Was Jesus a Libertarian?

I believe Earl is an atheist based on his earlier comments about homeschooling. I wouldn't waste my time pal. He's just trolling because I used the word libertarian, and using terms he doesn't understand always seems to upset him.

 

Since the last link did not seem to make an impact.

As to the OP question and my answer:
Define: past tense

 

Jesus can't be a Christian.

A Christian is one who follows Christ (Jesus)

Jesus was born in the line of Jews that is well documented. He wasn't religious, He actually was against those who were "religious" and told them why.

 

^ Thank God for reason...

 

I'm not sure Jesus gave a hot steaming turd about technological progress. You are assigning your own values to a mythological figure.

I did read that article, including the convoluted interpretation of that line. I simply don't accept it. He meant for his followers to avoid conflict with the material lords of this world and let them have their way, since the Kingdom of Heaven would be theirs.

Unlike you, Guerilla, I don't let bloggers do my thinking for me.

I was a member of the Libertarian Party in college and have participated in structured debates supporting the third-party concept and law reduction. I agree with Libertarianism in principle, so you're on pretty shaky ground claiming I don't know what it is. For issues related to individual rights, I am generally on board.

Libertarianism means restricting the activities of the Federal government to those strictly necessary to maintain society. All this claptrap about "Golden Rule" has nothing to do with it. For Libertarianism to be viable as a philosophy, everyone would need to obey that Rule.

One thing Jesus has in common with Libertarians- a simple minded idealism that expects everyone to generously rather than selfishly interpret that rule.

Personally, I've broken from the Libertarian party because allowing corporations to do as they wish does not contribute to my freedom in any way. I believe that controlling such large segments of the economy confers responsibilities, including paying a regulated minimum wage and cleaning pollution.

Thanks for supporting decriminalization, though, if you're a mainline libertarian.

One could imply that Libertarianism implies charity, but that isn't the same as miscasting Jesus as a fiscal conservative. And charity is more than writing a check to your church or some politician. Real charity is giving beyond your capacity.

It's absurd to discuss the modern political orientation of someone who lived two millenia ago, but his statements are more in line with economic socialism than capitalism. If it's so hard for the rich to enter Heaven, why work so hard to accumulate?

 

Again, you're demonstrating a failure to understand what capitalism is. You cannot progress materially without accumulating capital.

What's convoluted about it? It's quite clear that Jesus draws a distinction between the kingdom of man, and the kingdom of God, and that Caesar's currency had no place in the Temple of God.

You seem to be the one trying to read more into that section of text than is clearly and plainly explained.

From what I have read thus far, no one appears to be behind the wheel.

(sorry, you were begging for that)

The LP is not libertarian. Libertarianism sees no role for the state, you are talking about the minarchist and vulgar libertarian perspectives of the LP.

If you believe in individual rights, then surely you are against wealth confiscation through taxation. Socialism and Libertarianism are polar opposites.

You're incorrect again. You're talking about minarchism, which is also known as paleo-conservatism. It's close to libertianism, but certainly not the mainstream of libertarian philosophy.

"Everyone obeying a rule" could happen naturally, but no one could make a rule such as this. The author was speaking to a personal sense of morality. The Golden Rule is compatible with libertarianism.

Atheist hunh? Arguing a matter of faith and philosophy?

Libertarians are not allowing corporations to do as they wish. Sounds like you left for the wrong reasons.

The principle behind decriminalization of drugs is the same as the principle behind the decriminalization of gambling, prostitution, etc. I hope you support all of those.

Libertarianism is not fiscal conservatism.

For a 22 year old, you've got a very, very pessimistic view of the world. And I'm supposed to be the forum downer.

 

Debunked saying that jesus wasnt religious is like saying athiests believe in god. He is the one who taught us christianity,but he also prayed too so technically he could be called a christian since he prayed in the way that he also taught us how to.

amanamission - your right jesus taught to give away all of your earthly possessions to follow him but he also knew that most werent meant for this and also taught of fiscal responsibility.

What Does the Bible Teach about Wealth?

Claims that the Bible condemns wealth or that God hates all the rich are clearly incompatible with the teachings of Jesus, who saw noth­ing inherently evil in money, wealth, or private ownership. While Jesus certainly condemned materialism and the compulsive quest for wealth, He never condemned wealth per se. Jesus did not teach that being rich means necessarily being evil." Jesus did not see anything sinful in the ownership of houses, clothes, and other economic goods. He had wealthy friends and followers (Luke 14:1); he stayed in the homes of wealthy people; he ate at their tables (Luke 11:37).

A number of Jesus' parables provide insights into his views on wealth. In Luke 16:9 and the accompanying parable, Jesus taught that His followers should use their resources with the same dedica­tion and keen judgment as the unjust steward. In the parable of the rich farmer (Luke 12:16-21), Jesus did not condemn the farmer for making money but rather for his single-minded concern with his own wealth and happiness. The man was a fool because he was a self-centered materialist who had forgotten God; he was not a fool because he had been a successful businessman

 

Jesus wasn't religious - he had no religious hangups. He knows who His Father is without question and didn't have to religiously bow down so many times a day or say certain prayers so many times a day or do some dance everyday or whatever religious people do. He didn't have the rituals of religion, but actually spoke against the man-made requirements of religion that was taught during that time.

Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was/is the Christ (CHRISTian - follower OF Christ) He was the one that was the example of what a Christian is to be, including speaking against atrocities, against false religion, against lies and fables.

 

Progressing materially is explicitly not a Christian goal. I understand Capitalism quite well, you can stop being so condescending. I'm not in favor of the system and blame it for many inadequacies in development, many European socialist models are more successful, while also having flaws.

You are missing the point, Jesus wouldn't care about progressing materially, even if you and I do.

If that's what you think it means. I think it means that worldy kings and their money should be of no consequence to Christians, so you should give whatever tribute he demands.

No, it makes more sense that Jesus opposes the minimum wage.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Well, that is certainly subject to debate and I might be inclined to agree. However, I don't understand how you get off claiming the "one true libertarianism".

I favor a system of competetive nationalism to generates revenues. Reassigning the bulk of the defense budget to social programs would pay for many of them.
Yes, I oppose the personal income tax. Let the government produce wealth for its budget.
A good example of this is the IMSS stores in Mexico which not only pays for their social security system, but helps naturally regulate local prices.

Mexico also sells its own oil at government pumps, and has kept the price steady for half a decade while the US faced a four-fold increase in the hands of private corporations.

It surely is. That's not the same as claiming Jesus endorses the orientation.

I'm not an atheist. Stop accusing everyone who is not a Christian of atheism.
The only difference between a Christian and an atheist is you believe some hippie was God.

I believe we are all collectively God.

I support minimum wage and heavy corporate regulation, these ideas I found are inconsistent with libertarianism. Actually, I'd say I'm a social libertarian. Many opposites have important points of commonality.

I certainly do. However, I have no problem taxing these industries to replace revenues from the income tax.

I never said it was. However, the ideas are very related.

I'm looking forward to spending my life running around after arrogant old farts who think they know everything and are trashing the world with smug misinformation.

 

From one person's historical perspective on trying to assign the philosophy du jour to Jesus

and for all those that like to assign Jesus to his or her favorite political leaning....its been done before, it will be done again.

Its an unfortunate twisting of the most spiritual being into the philosophy of whatever crackpot wants to assign divineness to his or her own political leanings.

Bush thinks Christ is on his side and Bin Laden thinks Mohammed is on his side.

It gets pretty twisted every time some overly political person tries to grab the sanctity of religeon.

 

Even pie charts may not help.. Some get it, some don't!

 

Socialism is mathematically unsustainable.

But you do not understand capitalism, or you would not say such silly things. Progressing materially is necessary to grow the population. To care for the poor. To improve living conditions. To provide education universally. To tend to the sick.

This is totally untrue. Jesus did not lead a death cult, and advise people to stop trying to feed themselves or care for their family's material needs.

You're reading into the text. The framing language is included in the explanation in the article I sourced. It's clear that Jesus is saying that coinage proclaiming Caesar as God is not coin of the temple.

You're actually making the argument that governments and states through time have, that Jesus wanted people to be docile to the state, regardless of the morality he taught. It's irrational.

Minimum wages are price controls. The only people who rail about minimum wages are people who have never been in business. They don't understand that the cost is passed on to the consumer, because retailers price things cost +. All it does is make our industries weaker because we price our goods out of export opportunities, and create a reliance on cheap imports made in zones without minimum wages. In the end, they do more harm than good to the very people they are supposed to help.

The market should set labor prices. The worker and the employer. Not by government fiat.

Because libertarianism's key doctrine is the non-aggression axiom. That no one should initiate violence. Government is by it's very nature, coercive and uses violence to enforce it's mandates. Trust me, I'm not completely cool with anarcho-capitalism, I have a lot of questions about how problem scenarios could be averted or avoided, but I understand what libertarianism is about. The sovereignty of each and every individual, and all relations between individuals being actions of free will (voluntary exchanges).

I'm agnostic I suppose. But you aren't a monotheist, for all intents and purposes, you may as well be an atheist. Semantic argument.

Actually, they aren't points of commonality, you're just picking and choosing the parts you like, disregarding any rational connections between right and left libertarianism. You can't claim to be for the individual being able to make all sorts of social decisions, then claim that they can't negotiate wages with their employer lower than your arbitrary minimum wage.

In a sense, you support limited freedom.

It's like someone thinking they can control fire, when the guaranteed way not to get burnt, is to simply put it out.

I'll let you slide on this, but if you rationally approach left and right sides of libertarianism you'll probably come to the conclusion that if vices are not criminal, then there is no justification to tax them.

Well, to be fiscally conservative is just good common sense. Personally fiscally conservative that is. No one should max out their credit cards, blow their money on junk, and not accumulate savings.

Since libertarianism is based around rational conclusions, something which is fairly sound, like being personally fiscally conservative is going to be comfortable near the philosophy.

I'm not THAT much older than you, but I've been through some things, and past my "angry at the world" phase.

I didn't know everything at 22, and I don't know everything now. Never stop challenging yourself.

 

Christian
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:christian


Religious
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:religious


I could probably win every argument if I could redefine or restrict the meaning of words.

-

 

These are socialist goals, capitalism by nature diverts resources from these applications and instead uses them to reward those who control the wealth.

This is the guy who fasted in the desert for forty days before passively allowing the government to execute him. Modern Christianity is premised on the idea that this execution was voluntarily; that in fact, it was deliberate.

I tend to think the story happened differently, but "death cult" is appropriate to describe a theology whose followers symbolically consume body and blood of their founder.

Not reading into it, just reading it. If Jesus rejected Roman coin, why should modern Christians accept the dollar or euro?

I'm referring to his statements and actions as depicted in the New Testament.
He did not defy the Romans who executed him, his passiveness in accepting sacrifice is the keystone of Christian theology.

This is nonsense. Here's why:

Minimum wage price controls guarantee a fair distribution of resources to those who actually produce the wealth, as opposed to those who merely own the means of production. By guaranteeing a living wage to the lowest workers, the economy has remained robust and growing.

While some businesses cannot cope with the minimum wage, the majority of workers earn far more. It is claimed that the cost is merely passed on to the consumer, and this might be true if locally produced goods and services were universally provided using minimum-wage labor. In fact, only the most unskilled labor is paid the minimum; for example, the entire auto industry is earning at least three times that. So in the end, minimum wage adds cost to only a fraction of goods and services, while the purchasing power enhances the wider economy.

However, since the greatest amount of a minimum-wage worker's income is spent on housing, the overall effect of a wage guarantee is to ensure that every employed person has disposable income to contribute to the economy.

So all business benefit from the minimum wage, far more than they would by the abolition of it. In the absence of wage guarantees, the lowest tier of worker would have almost nothing to spend and the "penny-economy" would grind to a halt.

Businesses which cannot afford to pay the minimum wage are not viable. That is, they do not add enough value per unit of labor to turn a profit, without returning less value to the laborer than they need to live. Social Darwinism. Small businesses can utilize independent contractors if maintaining full-time employees is too costly.

The problem is that the employer has an advantage in this transaction, the laborer is often at the mercy of short-term economics and is never in a position to negotiate.

Ask 100 minimum wage workers if they support abolishing wage guarantees and see if they feel their freedom is thus limited.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a pantheist.

Certainly I can and do. The minimum wage enhances the freedom of the average worker, by guaranteeing decent pay for all. No worker is eager to work for less, and most wish the minimum were higher.

I support protection from others who wish to exploit my freedom. Corporate interests have powers over the labor and product pool that make any transaction between worker and employer inherently unequal. So I support heavier regulation of corporate activity, including wage guarantees tied to the cost of living, consumer protection measures, and legislation which assigns responsibilities to entities who are dominant enough to control their market.

If revenues were generated without taxation altogether, that would be superior, but in the world we live in today, it makes the most sense to tax industries which do not contribute to the "necessities" of life. Of course, many prostitution patrons would disagree.

 

Very well put Guerilla, Jesus told the people get up so i can get up with you. Another words, he wanted them to work to earn their living. So in this sense Jesus definately wasnt a socialist. He did believe in charity but really left that to the individual.

 

That is actually not true, all he done was spread the message of Monotheism, Christianity was created many years after Jesus died.

I agree with you Guerilla though I think Socialism is good for very small countries but generally it wont work with big populations in its full essence, even God says in the Quran that communism is wrong - http://www.quran-miracle.info/Quran-Communism.htm

 

This is again, incorrect. Capitalism is the accumulation of capital. When you work 40 hours, but only consume 36 hours wages, you are practicing capitalism. You are accumulating capital to be expended at another time. Through the accumulation of capital, you can add on to your house, pay for another mouth to feed, by another set of clothing.

Capitalism rewards those who under consume and over produce. Capital is savings.

They shouldn't. They shouldn't accept usury, but I bet you 50%+ of Christians who participate in this forum don't even know what usury is without looking it up. Christians also are supposed to love they neighbor and all that.

Just because Christians don't practice the word of Christ accurately, doesn't mean Christ didn't have a particular message.

He was fulfilling prophecy, not surrendering God's authority over him to Caesar.

This is pretty good copy and paste, but do you actually understand what you are arguing?

I'm not going to give a crash course on economics here, but the minimum wage is anti-free market. It's both anti-business, and anti-worker.

1) Price controls artificially set market prices either too high or too low. This creates inefficiency and inequity. When the minimum wage is too high, it hurts business, when it is too low, it hurts workers.

2) It hurts business because they cannot grow their work force without adding a minimum wage employee. The smaller the business, the more difficult this is to do. Particularly when the minimum wage is too high relative to the current market value of labor.

3) It hurts workers who want to enter the workforce unskilled, as they can't effectively use wage as a negotiating point. As in point 2, under certain circumstances, it may actually prevent businesses adding employees, which keeps people out of the workforce.

4) If in a free society, people should be able to choose what they can put in their bodies (marijuana for instance), then shouldn't THEY be free to choose at what wage they are willing to work? Or does the government control their labor? Gotta consider the principle here.

5) The workers who made 3x minimum wage in the auto industry? They are hemorrhaging their jobs to Asia and Mexico. I know in Detroit, one of the Big 3 has recently rolled back their starting wages to 1/2 they were previously, because paying the 3x minimum wage levels was unsustainable and causing them massive losses.

If you truly want to have an honest and consistent opinion on economics and workers/business/capitalism, then you might want to consider not regarding all workers as a disadvantaged class, and not all businesses as corporate monopolies. The businesses which provide a great portion of employment are small businesses, the type owned by your neighbors, not jet setting global celebrities of the business class.

There may be some merit to class warfare, but not as Marx presented it. Hating business means hating workers who have saved enough to create entrepreneurial opportunities for themselves. There is no greater example than on the 'net, specifically here at DP, where most if not all of us are entrepreneurs, operating our websites and web services without price controls on web hosting, bandwidth, or labor services.

This is inflammatory rhetoric meant to appeal to some sense of injustice. On the contrary, if businesses can thrive or fail, if their viability has to be regulated by price controls, then shouldn't labor be able to thrive or fail as well?

Again, your whole angle on minimum wage price controls punishes the worker (live at home mom, kids are grown up, wants to find a job to keep busy and make some extra money for retirement), and business (small business owner, is growing slowly, can't afford to add one more employee at minimum wage, but could afford to add one at 75% of minimum wage, business suffers because he is presented by a lack of flexibility by the wage control, resulting in a Morton's Fork.).

Believing in freedom can't be called principle if it isn't applied evenly.

Not really. The business cannot operate without labor. Unions are precisely an example of negotiating positions being strong for labor. And if you're in a smaller situation, unable to form a union, then you're competing with your fellow employee for a job, and I don't understand why a business could not choose to hire the cheaper of two relatively equal employees. I mean, do you go to the store and always buy the expensive goods? Or do you sometimes buy the more afforable toilet paper, juice etc?

A failure of the socialistic attitude is to recognize that goods and services are prices COST-PLUS. The way to make goods cheaper, and readily afforable is to reduce cost. Gross Profit is a relative constant in pricing structures. Without the profit incentive, you have communism.

I really think you could gain a lot by looking at the concept of voluntary (uncoerced) trades. That when both parties agree to trade something, they believe they are getting the better end of it. For example, you hire me for $4 an hour. I think my labor is worth less than $4, so I am coming out ahead, and you think my labor is worth more, so you are ahead. Likewise, if I trade you a loaf of bread for some butter, you desire the bread more than the butter, and likewise I value them in an opposite proportion.

Ask 100 people who can't get by on welfare if they would be willing to take a job for $0.25 an hour less than minimum wage in order to get a paycheck. All you are talking about is protecting the people already with jobs, not the people trying to enter the workforce and compete for higher wages and opportunities.

Nonsense. The worker doesn't have the freedom to negotiate, and may find employment opportunities limited because businesses face the same constraints.

This is a case where limiting opportunities and outcomes, is deemed as a social benefit. Of course, no one ever wants to discuss who gets hurt.

I can't keep writing the same thing in good conscience, but this is just socialist propaganda. I don't believe in corporate personhood, but that is provided by the state as a legal function. "In the wild" corporations would not exist as they are. But the same system of regulation you are so fond of, is the one that has delivered monopoly and corporate power structures to us.

As far as regulation, the consumer/taxpayer always bears the cost. Not the corporation. Remember, COST-PLUS? You're chasing your tail thinking that regulation costs are borne by the corporation.

Who determines what is a luxury? Sex could be considered a necessity. The pain-killing effect of marijuana could be considered a necessity.

When you don't work from principle, it's hard to reach rational, consistent conclusions.

Hopefully one day, you question why we even need taxes at all. They certainly aren't collected morally or ethically.

 

Thanks ping!

Jesus believed in making moral choices by free will. That is what charity is.

Taxes on the other hand are collected by coercion, not by voluntary donation. You can't really say that your taxes are helping the poor, unless you would have given that money in the absence of tax law, the IRS, the threat of coercive government force.

Embracing Christ as your savior has to be an honest, personal commitment, not something the state can pass a law over, or a ceremony you can participate in.

One day, we'll realize that man has to enlighten himself through knowledge and introspection. It can't be done by force.

 

So does Jesus recommend the Roth IRA?

So you admit that the pursuit of wordly wealth is contrary to the precepts of Christ, though embraced by most Christians.

I don't copy and paste. The argument on behalf of minimum wage is what brought me back to this lame thread, and I presented my own thoughts in essay form.
Watch who you accuse of plagarism around here.
Copyscape it if you want.

 

Jews were already monotheistic.

My assertion (which could be incorrect) is that if Jesus believed that Christ (himself) was the savior, and Son of God, then he was in fact a Christian. Because a Christian is defined by his beliefs, and the foundation of Christianity is a belief in Christ the savior.

Now if Jesus was a reluctant character, not quite sure if he was the Son of God, or wasn't recognized for what he is until after his death, then I could see the argument that he was a Jew who spawned Christianity.

But since Jesus knew who he was, what his purpose was etc., he has to be regarded as the first Christian.

Now whether or not he was Isa PBUH as Muslim believe, that's a debate for another day.

Socialism, plain and simple is immoral unless it is 100% voluntary.

If you, Ping and I decide to form a socialist commune, share every burden and benefit equally, that is fine. If one of us wants to leave the group, that is also fine. BUT, if we go out and bring amanamission into our commune, and she doesn't want to join, then that is wrong. We have no right to take a portion of her earnings and property, if she is not willing to trade them for a portion of ours.

Islamic ideas on economics are really very pro-free market, and pro-capitalism and thus I am very impressed by them.