However, I sense that you are asking me to be stoic and serious with every comment.

I can’t…hey what kind of wood don’t float?

Elwood!

Beyond that and by your overall description of your own politics, I see no government on earth as a working example supporting your ideology.

As far as imposing upon another’s rights, the rich in this country has been imposing on the rights of the less fortunate for far to long and by far to many immoral methodologies.

I see “Libertarian” as a fad, not a real and viable form of government. Chosen when one cannot, or chose not, to distinguish between right and wrong.

The Senate Republicans just voted unanimously to extend unemployment benefits. Clearly Republicans, and most conservatives, do support helping the poor to some degree. How much the government should help is a matter of debate, and as I mentioned before moral arguments are a part of that debate, as are economic ones of course. What I objected to was the use of a religious argument to imply that any Christian who doesn't reflexively support any legislation that intends to help the poor is a hypocrite.

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

I consider myself to be a libertarian-liberal–someone who is socially libertarian and fiscally moderate. I feel that people should basically be free to engage in consensual acts so long as they do not infringe on anyone else's life, liberty, or property. I believe that government is essentially a coercive institution–that is–the laws they it passes are not recommendations that people may chose to follow but are dictates that individuals are forced to follow either via force or by the threat of force. I believe that some form of government is necessary to protect people's rights, defend them from agressors, provide for courts and elections, and ensure some degree of stability within the country.

I believe that if the government is to pass a law, it should grounded on utilitarian reasons and not grounded moralistic philosophy that argues that some people need to be penalized merely because they are acting “immoral.”

If we're going to put certain people in prison, it should be because their actions are infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties or others–not because we find their actions to be distasteful or immoral.

If we're going to tax people, it should be to collect revenue to fund programs that society as a whole deems is appropriate–not because the rich need to “pay their fair share.”

My criticism of your above post was not so much a criticism of what you proposed for the government to do (add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year) but because of the reason you gave for this proposal (just to show them them the power of the collective majority). Was this a tongue-in-cheek statement, or do you believe the government should be imposing taxes on certain groups of people as some kind of “gotcha” or punitive measure, as your post suggested?

Now if you want to try to make a valid point, I'll listen, but I haven't time for your red herrings and ad homs.

I tend to think that the constant accusations of taxation being theft support my view, frankly.

I keep thinking of those millions losing their homes because they cannot afford healthcare. People whom suffer illness or injury because they cannot afford healthcare. Millions of Americans locked into poverty and ignorance within urban slums like east LA or backwoods under privileged places like West Virginia or millions already in prison because they have never had any hope to begin with. All simply because we do not invest in our education and social infrastructure like all other developed nations do. Then our non-wealthy but stubbornly dedicated youth taking the military option for a chance at a future either by career, skills training, or VA education benefits, and being sent over and over again to a war hell that rips their minds apart if not their bodies. The millions of homeless people scattered across the so-called “richest nation on earth”, the United States. Just to name a few reasons for animosity.

I am somewhat open minded also. So maybe you could help me with how I should express my favoritism or more precisely “un-favoritism” for those Americans that seemed to turned their backs on their “fellow Americans for decades.

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

Just a playing with words.

Please, collective god??

…and rich devil????

Nonsense.

Nancy Pelosi is rich and I admire her….and…..most of the Kennedys….and….Senator & Mrs.Kerry….and…..Armand Hammer……and…..Oprah Winfrey….to name a few rich people.

Just who is the Lord, though? Power (authority)?

Then add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year just to show them the power of the collective majority.

That sounds pretty vindictive.

I can understand raising taxes for the purpose of funding the government. But to raise taxes just to show them the power of the collective majority, that sounds pretty mean-spirited. The idea that the majority should be able to bully the minority is not something that I subscribe to.

There are taxpayers. No one owns anything without the state, which is comprised of the collective population.

The more you make the more you pay.

You don't need to make up some god to tell you what is fair.

There are at least 100 million working Americans. Collectivly if each paid an extra 100 dollars a year, less than ten dollars per month, that would make one trillion dollars to pay for just about anything we need now.

Raise taxes. Cut the military budget. Solve the problems created by republicans. Then add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year just to show them the power of the collective majority.

In a free society, religion is a set of rules and beliefs by which individuals of that particular religion are encouraged to live by and practice. In a free society, religion is not something that should be used to justify the government imposing certain rules and beliefs.

I have long heard arguments from conservatives that use Christian beliefs to justify the government enforcing certain “conservative” morals on people. Now I hear arguments from progressive using Christian beliefs to justify the government enforcing certain “progressive” morals on people. Yet Jesus' message was one of teaching and persuasion; not of coercion. To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never preached for Christians to take part in government in order to legislate their beliefs upon the people of any particular state.

Yes, the Bible says certain things about how you are to live your life. Certain actions are considered necessary to achieve salvation while certain actions are forbidden. In a free society, this constitutes a belief system by which individuals should live their lives, not how they would demand others to live their lives. Yes, showing compassion and generosity to the poor was among the teachings that Jesus preached, but this is something that Christians should do under their own volition and not something that they should be coerced into doing.

Progressives need to realize that there are plenty of Christians who do give to the poor but do not believe the government should be in the position of forcing people into doing so. And conservatives need to realize that there are plenty of Christians who believe in a strict set of values but do not believe that the government should be in the position of forcing people into living by those values.

So I really would prefer we don't judge people's Christianity or religiousness by people's political views

While I'm sure Jesus' desire for us to share our wealth has to do with his desire to ease the suffering of others, but it also seems to me to have at least as much to do with a test of our own faith and selflessness. Take the story of the widow's mite, for example. Clearly, the widow's mite would do very little to help the poor, but Jesus declared that “this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury”. So, Jesus values the willing sacrifice more than even the amount given. Therefore, I don't see any support in the teachings of Jesus (nor necessarily any contradiction) regarding whether we should enforce charity by law.