We Need Subversive Love --Griswold

Great Debates
21

I do not consider libertarianism “brutal” or “uncaring.” I think the effects might very well allow unchecked brutality in some aspects of human behavior, but that’s beyond the scope of this debate.

I do not claim moral authority over the rights of other men to make their own decisions about charity. Nor do I consider their contribution to their own country’s existing governmental structure to be involuntary. That seems rather self-serving rhetoric to me. One person I know of, not a saint really but someone who was fairly authoritative about morality, told me to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

22

Xeno wrote:

Then why not let them make them?

It seems that way to me, too. I know of no other context where “voluntary” is characterised by forced cooperation on pain of losing your freedom and your property.

Caesar is dead.

23

Ah. It appears that you’ve just declared communication on this subject to be dead as well.

24

Appearances apparently have deceived you. :wink: I am open to communication on whatever subject.

25

Lib,
I don’t think there’s any ethical inconsistency in saying that I wish the government would spend more money saving lives than taking lives. (btw, what is your stance on an invasion of Iraq? Do you think the government has any more moral authority to commandeer money for an unprovoked attack on another country than they do to fight AIDS? Forgive me if you’ve expressed your opinion on this elsewhere on the boards, I’ve just missed it if you have.)

Also Xenophon41 raised a fair question which you answered rather facetiously. What do you really think of the fact that Jesus said to pay your taxes, even unfair taxes?

26

OK, Lib, here’s something I earnestly want to communicate, as a friend. There is no operating governmental structure which is absolutely defensible on moral grounds. But, they exist and they have power; in fact, in the bounds of their respective geographies and properties, they have supreme power. Am I to be judged “morally unsound” if I entreat these governments toward a particular end? Am I hypocritical for believing I can effect more good by doing so than by proclaiming all government efforts immoral?

Forgive me my friend if I do not recognize that you have the moral highground by virtue of your perch atop your philosophical framework. I’m down here slogging through the mud on which your philosophy rests.

27

I think that is not what Jesus said. His response was not about Roman law, but about Pharisaic law. The men who asked Him the question were dishonest spies who were acting out of duplicity to trick Him into heresy against the Roman State.

Here is the encounter in full context:

Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.

So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

Luke 20:20-26

The point was that what the men were carrying in their pockets were graven images of a Roman god (Caesar) in direct contradiction to the Laws of Moses. The message is about having no gods before God.

It is not about paying taxes. Jesus said nothing at all about taxes, and would not even answer the question. It is about worshipping God rather than Caesar. That’s why they were stunned into silence.

Caesar is dead, but God is not.

28

I will not judge you either way. I despise the principle of usurpation, but I do not despise you. It is not that I am morally sound whereas you are not. It’s that there is a morally sound principle.

Anyone who wishes may be morally sound in this matter by entreating government toward the particular end of ceasing its tyranny and returning the property it took from people to whom God Himself gave moral sovereignty.

29

That’s the thing, though. Aint gonna happen, and it’s no more hypocritical to petition for a particular use of government power than it is to take advantage of services funded by a system of taxation while calling it tyranny. You want to opt out? Do so. That’s a morally sound action. Doesn’t make my own protest morally unsound.

And that’s all the further I’m going with this.

30

The denarius that was presented to Jesus contained the image of Tiberius Caesar, who was emperor of Rome from 14-37 CE. Unlike his step-father, Augustus, Tiberius was never deified (and living emperors before Caligula were never considered for deification anyway). So the image of Tiberius was not a graven image of a god, but just a picture of a hated tyrant. Jesus was drawing a distinction between material and spiritual allegiences. (IMO)

31

Let me rework my stance to achieve better rapport with Lib, if you all will so permit.

The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise of “no taxation without representation,” and we now have a government by the consent of the governed, representing (however imperfectly) their views through the process of free elections across the country and direct initiative and referendum in many places.

A part of the common consent so created is the idea that we will willingly pay into the public purse a sum of money equivalent to X% of the gasoline we buy, Y% of the income we accrue, and Z% of the value of selected possessions, to be expended for the common good as determined by our representatives in Congress assembled and the administration formed and under the direction of the President whom we choose electors to select.

This differs in only one subtle way from voluntary contributions to a charity – that difference being that in consenting to be a part of this nation and exercise its freedoms under its protection, we yield to the collective decision of our representatives our right to determine what our money will be used for, and how much money we will contribute to that common cause. I can fully see Lib’s perception that this taxation and expenditure without individual consent is indeed coercion, but offer to him the alternate perspective that it is our individual subscription to a social contract in which we consent to the decision of the majority as to what taxes we will pay and how they will be spent.

In the absence of a Libertarian state, this democratic system in which the will of the majority is carried out, with due respect for the rights of the minority, however inadequately, is the next best approximation to a completely free society.

Had I my druthers, I would not contribute one cent towards an invasion of Iraq until and unless I personally was convinced of a clear and present danger from the present government there, and would contribute to the best of my ability towards the eradication or amelioration of AIDS in Africa (and at home and everywhere else). Not having the freedom to do so, since the moneys I am speaking of are taken from me as taxes, I am advocating a public policy that corresponds to what I individually would do. Others are free to advocate the reverse policy if it so suits them. And the representative government will, however haltingly, respond to our common voice speaking of many different views, and allocate moneys from the public purse in an approximation of what our collective voice has to say it wishes to have them spent.

As Mark Twain once said, “Democracy is the worst system of government ever invented – except for all the others.” :slight_smile:

32

Churchill said it. :wink:

33

Yeah, but he was probably quoting Twain!! :stuck_out_tongue:

As Voltaire probably never said, “I do not agree with what you say…” :wink:

34

OK, so reality is that your pocket’s already been emptied. By fate of birth, you are fortunate enough to have a say in how it gets spent.

The gist of Griswold’s comments is that we ought to spend more of your money on helping fix the AIDS problem than on helping fix Iraq’s goose. How do you feel about that question? Which way do you personally, and your philosophical system in general, feel about that choice?

If your moral code says you won’t participate in anything that happens to your money after it’s taken from you, I’d say your code is shallow and corrupt. Shallow, because it can’t accomodate obvious realities of the world in which it purports to have an effect and corrupt because it prevents you from exercising your ability to affect obviously moral decisions. Who is it that’s ethically neanderthal?

35

The purpose of the spies and their perverted flattery was to present Jesus with a dilemma and force Him to say in front of everyone which was more important — to obey the Jewish law as they saw it or to accept reality and pay tribute to Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, and high priest of the Roman pantheon of deities. They couldn’t have cared less about taxes. They cared about deceipt and treachery.

The Pharisees specifically objected to the use of the denarius for currency. They felt that a coin bearing the likeness of a Roman Caesar skirted perilously close to a violation of the commandment. They also felt, as separatists, that use of the denarius polluted Jewish culture. In fact, coins were minted in Hebrew in Judea to accomodate the Pharisees. And finally, they believed that payment of anything, including taxes, with a denarius was a tribute to the Roman Emperor and his gods.

If He had disagreed with the Pharisees, He would have agreed with the Herodians, who were sort of the “Reform Jews” of the day, and didn’t mind quasi-assimilation into other cultures. And the Pharisees would have charged Him with idolatry. But if He had disagreed with the Herodians, they would have accused Him of heresy against Rome.

That was what this exchange was about. Not taxes.

Whenever taxes are ever mentioned in the Gospels, there is either tragedy or dereliction or deceipt involved. Tax collectors were the lowest of the low, below prostitutes and beggars.

Jesus never called upon government to make any law. Using His words as though they were a rallying cry for government to seize the property of people by threat of force is distressing beyond measure.

36

Nogginhead wrote:

I feel that you ought to return whatever money you’ve taken to whomever you’ve taken it from, so long as they are peaceful and honest, and leave them to decide what they will do with it.

37

Fine.

So, apparently you refuse to answer, even on behalf of your philosphical system, whether you prefer that the money be spent on war on Iraq or on AIDS in Africa. This is the real-world zero-sum question before you. Thus I must consider your system to be shallow and corrupt. Sorry.

38

Fine.

And I must consider your system of debate to be one that offers bifurcations and fallacies of presupposition.

It is like a man has been kidnapped, and you are asking which is kinder, that the kidnappers spend their ransom on new cars or helping the poor. My answer — whether you think it is shallow and corrupt or not — is that what the kidnappers should do is release the man and pay back the ransom.

39

Right. You refuse to acknowledge the realities.

Refusing to answer the question is not an answer to the question.

If I ask you if you prefer tofu or green beans, and you say “I want duck a l’orange” you get no meal. That’s your priviledge. But don’t try to convince yourself that your belly is full.

40

I don’t think my belly’s full. I just think you’re a lousy host. In my opinion, I am the one acknowledging the reality here: an ethical abomonation has been committed and needs to be rectified.