Equality May Lead To Banality?

[thesometimesaint]

I know of several people in America who have gone to prison for non-payment of taxes.

My preference is for all transactions between human beings or between us and the gods to be completely voluntary for all participants.

What should happen to those that take something and not pay for it? Those people in prison took a service and refused to pay for it. Should here be no punishment for theft? Not even God says that. I distinctly remember reading somewhere "Thou shalt not steal".

If you take something and not pay for it. You should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But they seem to think that they should not have to pay for goods, and services, they receive from the government.

[Mansquatch]

Nearly every country in the western world has some form of voluntary tax code. You want to get the goods and services provided by others without paying for them. That is known as theft.

"voluntary" LOL!!

Take a dollar bill out of your wallet. Take a good look at it. Please show me where your name is anywhere on it. It doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government. They are simply allowing you the use of that money as a means of exchange.

Someone needs some basic economics lessons. Additionally, where does (did) our government claim to get it's powers from? (Hint: first three words of the preamble). Also I use a card and that has my name all over it.

You know I've been filing my tax statements for about 50 years now. Nowhere do I remember being forced by the government to give anyone any amount of money. I happily give to various charities and nonprofits. But the governments I live under don't force me to do it.

Again, stop paying taxes and see what "force" looks like. Just because it's packaged like a bill at first or is automatically deducted so it feels like it was never yours, does not mean there is no force involved.

I want a fire dept if I have a fire that I can't control. So I happily pay for one. Even If I never personally have my house on fire. I still want that protection. Though my kids are all long graduated from school I still want good public schools. I want their teachers to be well paid, and live a good middle class lifestyle. Not just for their benefit, but because in the long run it helps our society to be a better place to live. The list is long of things and services provided to us by our government in return for the taxes we pay. I get that you don't like to pay taxes. But as you still benefit from those taxes. Pay up or find somewhere there is no government. Somalia is good place to start.

What if someone preferred a private source for such services or wanted none of the services at all? Why force them to go against their will and thus deprive them of property (which is theft)?

Don't assume that I want "no government". Government should only be involved in protecting life, liberty, property and other God-given rights. They should not be involved in forcing anyone to give money to anything or promoting their own brand of equality.

I believe in the absolute separation of Church and State until such time as Christ returns and establishes his government.

The only one who mentioned any mixing of church and state was you when you brought up "Christian Socialism". I detest the idea of anything forcing others to believe a certain way.

If you don't want the benefits of living under a government that has taxes that's fine with me. The rich young man wanted the benefits, but not the costs. How we live our mortal lives is the cost of what, if any benefits, we want in the next. The taxes we pay in this life has a direct bearing on the quality of our lives here.

Don't act like I said I don't want to help other people. I said, "At the same time there are people who are unwilling to help others. Forcing them to give up property for good causes is worse than them not giving. Jesus did not force the rich young man to give up everything, he asked him to and let him decide what he would do. The world lieth in sin either way." I believe there are more effective, non-coercive ways of helping others. I do not believe that the "taxes we pay in this life has a direct bearing on the quality of our lives here". I believe that the rights we respect have a direct bearing on our quality of life here (see Somalia).

Is it justice to take something and not pay for it?

I am not the one advocating the use of force to take property from others. It is wrong to steal, regardless of whether you are an individual or a larger group of individuals. "The world lieth in sin"

[Mansquatch]

Here's a list of 15 countries that have no income taxes:

Monaco

Kuwait

Bermuda

U.A.E.

Andorra

British Virgin Islands

Qatar

Bahamas

Oman

Brunei

Cayman Islands

Anguilla

Maldives

Turks and Caicos

Vanuatu

If you're rich, you will probably be welcome to move there. If you're not rich......good luck at even getting basic rights. Is that what you ideal country is like?

Have you even read anything I previously posted? (see "without any compulsory means")

I'm sorry to hear that you live in a country where the government steals from its people. Is corruption also a problem?

Oh, most definitely. And it is awesome that no one in your country is ever punished for not paying these wonderful, magical, voluntary taxes.

[thesometimesaint]

It is also known as charity. I don't know why your mind automatically went toward something illegal.

Also consider the system in place which limits the property to only certain individuals. Who put that system in place? What or who gave them the right to use that system for governing everything and everybody? Just because "they" say something is theirs and nobody elses doesn't mean God agrees with them or that system of allocating goods and services when using the goods he provided for all of us in the creation of this planet.

That's fine and dandy, but we don't have to use it. We're not required to use any of it. Are we? Can't we just all decide to start exchanging goods and services with each other based on the principle of charity, only, with no money involved? And wouldn't that be a much better system that the one we use now when we use money? There is nothing better than charity, and if we all operated under that principle all things would be equal, and just, with all of us dealing justly with our fellow man..

They want you to pay them, though, don't they. And if you don't pay what they say you owe them then they'll come after you and take it from you, won't they. But who put them in charge? And what makes them think they are doing things as our Father in heaven wants them to do things when using what he has provided? I know they do some good, sometimes, but are their ways and means really the best way to do things, do you think?

Just like a good neighbor, State Farm is there, or it can be. Or you could just have enough nice, charitable neighbors come over to put the fire out for you, and maybe even with you.

I'm happier when I can avoid using money for anything.

And you could get it without you having to use any money.

See how you're equating government with a certain area of land? Who gave them the right to be our governors, though? Can't we make them change the rules if we don't like the ones they came up with? Who says we have to live by their rules as long as we're here? Are you thinking God gave those particular people the right to be the governors of everyone else while also giving them the right to govern us in any way they want to? Is that really the way you see it? I can see a much better way to do things than by the current system we're operating under, generally, and while I have the freedom I will live under that system to the extent that I can.

I believe in living under the principle of charity to the extent that I can, both in and out of the Church.

We don't have to use any money for anything, though. We can all live just fine and even better without it.

Yes, and there is nothing you could do to pay for charity even if you wanted to.

I'm a firm believer in Charity. She's a nice girl. But seriously charities provide a needed service or good for an agreed upon price. That price may be a simple as your presence. When my children were young we gave them a small allowance. Its price really nominal to them, learn the value of money. but it still was a price to be paid. There is the old story of a rich man who wanted to pass his estate on down to his son. So one day the father called his son in and told him to earn $500 and bring it to him and he would inherit the family business. So the son went to his mother and asked for $500, and took it back to his father. The father promptly tossed it into the fire. The son was a little taken aback but said nothing. The father told him again to earn $500 and bring it to him and he would inherit the family business. The son was a little embarrassed. But returned to his mother and again asked for $500. The mother also was a little taken aback but again handed over $500. The son returned to his father whom promptly throw it into the fire. The father once again said to bring him $$500 and he would inherit the family business. Well at this time the son was frustrated, and decided to earn that $500. Accordingly he got a job and worked rally hard and later returned to his father with that $500. The father threw it into the fire. The son dove into the fire trying to save that $500. The wise father now said. Son now you know what it takes to earn that money. You will now inherit the family business.

Christ doesn't demand our money. All that he requires of us is to have a broken heart, a contrite spirit, and to fully repent. If we choose not to pay by not repenting Well let's just say that other arrangements will be made.

The lunch may be free, but we still have to work. God may make the wheat grow, but someone else still has to plant it, water it, fertilize it, harvest it, grind it into flour, make it into bread, so that we can eat it. Should we not pay those people for their work in bringing us that bread?

I like my neighbors just fine, but not a one of them is a fireman. Neither to do they have the training, nor the equipment to fight anything more than a small first floor level fire. A basement or attic fire is beyond theirs and mine abilities. Frankly; Me running into burning building just creates more problems for the professional firefighters than it solves. Tell me; Do you have the training and equipment to fight a fire more than two stories up? Do those firefighters not deserve to be paid for their service to the community?

Again Charity is fine, but you can't run a government off of charity. Under the Articles of Confederation the national government was dependent on the charity of the individual states. That didn't work out so well. The Constitution, which the Saints revere, removed and supplanted the AoC.

Money is just a means of exchange/a tool. When used wisely it can provide us with the things we need and want. Used foolishly it can get us into a lot of trouble. A hammer is good to pound nails, but is terrible at tightening nuts to bolts.

If I don't pay for something I receive what would you call it? I would call it theft.

Under our system of government it is "We the people" who decide. I like our system, but there is no requirement that I like every decision we make. If you don't want to live under that system there are plenty of others to choose from. (I hear that Somalia is quite lovely this time of year). IMNTBHO The best system of government is a righteous king. The worst type of government is an unrighteous one. IE. King Benjamin vs King Noah.

Even God requires that we pay for his charity. Just not with money.

[wenglund]

Are you referring to the parable as related in Matthew, or the one in Luke or the one in the gospel of the Hebrews? Are you aware of the differences in how the story is told? Are you aware of who actually wrote Matthew and Luke? Are you aware of the "when" these books were written and how that plays into the differences of interpretation?

I am only somewhat aware of those things, though I am fully aware that they don't really address my simple question. Feel free to use whatever version of the parable to answer it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I'm a firm believer in Charity. She's a nice girl.

ba ta bomp.

But seriously charities provide a needed service or good for an agreed upon price.

I was talking about charity, where you give something to someone without expecting anything back from the one you give it to. Like if I were to just give you some apples from my orchard. Sure, you could go to a store to buy the same things, but with me giving you some you wouldn't have to do that. OR someone could give me some apples. Or maybe instead of apples it could be a car or a house for either a day or a month or a year or forever. Things like that do happen, and they could happen more often if people would only be more charitable with their goods and services and talents and abilities and everything else the Lord has blessed them with or may bless them with. That's one way we can build up the kingdom of God, as some of us have made covenants to do that in the temples of the Lord.

That price may be a simple as your presence.

Oh I see. You were using price for something other than money, while I was thinking of price as it is used in the scriptures to reflect how we can share the gospel with no money and at no price.

When my children were young we gave them a small allowance. Its price really nominal to them, learn the value of money. but it still was a price to be paid. There is the old story of a rich man who wanted to pass his estate on down to his son. So one day the father called his son in and told him to earn $500 and bring it to him and he would inherit the family business. So the son went to his mother and asked for $500, and took it back to his father. The father promptly tossed it into the fire. The son was a little taken aback but said nothing. The father told him again to earn $500 and bring it to him and he would inherit the family business. The son was a little embarrassed. But returned to his mother and again asked for $500. The mother also was a little taken aback but again handed over $500. The son returned to his father whom promptly throw it into the fire. The father once again said to bring him $$500 and he would inherit the family business. Well at this time the son was frustrated, and decided to earn that $500. Accordingly he got a job and worked really hard and later returned to his father with that $500. The father threw it into the fire. The son dove into the fire trying to save that $500. The wise father now said. Son now you know what it takes to earn that money. You will now inherit the family business.

Sheesh, some people just have a strange idea of what it takes to earn something, I guess. Some would say he earned it by asking his Mother for it, as if the asking was some work that he did. And others would say he earned it by getting a "job" to get it, whatever that was and whatever was meant by working "hard". Many people "earn" a LOT of money and all they do is talk to people. Not what I would call working hard. Now this guy thinks you have to jump into a fire to earn some money, or the family business. Oh well.

Christ doesn't demand our money. All that he requires of us is to have a broken heart, a contrite spirit, and to fully repent. If we choose not to pay by not repenting Well let's just say that other arrangements will be made.

... and then there was what he gave and sitll gives to all of us out of the charity of his heart whether or not we do anything to earn it. Like redemption from the Fall of Adam and Eve, regardless of which degree of glory we may also receive. Or rain when it falls to water the plants on this Earth, courtesy of the way he set this planet up when he created it. Not everything he does has a price attached, before we can receive it. Some things he just gives us whether or not we do anything to receive it.

The lunch may be free, but we still have to work.

It depends on what you think work is, I suppose.

God may make the wheat grow, but someone else still has to plant it, water it, fertilize it, harvest it, grind it into flour, make it into bread, so that we can eat it. Should we not pay those people for their work in bringing us that bread?

The better question is: Should people give things to others on the principle of charity, without asking or expecting or even hoping for anything in return? Even if someone isn't grateful for what I give them I can still feel good about knowing I gave them something good. Not that I would push it on them if they really didn't want it, though.

I like my neighbors just fine, but not a one of them is a fireman. Neither to do they have the training, nor the equipment to fight anything more than a small first floor level fire. A basement or attic fire is beyond theirs and mine abilities. Frankly; Me running into burning building just creates more problems for the professional firefighters than it solves. Tell me; Do you have the training and equipment to fight a fire more than two stories up? Do those firefighters not deserve to be paid for their service to the community?

You're not catching the vision. Imagine everyone doing whatever they can for others out of the charity of their hearts, special talents and abilities included. Are you under the impression that money is required before people can give things to other people? As if it's something that must be automatically a part of our economic systems for offering our goods and services. Is your mentality not to do something for someone else unless they give you money for what you do for them? Don't you like it when people give you things without you having to pay any money for what they choose to give you?

Again Charity is fine, but you can't run a government off of charity.

Yes you can, and we're already doing that in the Church where our so-called "lay" clergy govern without getting paid any money for their services, and all they are doing is because of the charity in their hearts. The worldly government systems could learn a lot by that. Volunteers instead of people paid with money.. But then, uh oh, how would those volunteers gets what they needed to live on, like food clothing and shelter. Huh? And what would unions have to say about that? Uh oh. Big big problem. How in the world would we ever solve that problem? The solution is simple and we refer to that as charity, too. People can just work to produce and give things to others including food, clothing, and shelter, and a lot of people are already doing that. We would just need to do it a lot more, on a larger scale, actually establishing a system which operated under the principle of charity.

Under the Articles of Confederation the national government was dependent on the charity of the individual states. That didn't work out so well. The Constitution, which the Saints revere, removed and supplanted the AoC.

Money is just a means of exchange/a tool. When used wisely it can provide us with the things we need and want. Used foolishly it can get us into a lot of trouble. A hammer is good to pound nails, but is terrible at tightening nuts to bolts.

People don't really want a means of exchange, though. What people want is what they want, not something they can trade for what they want. If you want some eggs and milk what you want is eggs and milk, not money with which you might be able to buy some eggs and milk if someone would only trade them to you for money. In today's world, using computers to track down good and services, we could see who has what and all we would have to do is go and get what we want from wherever it is. Just like we do now when we go to stores and such to get whatever goods and services we really want. Of course we'd still need people to produce or offer their goods and services, but that's what work is for. I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't have to work. If we didn't work to produce good and services there would be no goods or services to get. So people would still need to do some kind of work to produce or offer some type of goods or service even though they wouldn't be getting any money for doing that work.

If I don't pay for something I receive what would you call it? I would call it theft.

I call it charity when what I receive is given to me without me having to do anything other than receive it to get it.

Under our system of government it is "We the people" who decide. I like our system, but there is no requirement that I like every decision we make. If you don't want to live under that system there are plenty of others to choose from. (I hear that Somalia is quite lovely this time of year). IMNTBHO The best system of government is a righteous king. The worst type of government is an unrighteous one. IE. King Benjamin vs King Noah.

There you go again thinking I need to move somewhere else to have a better system than we currently have. I actually enjoy a lot of charity where I am right now, both the giving and receiving, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do more to have more of it for everybody. Politicians are always talking about how they want a "change" to improve how our governments currently operate. They're just not thinking big enough. What we need is a complete overhaul of our whole "worldy" system to do things more as they are done in the kingdom of God.

Even God requires that we pay for his charity. Just not with money.

No, he doesn't require that we pay for his charity, and that's what's so beautiful about his system. People who do more get more of something in some way, but there are lots and lots of people who do nothing to pay for what he gives them and for some things it's not even possible to pay for them.

[thesometimesaint]

"voluntary" LOL!!

Someone needs some basic economics lessons. Additionally, where does (did) our government claim to get it's powers from? (Hint: first three words of the preamble). Also I use a card and that has my name all over it.

Again, stop paying taxes and see what "force" looks like. Just because it's packaged like a bill at first or is automatically deducted so it feels like it was never yours, does not mean there is no force involved.

What if someone preferred a private source for such services or wanted none of the services at all? Why force them to go against their will and thus deprive them of property (which is theft)?

Don't assume that I want "no government". Government should only be involved in protecting life, liberty, property and other God-given rights. They should not be involved in forcing anyone to give money to anything or promoting their own brand of equality.

The only one who mentioned any mixing of church and state was you when you brought up "Christian Socialism". I detest the idea of anything forcing others to believe a certain way.

Don't act like I said I don't want to help other people. I said, "At the same time there are people who are unwilling to help others. Forcing them to give up property for good causes is worse than them not giving. Jesus did not force the rich young man to give up everything, he asked him to and let him decide what he would do. The world lieth in sin either way." I believe there are more effective, non-coercive ways of helping others. I do not believe that the "taxes we pay in this life has a direct bearing on the quality of our lives here". I believe that the rights we respect have a direct bearing on our quality of life here (see Somalia).

I am not the one advocating the use of force to take property from others. It is wrong to steal, regardless of whether you are an individual or a larger group of individuals. "The world lieth in sin"

You are free to vote, if you choose to, for the changes you want. There's that funny word "voluntary" again. You are free, if you choose to, to leave. Again that funny word "voluntary". What you are not free to do is receive goods and services without paying for them.

God didn't give you the right to vote. No where in the Church do we vote for or against any person or proposal. We have a Constitutional right to vote for our public officials. Even your "rights" to life, liberty, and property are subject to human law.

Basic economics. You get what you pay for. IE; I may want Filet Mignon at ground meat prices, but all I will get is ground meat.

Why should I stop paying taxes? I want and need the goods and services the government provides. I expect to pay for what I receive. I can't walk into my local grocery stores and take anything I want without paying for it. If I were to do so I would be subject to arrest and imprisoned. So am I "forced" to pay. What makes our government any different, in principle, than a grocery store?

Where I live you/I can generate all the electricity we want at any volts, amps, wave sign we want. We can use it all day and night long on our own equipment. There are no guarantees that it will run properly, if at all, but we can do it. What we can't legally do is without permission put in on the electrical power grid. One; it would be unsafe for anyone working on the transmission lines, and two; it in all likelihood it will not work in their power equipment thus depriving them of the lawful use of their property. IOW Theft.

I never said you were unwilling to help. What I did say is you are willing to use other peoples goods and services without paying for them. That is the classical definition of theft.

[thesometimesaint]

ba ta bomp.

I was talking about charity, where you give something to someone without expecting anything back from the one you give it to. Like if I were to just give you some apples from my orchard. Sure, you could go to a store to buy the same things, but with me giving you some you wouldn't have to do that. OR someone could give me some apples. Or maybe instead of apples it could be a car or a house for either a day or a month or a year or forever. Things like that do happen, and they could happen more often if people would only be more charitable with their goods and services and talents and abilities and everything else the Lord has blessed them with or may bless them with. That's one way we can build up the kingdom of God, as some of us have made covenants to do that in the temples of the Lord.

Oh I see. You were using price for something other than money, while I was thinking of price as it is used in the scriptures to reflect how we can share the gospel with no money and at no price.

Sheesh, some people just have a strange idea of what it takes to earn something, I guess. Some would say he earned it by asking his Mother for it, as if the asking was some work that he did. And others would say he earned it by getting a "job" to get it, whatever that was and whatever was meant by working "hard". Many people "earn" a LOT of money and all they do is talk to people. Not what I would call working hard. Now this guy thinks you have to jump into a fire to earn some money, or the family business. Oh well.

... and then there was what he gave and sitll gives to all of us out of the charity of his heart whether or not we do anything to earn it. Like redemption from the Fall of Adam and Eve, regardless of which degree of glory we may also receive. Or rain when it falls to water the plants on this Earth, courtesy of the way he set this planet up when he created it. Not everything he does has a price attached, before we can receive it. Some things he just gives us whether or not we do anything to receive it.

It depends on what you think work is, I suppose.

The better question is: Should people give things to others on the principle of charity, without asking or expecting or even hoping for anything in return? Even if someone isn't grateful for what I give them I can still feel good about knowing I gave them something good. Not that I would push it on them if they really didn't want it, though.

You're not catching the vision. Imagine everyone doing whatever they can for others out of the charity of their hearts, special talents and abilities included. Are you under the impression that money is required before people can give things to other people? As if it's something that must be automatically a part of our economic systems for offering our goods and services. Is your mentality not to do something for someone else unless they give you money for what you do for them? Don't you like it when people give you things without you having to pay any money for what they choose to give you?

Yes you can, and we're already doing that in the Church where our so-called "lay" clergy govern without getting paid any money for their services, and all they are doing is because of the charity in their hearts. The worldly government systems could learn a lot by that. Volunteers instead of people paid with money.. But then, uh oh, how would those volunteers gets what they needed to live on, like food clothing and shelter. Huh? And what would unions have to say about that? Uh oh. Big big problem. How in the world would we ever solve that problem? The solution is simple and we refer to that as charity, too. People can just work to produce and give things to others including food, clothing, and shelter, and a lot of people are already doing that. We would just need to do it a lot more, on a larger scale, actually establishing a system which operated under the principle of charity.

People don't really want a means of exchange, though. What people want is what they want, not something they can trade for what they want. If you want some eggs and milk what you want is eggs and milk, not money with which you might be able to buy some eggs and milk if someone would only trade them to you for money. In today's world, using computers to track down good and services, we could see who has what and all we would have to do is go and get what we want from wherever it is. Just like we do now when we go to stores and such to get whatever goods and services we really want. Of course we'd still need people to produce or offer their goods and services, but that's what work is for. I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't have to work. If we didn't work to produce good and services there would be no goods or services to get. So people would still need to do some kind of work to produce or offer some type of goods or service even though they wouldn't be getting any money for doing that work.

I call it charity when what I receive is given to me without me having to do anything other than receive it to get it.

There you go again thinking I need to move somewhere else to have a better system than we currently have. I actually enjoy a lot of charity where I am right now, both the giving and receiving, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do more to have more of it for everybody. Politicians are always talking about how they want a "change" to improve how our governments currently operate. They're just not thinking big enough. What we need is a complete overhaul of our whole "worldy" system to do things more as they are done in the kingdom of God.

No, he doesn't require that we pay for his charity, and that's what's so beautiful about his system. People who do more get more of something in some way, but there are lots and lots of people who do nothing to pay for what he gives them and for some things it's not even possible to pay for them.

I don't know about you but the Lord has promised me that if I keep his commandments(requirements) he will bless me, and that if I do not what he says I have no promise. That is the agreed upon price.

[Ahab]

I don't know about you but the Lord has promised me that if I keep his commandments(requirements) he will bless me, and that if I do not what he says I have no promise. That is the agreed upon price.

If you want to look on charity as a price, then, be charitable. He does want you to be charitable, and there's no rule that you have to accept money from people before you give them some goods or services. Use all of your talents and abilities and all the Lord has given you and may yet give you.

Personally, I don't think of being charitable as something with a price tag, as if I can buy someone's charity from them or they can but it from me. I suppose I could look at it as something I must do before I can receive the blessings from it, though, whether I give or receive something through it.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

Christ himself tells us to consider the cost. Please don't misunderstand his yoke is light and easy to carry, but it is still a yoke. Since he didn't sin I gladly give him all my sins for his.

[Mansquatch]

You are free to vote, if you choose to, for the changes you want. There's that funny word "voluntary" again. You are free, if you choose to, to leave. Again that funny word "voluntary". What you are not free to do is receive goods and services without paying for them.

God didn't give you the right to vote. No where in the Church do we vote for or against any person or proposal. We have a Constitutional right to vote for our public officials. Even your "rights" to life, liberty, and property are subject to human law.

Voting happens plenty in the church.

"Unalienable rights" are not subject to human law. They are rights given by God that cannot be removed, hence the word "unalienable".

Basic economics. You get what you pay for. IE; I may want Filet Mignon at ground meat prices, but all I will get is ground meat.

Government run services are the week-old, value hotdogs in this meat comparison scenario.

Why should I stop paying taxes? I want and need the goods and services the government provides. I expect to pay for what I receive. I can't walk into my local grocery stores and take anything I want without paying for it. If I were to do so I would be subject to arrest and imprisoned. So am I "forced" to pay. What makes our government any different, in principle, than a grocery store?

The grocery store doesn't remove money from your paycheck without permission. They don't use this stolen money to pay for other people to receive services and promise said services to you, paid for by a new generation of theft victims, that in all likelihood you will never actually receive. They don't also take your stolen money and pass it out to their friends and contributors through all kinds of corrupt schemes.

Your shoplifting example ignores several basic facts. Government should exist to protect the rights of the people. The store has the right to their property. By taking something from them you have violated their rights and government force can then rightfully be used upon you. The government has no right to the property of an individual and in my country is strictly prohibited by law against removing my property without due process, but that is often ignored.

I never said you were unwilling to help. What I did say is you are willing to use other peoples goods and services without paying for them. That is the classical definition of theft.

You greatly misunderstand and misrepresent my position then. I do not condone theft of any kind, whether it is someone mooching off a system (no matter how stupid the system) or a government taking money from individuals. I am fine with governments gaining money through tariffs, ad valorem taxes and the like when a conscious transaction is being made. For example I think the fuel taxes used to pay for roads is a perfectly fine way of gathering such funds. I do not however believe that the government has right to lay claim upon your money simply because you have it (income taxes, Social Security, Medicare/medicaid). Such things are "the classical definition of theft".

[Ahab]

Ahab:

Christ himself tells us to consider the cost. Please don't misunderstand his yoke is light and easy to carry, but it is still a yoke. Since he didn't sin I gladly give him all my sins for his.

Then consider the cost of not being charitable with all you have to be charitable with. Or consider the cost of being charitable, while weighing the cost/benefits. You're not required to give more than you have, or to give what you have away willy nilly. Giving charitably just involves considering the collective good, rather than being selfish. What is fair (or just) is the main issue involved.

[Ahab]

I do not however believe that the government has right to lay claim upon your money simply because you have it (income taxes, Social Security, Medicare/medicaid). Such things are "the classical definition of theft".

They do have the right, because the people in government give themselves that right, so you may want to just focus on whether or not it is good for them to have that right as well as any other rights they have.

Here's how I see we got into this mess: A bunch of guys got together on a spot of land and proposed making some rules to follow. A certain set of rules were then agreed upon by whoever they thought should have a say in making the rules, and then they came up with some penalties for people who violated those rules. And then as time went on they either amended or negated some rules until we got what we are stuck with right now in this country by those who consider themselves to be our rulers.

So now what do we do? Just stick with the same rules, or come up with some better ones along with some better rulers?

[wenglund]

Attempting once again to bring things back on topic, and since my last query didn't engender a response, let me try this one: How does equality factor into the final judgment and the three degrees of glory?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

Attempting once again to bring things back on topic, and since my last query didn't engender a response, let me try this one: How does equality factor into the final judgment and the three degrees of glory?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In my perspective, it's all about the standards we live by. If we treat each other as equals, dealing justly with our fellow man, loving each other as we love ourselves, then we'll be prepared to live by if not already living by the highest standard we can live by, so that's what we'll get in the end.

And then there's a lower order for people who didn't live up to that standard. They did okay, but not as good as the guys on the top and not as bad as the guys on the bottom.

And then there's even a lower order for people who did worse than the guys in the mid range. The really really really bad apples. The ones who could have done a LOT more to help others instead of taking advantage of them as much as they could because they were super duper overly selfish. Or maybe what I'm describing falls within what the mid range people are like and the scum sucking bottom dwellers are even worse than I can imagine.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Ahab

[wenglund]

In my perspective, it's all about the standards we live by. If we treat each other as equals, dealing justly with our fellow man, loving each other as we love ourselves, then we'll be prepared by if not already living by the highest standard we can live by, so that's what we'll get in the end.

And then there's a lower order for people who didn't live up to that standard. They did okay, but not as good as the guys on the top and not as bad as the guys on the bottom.

And then there's even a lower order for people who did worse than the guys in the mid range. The really really really bad apples. The ones who could have done a LOT more to help others instead of taking advantage of them as much as they could because they were super super overly selfish. Or maybe what I'm describing falls within the mid range people are like and the scum sucking bottom dwellers are even worse than I can imagine.

In short, God wont treat or reward people equally, but will judge them according to the kind of people they have become. Were God to reward equally, then very bad people would end up the same as very good people, which result would be banal. Equality may result in banality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 8, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Voting happens plenty in the church.

"Unalienable rights" are not subject to human law. They are rights given by God that cannot be removed, hence the word "unalienable".

Government run services are the week-old, value hotdogs in this meat comparison scenario.

The grocery store doesn't remove money from your paycheck without permission. They don't use this stolen money to pay for other people to receive services and promise said services to you, paid for by a new generation of theft victims, that in all likelihood you will never actually receive. They don't also take your stolen money and pass it out to their friends and contributors through all kinds of corrupt schemes.

Your shoplifting example ignores several basic facts. Government should exist to protect the rights of the people. The store has the right to their property. By taking something from them you have violated their rights and government force can then rightfully be used upon you. The government has no right to the property of an individual and in my country is strictly prohibited by law against removing my property without due process, but that is often ignored.

You greatly misunderstand and misrepresent my position then. I do not condone theft of any kind, whether it is someone mooching off a system (no matter how stupid the system) or a government taking money from individuals. I am fine with governments gaining money through tariffs, ad valorem taxes and the like when a conscious transaction is being made. For example I think the fuel taxes used to pay for roads is a perfectly fine way of gathering such funds. I do not however believe that the government has right to lay claim upon your money simply because you have it (income taxes, Social Security, Medicare/medicaid). Such things are "the classical definition of theft".

No we don't. We signal our full support of the proposal/individual. We don't choose the proposal/individual.

Such phrasing and/or intent is no where in the US Constitution. You can loose your life, your liberty, your property, as a function of law.

If you really believe that. Put that non-inspected week old hotdog where your mouth is.

And neither does our government. You have to voluntarily sign up for payroll deductions. Most of us do it that way, but it is not required. The Constitution gives the government the right and authority to impose and raise taxes. The key is "by due process". The government has the right to take not only your property, but your life, and liberty as well. It is right there in our Constitution.

The Constitution gives the government the right to impose any tax including income taxes.

[thesometimesaint]

Attempting once again to bring things back on topic, and since my last query didn't engender a response, let me try this one: How does equality factor into the final judgment and the three degrees of glory?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

God is no respecter of persons. If and to what extent we obey the Commandments of God the rewards are equal.

[Ahab]

In short, God wont treat or reward people equally, but will judge them according to the kind of people they have become.

That is the essence of treating and rewarding and judging everyone equally. By how they chose to live and treat other people when weighed against how well they could have done in their circumstances. No favoritism for anyone, with some getting special or different treatment than others who did the very same things. God is no respector of persons. Equal treatment for all.

Were God to reward equally...

Which he does and will do based upon their own works weighed against how they could have done their best....

...then very bad people would end up the same as very good people, which result would be banal.

But not everyone makes the same choices in the same circumstances, sometimes not even getting the chance to live in the same circumstances. Where is the equality in that? It isn't there. Thus it isn't equality that leads to the differences, but a lack of it. If everyone were given the same circumstances to make their choices, then we would be getting somewhere, but as it is now we have some who take it upon themselves to be the rulers of others, for example, while limiting the opportunities others have. Not fair in my book.

Equality may result in banality.

I think it might help if you clarified what you are talking about when you talk about equality. Equality in what, or in what way? As I see things many things are not equal or fair in the world as it is now, but God will still judge us by the same standards that apply to everyone.

[Mansquatch]

They do have the right, because the people in government give themselves that right, so you may want to just focus on whether or not it is good for them to have that right as well as any other rights they have.

I am more discriminating in my use of the word "right". I generally only use it to apply to actual God-given rights. With my strict use they do not have the right.

No we don't. We signal our full support of the proposal/individual. We don't choose the proposal/individual.

The apostles take votes all the time, and they aren't always unanimous one way or the other.

Also See section 20.

Such phrasing and/or intent is no where in the US Constitution. You can loose your life, your liberty, your property, as a function of law.

Of course you can if you are found guilty of a crime against others. Why extend this punishment to the innocent and then claim it to be constitutional and just?

If you really believe that. Put that non-inspected week old hotdog where your mouth is.

Oh this old one. Do you really think food would go non-inspected and diseased without the FDA? You do know that it often goes out diseased even with the mighty government? The same trustworthy government that was responsible for the Tuskegee Experiment and MK Ultra? Do you know of the work done by private inspectors in many industries that is as good or far better than the governments?

And neither does our government. You have to voluntarily sign up for payroll deductions. Most of us do it that way, but it is not required. The Constitution gives the government the right and authority to impose and raise taxes. The key is "by due process". The government has the right to take not only your property, but your life, and liberty as well. It is right there in our Constitution.

They do not and never will have the right to take my property. They have the ability to remove the aforementioned rights from me when I am found to have forfeited them by violating the rights of others and being found guilty through due process.

The Constitution gives the government the right to impose any tax including income taxes.

Well it does now, after they added the 16th amendment. Still doesn't mean it isn't theft.

[Mansquatch]

Attempting once again to bring things back on topic, and since my last query didn't engender a response, let me try this one: How does equality factor into the final judgment and the three degrees of glory?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I only care about the equality brought about by perfection. Anything less than that is just equally pathetic.

[Mudcat]

To see how, lets expand upon your example: suppose that one of my children's bodies was telling him he needs more fibber, and that is why he was asking for an apple; whereas my other child's body was telling her she was low on potassium, and that is why she asked for a banana. Treating the children quasi equally by giving them both an apple, not only discriminates as you suggest (some radical egalitarians might even assert that the discrimination was sexist since it was the son's request that was complied with), may inadvertently deny one of the children what her body really needs. Equality, in this instance, wasn't in, and may have worked against, everyone's best interest. Equality may result in banality.

I don't really buy into this notion.

It suggests that you have two children that need two different truths. If Christians... LDS and non-LDS actually believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and no one comes to Father but by Him.. then we'd do better by offering them the only truth that is rather than apples and bannanas.

[bcuzbcuz]

Attempting once again to bring things back on topic, and since my last query didn't engender a response, let me try this one: How does equality factor into the final judgment and the three degrees of glory?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It doesn't figure in at all, Not a smidgeon as I see it. The final judgment has nothing to do with equality or gender.

Life here on earth, on the other hand, has an awful lot to do with equality, fairness and gender. You yourself have written you think that gender qualifies or disqualifies people for various work and pay. I do not believe that. I believe equality is a pre-requisite for us to display Christian values. The equality lies in that I must treat my fellow man or woman with the same treatment I would wish to have back. But what do I know, I'm no longer a Christian.

[bcuzbcuz]

Voting happens plenty in the church.

"Unalienable rights" are not subject to human law. They are rights given by God that cannot be removed, hence the word "unalienable".

Government run services are the week-old, value hotdogs in this meat comparison scenario.

The grocery store doesn't remove money from your paycheck without permission. They don't use this stolen money to pay for other people to receive services and promise said services to you, paid for by a new generation of theft victims, that in all likelihood you will never actually receive. They don't also take your stolen money and pass it out to their friends and contributors through all kinds of corrupt schemes.

Your shoplifting example ignores several basic facts. Government should exist to protect the rights of the people. The store has the right to their property. By taking something from them you have violated their rights and government force can then rightfully be used upon you. The government has no right to the property of an individual and in my country is strictly prohibited by law against removing my property without due process, but that is often ignored.

You greatly misunderstand and misrepresent my position then. I do not condone theft of any kind, whether it is someone mooching off a system (no matter how stupid the system) or a government taking money from individuals. I am fine with governments gaining money through tariffs, ad valorem taxes and the like when a conscious transaction is being made. For example I think the fuel taxes used to pay for roads is a perfectly fine way of gathering such funds. I do not however believe that the government has right to lay claim upon your money simply because you have it (income taxes, Social Security, Medicare/medicaid). Such things are "the classical definition of theft".

You have some very strange ideas about what constitutes theft. I will assume you have never recieved any financial aid, like the recent bank bailout, or social welfare, and you probably don't know a single person who does, either banker or poor person.

You think that a gas tariff is a fitting way to finance the roads. Have you driven outside of Salt Lake heading towards Reno lately, or driven in Northern California around San Francisco or just outside of Hollywood? Those potholes and washboard you drive over are results of gas tariffs not doing a very good job.

You want government to protect your rights but you aren't willing to pay for that protection....or only pay upon service delivered. Good luck with that.

[Mansquatch]

You have some very strange ideas about what constitutes theft. I will assume you have never recieved any financial aid, like the recent bank bailout, or social welfare, and you probably don't know a single person who does, either banker or poor person.

Forcing someone else to give you something under threat of violence is a perfectly fine definition of theft. I have been the beneficiary of the kindness of others through private charity and it made me want to do the same for others. Why would you make such a silly assumption that I know no one who receives money from the government? And why would it matter if I do know them?

You think that a gas tariff is a fitting way to finance the roads. Have you driven outside of Salt Lake heading towards Reno lately, or driven in Northern California around San Francisco or just outside of Hollywood? Those potholes and washboard you drive over are results of gas tariffs not doing a very good job.

Poor road conditions are generally the result of nature breaking down the road. Are you arguing for higher fuel taxes and/or taking more money under threat of force from the people's incomes? We could forgo the higher taxes and just get the benevolent government to stop dumping money into failing private sector companies, many of which ultimately still fail.

You want government to protect your rights but you aren't willing to pay for that protection....or only pay upon service delivered. Good luck with that.

Why do you assume that I am unwilling to pay for that protection? I have no impending arrest date which means I have paid my taxes and followed the law of the land even though I see it as an unjust set of laws, which amount to theft. I am perfectly willing to pay taxes on certain goods and services which will fund proper governmental functions. Under such a system a citizen can decide not to pay a tax by not purchasing an item (ex. Don't buy gas, don't use the road). Then the payment is not forced and is thus not theft.

I am really feeling like a broken record here. Any further questions or comments can just be pointed to previous posts I am sure.

Now back to the banality that grows from equality efforts.