An Old Story

While the normal posting is a little low this week-end, this story should provide some entertainment.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing ?”

She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the conservative Republican party.”

(I reserve the right to modify trollish comments to make them humorous)

FILED UNDER: Humor, , ,
Rodney Dill
About Rodney Dill
Rodney is an IT Implementation Consultant in the Motor City and working within the Automotive Industry. He contributed to OTB from November 2004 until retiring in July 2017, hosting some 1200 OTB Caption Contests.

Comments

  1. Tano says:

    Gee, if only it were possible for any thinking human being to beleive, just for one tiny second, that income or wealth were strictly correlated with work-effort, and that that was the relationship which was soley, or even largely responsible for our economic hierarchy, then this might be an amusing and insightful story.

    Rather, it is cringingly embarrassing to think that some (many?) republicans or other rightwingers actually do believe this.

    An example I guess, of the stories people tell themselves to get them through the day.

  2. Gee Rodney, I guess you’re just monkey fishing for comments like Tano’s. Personally, I grow increasingly weary of his depressingly non-unique brand of Dada inspired utopianism that insists we destroy everything that isn’t perfect so we can build the perfect society with perfect men, women, and children.

    Sigh.

  3. jeff b says:

    People who find this sort of drivel insightful are revealing more about themselves than about any great truth.

  4. floyd says:

    Tano; It is of course much more possible to believe the above correlation, than it is to believe for one microsecond that Stalin’s plan was better.Do you remember this story

    [Commissar] ” Comrade how is the potato crop going?

    [Comrade] “OH! Commissar!! If the crop were put in one PILE it would nearly reach heaven itself!!

    [Commissar] But, COMRADE!! You know there is no heaven!!

    [Comrade] No matter, Commissar, there are NO potatos!

  5. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    I have heard it said that a conservated is a liberal who has been mugged, or something to that effect. This story illustrates that concept very well.

  6. anjin-san says:

    If the father was really a “conservative Republican” in the Bush sense, he would also have to advise her to pay all her bills by borrowing money…

    Why redsitribute when you can just put everything on a credit card and stick your kids and grandkids with the bill?

  7. Rodney Dill says:

    Charles, It’s not a perfect analogy, but none really are. Just stirring the pot so to speak.

    I think it says far more about people by how they react to humor (note the post tag) than the posted humor itself.

  8. Give me a password and I’ll happily start editing some of the comments. 🙂

    Better yet, I’ll start posting my caption contest entries under various nom de blogs.

  9. Michael says:

    Now, replace “GPA points” with a basic necessity, like food or housing, and see if it’s still funny.

    If it is still funny to you, replace Audrey’s partying with taking care of an infant on her own.

    You see, being liberal isn’t about being fair, it’s about being human, and caring about the quality of life of other humans, whether they have done enough to “earn” those basic needs or not. Being liberal doesn’t mean you think everyone should have the same amount of food, it means you think everyone should have enough food to survive.

    So are we fair to the wealthy? No, I’ll tell you flat out things like Medicare and WIC are not “fair” programs. But just because they aren’t fair, doesn’t mean they aren’t good, and doesn’t mean that the nation isn’t better off because of them.

  10. Ah yes, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” rears it ugly head once again.

  11. Michael says:

    Ah yes, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, rears it ugly head once again.

    It’s a matter of logistics really. Those who don’t have, obviously cannot give, and those who do have obviously don’t need to receive. The only other alternatives are to take from those without enough to give, or to not give anything to those who need. Unless you advocate no assistance to the poor, you accept some form of Marxist communal support.

    The reason the government forces the issue is because nobody believes enough of us would volunteer enough of what we have to help those who need it. It’s not that Communism is a bad idea, it’s that Capitalism is in our nature.

  12. Bithead says:

    Rodney;

    You’ll be interested to know that soemone… I think it was Roger Hedgecock on Rush, today, read this one.

    (If it wasn’t Roger, it was the local guy on WBEN in Buffalo)

  13. Trust me, communism is a bad idea. I could go on at length about the disconnects in your reasoning between responsibility and authority, subsidizing bad choices, enslaving the capable, and so on, but there’s little point.

    Hmmm…, maybe “Michael” is just Rodney taunting me.

  14. floyd says:

    “If it is still funny to you, replace Audrey’s partying with taking care of an infant on her own.”

    Supporting this behavior, produces more of this misery. It’s not funny , it’s criminal.

  15. Bryan says:

    HEY check out this new political website. It has tons of political message boards and soon will have news updates.

    http://www.electorials.com

  16. Michael says:

    Charles,
    Firstly, I am not anybody but myself, regardless of whether I am taunting you or not. Second, please do enlighten me about your vision of a utopian society without any of the trappings of communism. How will we take care of the less fortunate among us? Does Capitalism have some unknown mechanism where by the more fortunate will naturally give all that needs to be given to the less fortunate? Please do tell, I would like to know.

  17. Safety nets have nothing to do with capitalism or communism per se. We as a society decide, however imperfectly, on a level of taxation and how best to allocate those taxes to take care of the many needs and desires the population expresses through our elected representatives (disregarding the deleterious effects of court ordered unfunded mandates and elected representatives who spend tomorrow’s funds for today’s votes, for the moment).

    In a free market, people are, well, free to decide what is best for them and how best to pursue their own idea of happiness with the wits and resources available to them. Under any other system that is less free, someone else with inadequate information, but, in their own estimation, purer hearts will decide how much of your freedom has to be taken to satisfy someone else’s need, whether it be material, metaphysical or otherwise.

    You see, I don’t start with the assumption that it is possible to “save” everyone at any cost, much less every cost. I take human nature for what it is and try to live according to a philosophy that allows talented and hardworking individuals to achieve and succeed, thinking this is what is best and most moral for them and for everyone else. All the variants of Marxism start with a different set of assumptions regarding the human condition and a belief that people can be made into something they are not to deliver a utopia that has always — every single, freaking time — turned into a hell on earth.

    Anyway, before this turns into a thesis, I’ll just note that while I have inherited nothing and come from a lower middle class family, I now pay more taxes than the vast majority of Ameicans and perhaps also give a good deal more to various charities that the vast majority of Americans. But honestly, all that is besides the point. I only mention it to try and help you shed your apparent belief that people who succeed and people who believe in free markets would rather the poor just die or something and stop wasting our money.

    Well, that’s enough for now.

  18. Bandit says:

    Being liberal doesn’t mean you think everyone should have the same amount of food, it means you think everyone should have enough food to survive.

    Greatest medical problem of the poor in the US – obesity

    Percentage of families in the US qualifying for free or subsidized school lunches who have cable teevee – 100%

    Primary indicator that a child will live in poverty – unwed mother

    When liberals decide they want to deal with these problems I’ll start to take their bs seriously.

  19. Michael says:

    Bandit: attribution please, otherwise it’s just you saying something you want to be true.

    Charles: I never claimed that free-marketers and the wealthy would rather the poor just die. I claimed that most people (myself included) would rather have a quality of life that is 1+X, than promote someone with a quality of life of 1-X to 1, for some value of X.

    I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that, I’m just saying that the value of X is a balance between free-market ideals and human morality. Conservatives argue that the value of X should not be too low, Liberals argue that it should not be too high.

  20. No Michael, conservatives argue that there is no such thing as X that can be applied across the board, much less that you get to decide whether X is too high or too low.

  21. Michael says:

    Percentage of families in the US qualifying for free or subsidized school lunches who have cable teevee – 100%

    Ok, I’ll check Bandit’s statistics when he gives the attribution links, but for now I did some quick number chrunching on the cable vs. school lunch, and here’s what I got:

    Prices are indicative of my area, yours man vary.

    Lunch for 1 child for 1 day =~ $2.00
    Lunch for 1 family (2.3 children) for 1 month (4.3 weeks @5 days a week) =~ $100.00

    Basic Cable for 1 month =~ $20.00

    Also, many apartments I have seen, especially low income/income restricted ones, include basic cable in their rent. So even if 100% of free-lunch eligible households have cable (I’m always skeptical of 100% figures), that doesn’t mean they could afford school lunches if they didn’t have cable.

  22. Michael says:

    charles, X is a variable in a thought experiment, it can be anything or nothing that you want it to be, whenever you want it to be, it’s just useful for explaining a concept using simplified terms. X represents the difference between what 2 people have, be it in units of health, property, or happiness. I think it is fair that someone should prefer to raise their own standing by some measure of X, rather than raise someone else’s standing by the same measure to make them equal, so long as X is not immorally large.

    For instance, if I could choose between having all the food I could ever eat, or a given person with nothing to eat having an amount equal to mine, I should choose the latter. However, if I had to choose between eating seconds at dinner, or a given person having equal to what I have instead of half of what I have, I could choose to keep the benefits of my fortune.

  23. TraitorHater says:

    Mikhail/Michael: The people of what became the United States, 1604-1913. No socialism, no eternal violence of the federal government against the productive, and no starvation. And throughout that entire period (after enough of a population settled to make figures useful) a declining crime rate. Until the 1960s, when the violent schemes you support were put into effect in much greater size and with more force and less restraint than before, because the new generation had less of the previous generation’s shame to protect them from living on the dole and becoming shiftless, and living like kept beasts. The new generation’s need for a reason to exist generally took the form of some sort of amusement, which generally meant sex with any available male. The males, of course, had the responsibility of fatherhood shifted from their shoulders onto Big Daddy in Washington, D.C. And they did just wonderfully with that.

    1963 murder rate: 4.6 per 100,000 people.
    1973 murder rate: 9.4 per 100,000 people.

    Crime in the United States, 2004, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.

    The biggest rise in murder rates ever. In fact, the only rise in murder rates over an extended period in American history. The rates continued to climb until the early 1980s. Stopping the foolishness of many judges by replacing them with adults rather than children acting as unrepealable super-legislators got most of that done. But it took several more years before states began building prisons, and reforming laws back to being more like they were before the corrupt ideas of utopian twits were put into effect. That caused a significant decline in murder rates. Yet they’re still above 5 per 100,000. Because people are still allowed to live at others’ expense, and any honest person knows that makes for a self-loathing existence, and wickedness is all too often the result.

    How did the people keep from starving when the Constitution was obeyed? They worked for a living. They made sure not to pretend to themselves that sex was just recreation with no moral or physical consequences. They knew better. They were better.

    Yet, some very few people still chose vice. But they were not supported in their bad bahavior. A drunk got fired. A slut got kicked out of her household. If they wanted to repent of their wicked ways, opportunities abounded to help them. Charities taught people how to behave, and how to earn a decent living. Most of these were related to churches. And with their lessons on a productive life came teachings about the moral underpinnings of an honorable life.

    And because of that system, where the government did not violate rights as a matter of political expediency as they do now in every country, in the West we saw the fastest economic growth and the greatest increase in living standards in history. That came to an abrupt end in the 20th century with the adoption of socialistic ideas. Even though, in 1920, Ludwig von Mises showed it was logically impossible for a socialist system to do other than collapse, in his monograph “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth“, and it had already been amply demonstrated as the most immoral system imagineable, where an honorable person’s earnings are used against him in favor of the dishonorable in order to produce more people dependent upon the government, more disharmony, more violence, and the statists then claim they’ll solve this problem, but never admit their guilt in causing the problems they now want more power to “solve”. The most putrid creatures in human history, who in the 20th century murdered hundreds of millions of people are socialists, yet do present-day socialists apologize? Of course not. Because they are not mere human beings. They are above mere logic. They are above reason. They are the annointed. The facts of existence mean nothing to these self-appointed lords. They are superior to all others, because they see that there is “need”, and according to them no man may exist without justifying himself in terms of satisfying that “need”. And if they need to gather unchecked power unto themselves in order to implement their vision, well, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles, isn’t it? After all, they’re not mere human beings. They’re gods among men, and aren’t we lucky to have them ruling over us, telling us what to do, and how much of our labors we may keep? Why, without them, we might have to think for ourselves, and then where would we be?

  24. Michael, as long as you limit your decisions to what you choose to do with your food, time, talents, assets, etc., we are in complete agreement. We only have an argument when you want to use the power of the state to order me to dispose of my food, time, talents, assets, etc., in a way you find pleasing rather than in a way I find pleasing.

    I apologize for the cheap shot that implied you believe free marketers or the wealthy (note, they are not generally the same group of people) want poor people to die.

  25. Michael says:

    Michael, as long as you limit your decisions to what you choose to do with your food, time, talents, assets, etc., we are in complete agreement. We only have an argument when you want to use the power of the state to order me to dispose of my food, time, talents, assets, etc., in a way you find pleasing rather than in a way I find pleasing.

    That’s all well and good for me, and for you, but what about the person with 1-X? If X gets too large, and they have no means of changing their situation (whether real or perceived), any rational person will eventually disregard the law and government and resort to action. It goes back to the question of is it moral to steal bread when you are starving and have no other means of obtaining it.

    The goal of social programs is to keep people from reaching that point where breaking the law is morally justified. Now I’ll concede that most programs either fall short of that goal or go too far beyond it, but that is a case for fixing them, not abolishing them.

  26. Michael says:

    TraitorHater, I’m sorry for not reading your entire post, but it was quite painful to try and make sense out of. You can’t name a single great modern leader who did not understand the necessity of making sure that certain “needs” of the poor are met. Hell, even Jesus Christ understood it, would you consider him a tyrant or despot?

  27. Michael says:

    Charles,
    Why can’t I post on your blog? I keep getting this error:

    Comment Submission Error
    Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

    Comments are not allowed on this entry.

    Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.

  28. (Sorry for the regression) Comments may only be entered for a limited time, and since that time has been exceeded since my last post, it is not possible to leave a comment. I’m on an unpaid blog sabbatical at the moment.

  29. Micahel, I think you are missing my point. Taking something from me just because I have it and just because you think someone else needs it is immoral, no matter how much I have or how much you think they need it. Beyond that we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  30. Michael says:

    Micahel, I think you are missing my point. Taking something from me just because I have it and just because you think someone else needs it is immoral, no matter how much I have or how much you think they need it. Beyond that we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Charles, I get your point, and in a non-societal situation your point would be valid. However, since you choose to be a part of a social community you also accept that you are in some way responsible for providing protection and support for others in that community, a social contract I believe is the term. That contract gives the community, and by extention any government enacted by that community, the right to distribute a portion of what it yours to others in the community, so long as the amount taken does not exceed the benefit your receive from being a part of that community.

  31. TraitorHater says:

    TraitorHater, I’m sorry for not reading your entire post, but it was quite painful to try and make sense out of. You can’t name a single great modern leader who did not understand the necessity of making sure that certain “needs” of the poor are met. Hell, even Jesus Christ understood it, would you consider him a tyrant or despot?

    It’s straightforward to one who has a proper regard for the truth and does not seek to impose himself upon others through violence. Your “pain” seems indication of your own failing, not mine.

    I will name for you some great “modern leaders” who didn’t see fit to enslave others in the name of a claimed desire to meet the “needs of the poor”: Queen Elizabeth I. George Washington. John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. James Monroe. John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson. And on it goes until Herbert Hoover, who began social spending by taking from some Americans in the name of others. This grew in the 1930s, and we know that decade and some as the Great Depression. As such ideas got support in the press and school children were indoctrinated with such thoughts, so too grew the lawlessness of the government and the people.

    As for Jesus Christ, do please find me a statement of his supporting the taking of property from one person in order to make sure that certain “needs” of the poor are met. My reading indicates to me that he was a capitalist. The 10 commandments demonstrate that stealing and covetousness are sins. For evidence of my view of Christ, I offer the parable spoken by him, in Matthew 20:1 to 20:16, paying special attention to 20:8 through 20:15. link

    And to reinforce this doctrine, I offer the following from 2nd Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

  32. Michael says:

    Its straightforward to one who has a proper regard for the truth and does not seek to impose himself upon others through violence. Your pain seems indication of your own failing, not mine.

    It’s not your position that is difficult to understand, in fact it is quite shallow, it is your writing style that is difficult to overcome.

    George Washington. John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. James Monroe. John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson.

    None of which, to my recollection, encouraged the end of taxation and social programs. In fact, some of these men, Jefferson especially, did not want America to become the class divided industrial capitalism they saw in Europe.

    As for Jesus Christ, do please find me a statement of his supporting the taking of property from one person in order to make sure that certain needs of the poor are met.

    Jesus says to pay your taxes: Matthew 22:21
    Jesus says to give your possessions to the poor: Matthew 19:21
    Jesus says feed the poor from your own table: Luke 14:13

    Now Jesus is not advocating the forceful redistribution of wealth, but then again neither am I, so these passages fit my claim. You seem to equate charity with stealing, and the poor with the lazy, a position I cannot understand.

    Charles, I believe that TraitorHater is a prime example of why I believe that, in a society reliant entirely on charity there are enough people who will not give anything of what they have, that the society cannot keep the poor above the level of necessary violence.

  33. Michael says:

    For evidence of my view of Christ, I offer the parable spoken by him, in Matthew 20:1 to 20:16, paying special attention to 20:8 through 20:15. link

    Its funny because in that parable those who work the most, and those who work the least, earn the same amount, which is completely against both yours and Charles’ positions. Jesus says that is is good and fair for them to earn the same amount, even though some did more than others, and that that is how it is in Heaven.

  34. BradleyG says:

    Michael : Explain to me please, how having the state seize money from its citizens to give to the less wealthy (I don’t say ‘poor’ because starvation in the US is basically nonexistent.), under threat of imprisonment, is not forceful redistribution of wealth?

  35. Michael says:

    Michael : Explain to me please, how having the state seize money from its citizens to give to the less wealthy (I dont say poor because starvation in the US is basically nonexistent.), under threat of imprisonment, is not forceful redistribution of wealth?

    BradleyG, because the state doesn’t force you to stay here, you are free to leave whenever the conditions become too much for you. However, as long as you enjoy the benefits of the state, you must pay the state. Don’t think of it as taxes, think of it as annual payments for the privilege of living here. Living here without paying the going rate would be as much stealing as living in an apartment without paying rent. Surely America is such a great place to stay, it’s worth some of your money..

  36. TraitorHater says:

    Michael: It’s not your position that is difficult to understand, in fact it is quite shallow, it is your writing style that is difficult to overcome.

    Yet you continue to reply as if you do not understand.
    Me: George Washington. John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. James Monroe. John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson.

    Michael: None of which, to my recollection, encouraged the end of taxation and social programs. In fact, some of these men, Jefferson especially, did not want America to become the class divided industrial capitalism they saw in Europe.

    There was this little thing called the War of Independence. You might have heard about it. After declaring independence, they stopped all taxation going to Britain. After its conclusion, and after the adoption of the Constitution, they continued without any income taxation at all. And there were no social programs to end, so they didn’t have to end any. The Americans lived on their own, as my original post here indicated. Those who fell into bad situations had to rely on their savings, or in extreme cases on charity. They had no recourse to a share of any property stolen by the government.

    Me: As for Jesus Christ, do please find me a statement of his supporting the taking of property from one person in order to make sure that certain needs of the poor are met.

    Michael: Jesus says to pay your taxes: Matthew 22:21
    Jesus says to give your possessions to the poor: Matthew 19:21
    Jesus says feed the poor from your own table: Luke 14:13

    Matthew 22:21: … Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

    Most people recognize that as saying to obey the laws. It can’t be twisted into saying “socialism is good” no matter how one tries.

    Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
    Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
    Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had, great possessions.
    Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    I think most would recognize this as indicating that a person who cares more for treasures on earth than for eternal things is not likely to “make the grade”, so to speak.

    Now Jesus is not advocating the forceful redistribution of wealth, but then again neither am I, so these passages fit my claim. You seem to equate charity with stealing, and the poor with the lazy, a position I cannot understand.

    Charles, I believe that TraitorHater is a prime example of why I believe that, in a society reliant entirely on charity there are enough people who will not give anything of what they have, that the society cannot keep the poor above the level of necessary violence.

    If you are not supporting the forceful redistribution of wealth, then your disagreement here does not make sense. It also contradicts your last paragraph.

    I do not compare charity to stealing. I compare government social programs to stealing, since that’s how they get their money. They steal it from me and others who are coerced by threat of violence into paying a portion of their property in taxes, and they keep the majority of it to hire employees to administer their supposedly helpful programs. They also use a portion of it to employ regulators who drive up the cost of living while lowering the return on investment and on work, which hurts the lowest paid people the most because capital investment is lowered, which lowers their pay and again drives up prices. The remaining fraction of it they then buy votes with, and this spending is a direct attack on the natural incentive for the poorest people to work. The people who have little or no self-respect are the people who will take such subsidies. And they are also the people whose children and “mates” produce the vast majority of the violent crime.

    The idea reflected in your final paragraph is utterly refuted by American history. Again, in case you forget: there was no government social spending at all in the British Colonies, and after the adoption of the Constitution there was no social spending at the federal level until after the income tax was adopted in 1913. There were a few times Congress did things like that as one-off spending items, such as a $20,000 appropriation to help some people of nearby Georgetown who suffered a fire. That action violated the Constitution, and was greeted with contempt by many Americans, as the following link (which I recommend to anyone interested in the American system) indicates: The Art of Politics by Colonel Davy Crockett. Some states had begun adopting such programs in the last years of the 19th century, and as time passed more and more foolishness crept into government policy. But the writers of the Constitution were very clear about it, and clear-headed. We did not need government social programs, and we not only survived but prospered more than any people had ever done because we had no such programs.

    This “necessary violence” idea of yours sounds like the threat made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan back in 1996 when Congress was finally able to get the president to sign instead of vetoing a welfare reform bill. Moynihan claimed there would be blood on the streets because the poor would never work, but would rob and kill, and also have more abortions, instead. The last nearly 11 years demonstrate the opposite, and his remarks demonstrate the bigotry of those who think the way he did.

  37. TraitorHater says:

    me: For evidence of my view of Christ, I offer the parable spoken by him, in Matthew 20:1 to 20:16, paying special attention to 20:8 through 20:15. link

    Its funny because in that parable those who work the most, and those who work the least, earn the same amount, which is completely against both yours and Charles’ positions. Jesus says that is is good and fair for them to earn the same amount, even though some did more than others, and that that is how it is in Heaven.

    It says nothing about how it is in heaven, but it speaks of how the owner of the property may choose how he pays his workers. The point is that even those who come to Christ late in life or late in history will earn a place with him, while those who began long ago also have that place. But I notice you left out the final quoted verse and its point: Matthew 20:15 Is it not lawful, for me to do what I will with mine own?, Is thine eye evil, because I1473 am good?

    The owner sets his own rules. If you agree, you can work for him. If you don’t, you can seek employment elsewhere. If you’ve already agreed to the terms of work for him, you have nothing to complain about after being paid. That is absolute capitalism, straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

  38. TraitorHater says:

    Michael : Explain to me please, how having the state seize money from its citizens to give to the less wealthy (I dont say poor because starvation in the US is basically nonexistent.), under threat of imprisonment, is not forceful redistribution of wealth?

    BradleyG, because the state doesn’t force you to stay here, you are free to leave whenever the conditions become too much for you. However, as long as you enjoy the benefits of the state, you must pay the state. Don’t think of it as taxes, think of it as annual payments for the privilege of living here. Living here without paying the going rate would be as much stealing as living in an apartment without paying rent. Surely America is such a great place to stay, it’s worth some of your money..

    It isn’t the state that is providing us with the benefits of society, it is the society. We built the state to preserve the society from foreign and domestic enemies of tranquility. The people for whom our “annual payments” (being self-employed, mine are quarterly, by the way) are stolen offer no such payments. So perhaps according to your new rules they should be deported upon failure to pay taxes?

    I don’t think the sort of bad faith argument you’re now forced into making to preserve your original position does you much credit.

    For your position to be at all defensible, you have to justify how taxes have gone from less than 1% of national output to more than 40% at all levels combined, and how the cost of government went from less than 1% of output to more than 60% (this calculation includes the cost of regulations), and then prove that this increase has made life better than it could have been without that level of intervention and taxation. It is already known that less regulation and lower taxation increases the growth rate of the economy, which makes your case impossible.