact, it doesn't say anything about land specifically at all. Property taxes on buildings and other improvements far exceeds the value of property taxes on land. If you don't pay your taxes, the government can seize the money in your bank account, your business, your stocks and bonds and anything else you own. Why should land get special treatment.
There are plenty of legitimate arguments against property taxes (as well as many in favor). Why do you think its necessary to try to twist and distort some obscure aspect of the law of Moses to support your objection to property taxes when its neither necessary, logical, relevant to modern real estate trade or in the least bit persuasive to anyone who isn't already convinced?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:At this point, I'm afraid further discussion on this particular topic with you, Rabbit, is counter-productive. And I'm not sure our disagreement is substantive-- maybe you're a bit more willing to throw religious underpinnings to legislation than I am. I think we're both committed to helping the poor, both from an individual effort and collective effort standpoint.
Can't complain about that.
If you don't wish to continue, that's certainly your prerogative but if you don't mind, I'm curious about what you believe to be the proper role of religious convictions in voting. I understand that you are uncomfortable with using religious arguments to support legislation, but what exactly does that mean. Are you saying that if our values have been inspired by religious teachings, we should put them aside when we engage in politics or that we should keep our tre source of inspiration secret? If religion shouldn't inspire our attitudes toward politics, what are acceptable sources for political inspiration and values?
I've said a lot more about what I believe on this subject than you have and, if you are willing, I really would like to know where you stand.
What does it mean to you, when it says in the D&C, that God will hold us accountable for making and administering laws for the good and safety of society? To me, if I am accountable to God for some action it necessarily implies that I have a duty to try to act in a way that pleases him. Does it mean something else to you? Do you think there is anything at all in scripture that might help people better please God with the way we make and administer laws? If so, what?
Is your problem with people trying to find guidance from the Gospel for what political positions they should support or is it with people talking about how Gospel teachings inspired their politics or is it with using certain ways of talking about their religious inspiration or is it something else entirely?
I won't argue with anything you say. I'm just curious where you are coming from on this.
[ March 06, 2012, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
