Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
44 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: What other politician has a game designer on their side? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.dungeoneers.com/ronpaul

Slay a Dragon for Ron Paul.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or if you don't support Ron Paul, don't buy this game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

This seems like a good case in point about how real-world politics can taint the perception of a game when its designer uses it to promote a partisan political position or candidate in a real-world political campaign.

Now, because of the game designer's ardent advocacy for Ron Paul, I'm going to find it hard to disassociate his Dungeoneer game from the sound of all those Ron Paul fanatics at one September 2011 Republican Presidential-candidates debate who applauded so enthusiastically for their candidate's endorsement of the uber-libertarian notion of allowing a person without medical insurance to simply die.





2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PinkPiggy wrote:
This roguelike is a lot of fun. I don't care about the politics of the designer, even if I happen to prefer Ron Paul. He could grope cardboard cutouts of George W Bush and I'd still play it.


Well then you wait till the ellection is over then buy it, thus not funding a campign you don't support.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
I think the "tactical options" touted by the designer are pretty limited. He's got this nifty grid system set up, with 'pushing' animation...why can't I push one of the monsters into a pit, or set it up to get eaten by the purple worm? Why can't I sacrifice stealth for speed and doa leap across two squares for a decreased sneak attempt?

I'd expect a game designer embracing Paul's libertarianism to do a better job of providing the player some real freedom of choice.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You guys crack me up. So far he has donated $15,000+ of his own money for a cause he believes in and to spread the word about his game and you guys complain. If you end up slaying the dragon, and don't want $5 of the designers money going to the cause- you simply don't click the link to say you're a dungeoneer for Paul. Yeesh.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're money isn't going to any campaign. It's the designers own money he's putting up when someone simply says they believe in the Paul message.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PinkPiggy wrote:
dandechino wrote:
You guys crack me up. So far he has donated $15,000+ of his own money for a cause he believes in and to spread the word about his game and you guys complain. If you end up slaying the dragon, and don't want $5 of the designers money going to the cause- you simply don't click the link to say you're a dungeoneer for Paul. Yeesh.


Who's complaining? The game is fun! I just beat the red dragon by the skin of my teeth and got to level 5. Now it's two white dragons. I hope I can pin them behind flame walls and shoot them with my bow. But we'll see!


thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


Now, because of the game designer's ardent advocacy for Ron Paul, I'm going to find it hard to disassociate his Dungeoneer game from the sound of all those Ron Paul fanatics at one September 2011 Republican Presidential-candidates debate who applauded so enthusiastically for their candidate's endorsement of the uber-libertarian notion of allowing a person without medical insurance to simply die.


You can blame neocons (not RP supporters) in the audience for that. Ron Paul gave a very calm reasoned response to the question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

dandechino wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Now, because of the game designer's ardent advocacy for Ron Paul, I'm going to find it hard to disassociate his Dungeoneer game from the sound of all those Ron Paul fanatics at one September 2011 Republican Presidential-candidates debate who applauded so enthusiastically for their candidate's endorsement of the uber-libertarian notion of allowing a person without medical insurance to simply die.

You can blame neocons (not RP supporters) in the audience for that.

LOL! Neocons' focus is foreign policy and military expansionism, NOT health care.






dandechino wrote:
Ron Paul gave a very calm reasoned response to the question.

Oh, yes, as one can view in the YouTube video clip above, *Dr.* Ron Paul gave a very calm response indeed -- dead calm -- in no way admonishing those ardently godawful followers of his in the audience who so vociferously called for society to allow the 30-year-old patient to die. Dr. Paul's all-too-glaring sin of omission was a most unbecoming and appalling display of callousness by a physician that's totally contrary to both spirit and letter of the Hippocratic Oath that Dr. Ron Paul took.

I've underscored below the passages from the Hippocratic Oath that Dr. Paul's "benign" denial of treatment to the 30-year-old man would be in violation of:


The Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures (that) are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.


I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


_______________________________________________________



As to your notion of what Dr. Ron Paul said in that debate with regard to recommending Society allow the 30-year-old man to die being a "reasoned response," I seem to recall a very similar sort of "reasoned" denial that Ebeneezer Scrooge expressed in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with as much callous subtlety as that of Dr. Ron Paul.


> Excerpt from Stave/Chapter One: "The Ghost of Jacob Marley" from "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens:

This lunatic (his bookkeeper, Bob Cratchit), in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.

"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?"

"Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,"
Scrooge replied. "He died seven years ago, this very night."

"We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,"
said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word "liberality," Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?"
asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still,"
returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?"
said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,"
said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,"
returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone,"
said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die,"
said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it,"
observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge returned his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

________________________________________________________



Although some may say claim that the resemblances in character and moral bearing between Dr. Ron Paul and Ebeneezer Scrooge are strictly coincidental, I'm not inclined to agree because physicians are supposed to be held to a higher degree of accountability by virtue of their having taken the Hippocratic Oath. Moreover, I note others have noticed those flaws in Dr. Paul's character, albeit from a more satirical viewpoint that nonetheless underscores Dr. Paul's Hippocratic hypocrisy in more ways than one.

In their lead-off comedy sketch of 2011-2012 season, "Saturday Night Live" captured the rightwing lunacy, extremism and sheer godawfulness of the sense and sensibilities of the Republican Presidential candidates, especially Dr. Ron Paul. In the following link to that sketch, you can find the sequence parodying Dr. Ron Paul at the Republican Debate 9 minutes and 10 seconds into the sketch at: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gop-debate-cold...


By the way, I must infer that the notion of "slaying a dragon for Ron Paul" may have been inspired in part by the notion of "slaying the Deficit & Debt Dragon" that Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley introduced to the Senate in late 2009. Indeed, you can see and hear Sen. Grassley himself singing about it in Auto Tune The News #8: "Dragons, Geese & Michael Vick" (featuring T-Pain) in the YouTube link below. (Sen. Grassley's solo starts 1 minute, 59 seconds into the video.)





1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well I didn't read all of that but Dr. Paul is an honorable man who has provided free care to patients who couldn't pay. Libertarians don't believe it is compassionate to steal from Peter to pay for Paul's healthcare. Your vociferous hate for Ron Paul is not based in reality. If you look into Ron Paul's past you find a kind generous man who lives up to the oath you quote.

3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

dandechino wrote:
Well I didn't read all of that but Dr. Paul is an honorable man who has provided free care to patients who couldn't pay.

Yes, Dr. Paul as a physician can do pro-bono physician work; however, that in no way exonerates him from upholding his Hippocratic Oath as a U.S. Senator since he is a *both* a physician *and* a legislator.


dandechino wrote:
Libertarians don't believe it is compassionate to steal from Peter to pay for Paul's healthcare.

On the contrary, since Peter and Paul were Christian martyrs and leaders, they would abide by Jesus Christ's commission to sacrifice for one another. After all, bonafide Christians aren't so disingenuous as to advocate economic Darwinism (i.e. Libertarianism) out of one corner of their mouth while preaching the Golden Rule and Christian Charity out of the other.


dandechino wrote:
Your vociferous hate for Ron Paul is not based in reality.

Well, I myself do NOT accept responsibility for Dr. Paul's near self-parodying predeliction to carry on cantankerously like a larger-than-life combination version of Ebeneezer Scrooge of "A Christmas Carol" and Mr. Potter of "It's A Wonderful Life".

So, in light of his "Let the patient die" comments, it wouldn't have surprised me in the least if Dr. Paul had also suggested a la Mr. Potter that that 30-year-old guy might have worth more to his surviving family dead than alive if he'd already taken out some substantial life-insurance policies on himself.


dandechino wrote:
If you look into Ron Paul's past you find a kind generous man who lives up to the oath you quote.


Clearly by the time of the Fall 2011 Republican Presidential Debates, Dr. Ron Paul had renegged on his Hippocratic Oath to the point where he as a physician was ready to surrender his Hippocratic-Oath principles to his anything-goes libertarian politics.

And quite frankly, Dr. Paul is not alone in that respect of surrendering princples to politics. After all, a week ago Tuesday (Jan. 3), I listened to an NPR interview of some researchers who had done a study that showed that people today are much more likely to re-align and prioritize their lives to abide first and foremost by the dictates of their politics than by their own religion. In other words, they'd discovered that people today were much more likely to change their religious denomination or religion altogether in order to adopt one that was more amenable to, if not fully complementary of, their politics. In essence, they prioritize Political Party Affiliation over God and Country.


Years ago, I had a most unusual dinner with a Libertarian couple who seemed intent to recruit me to their cause. They gave up on me, however, when I didn't hesitate to candidly express my disgust with their notion that both voluntary indentured servitude and involuntary slavery were viably defensible in libertarian terms. Their reprehensible arguments only qualified my skepticism about their character and ethics.

Therefore, in my opinion, one cannot be a genuine Christian and a genuine Libertarian at the same time because they are both mutually exclusive in terms of contradicting each other's ethics, principles and priorities.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess the libertarian way would be to say that the law is that everyone that comes into the country contributes to the healthcare of everyone else, and therefore it is not really stealing: People can freely go to another community, say, Somalia, if they feel that single payer healthcare is stealing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
dandechino wrote:
Well I didn't read all of that but Dr. Paul is an honorable man who has provided free care to patients who couldn't pay. Libertarians don't believe it is compassionate to steal from Peter to pay for Paul's healthcare. Your vociferous hate for Ron Paul is not based in reality. If you look into Ron Paul's past you find a kind generous man who lives up to the oath you quote.


Arguably true...but he's not presenting himself as a single individual, in this case, but as the would-be leader of a country. And as such, he does not believe the country should follow the same principles of "compassion" and "generosity" you claim he espouses in his personal life.

Which makes him a touch hypocritical...and more than a touch unsuited to be President.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
James,

Ron never said "let the patient die." You're being ridiculous. Christianity does not teach socialism as a means to Jesus' Christ great commission of preaching the Gospel and his followers voluntarily sacrificing of themselves to minister to others. Socialism requires the theft from one person to give it in some way to another. Not only is this immoral from a Christian perspective (govt would have to violate one commandment in an attempt to fulfill another assuming good intentions) it also has unintended consequences that are bad for healthcare (such as the rapid rise in the costs associated with an industry that has been heavily regulated and subsidized by taxpayer dollars).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris White
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, I don't want to get into an argument with a Ron Paul supporter on the internet, that never ends well. But I do have to point out that Paul is not the only politician with a "game designer on his side"; in fact there's a quite famous example of a better politician being supported by a better game designer.

I am of course referring to Jason Matthews, designer of BGG #1 game Twilight Struggle, who (last I heard) works for Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: libertarianism and Christianity being incompatible... seriously? It is very much in line with Samuel's warnings to the Israelites when they wanted a king (government) like the nations around them in 1 Samuel. Samuel and, if you believe the premise of the Bible, God saw the people desiring an earthly kingdom to be a rejection of the rule of God himself with a lot of undesirable consequences that would result such as war conscription, taxation, and many other injustices for the individuals being ruled.

If government were forced to obey the 10 commandments you would naturally limit what government can and can't do. If you apply the law to government and individuals alike you would not see forced redistribution of wealth or single payer health care. A "right" to healthcare implies that others must be slaves (either taxpayers or perhaps even the doctor being forced to care for an individual). Many people would never pick up a gun and knock on their neighbors' doors to ensure they make their weekly donation to the health care fund (but for some reason these same people think it's okay as long as they hire a third party entity to do it in their name). I don't see any command of Jesus to use the government to achieve the ends you desire (in fact one of Satan's temptations for Christ in the wilderness was to offer him all the kingdoms of the earth if Jesus would worship Satan- thus implying that all earthly systems including government are not a part of the kingdom of Christ but of the enemy).

Usually the arguments from the Christian left ignore all this and simply equate government and society. "Since people in society should be generous with their own money," they argue, "government's job is to ensure that they give it up anyway" (conveniently, people in government, being the gun behind the law, get to be the ones to pick and choose where the money goes- not market forces or even human need). No glory goes to God when government handouts or redistribution or healthcare takes place. It's simply one group of people stealing from other groups and living at the expense of others whether they agree with what's going on or not. The purpose of charity, kindness, or goodness of any kind (at least the kind that God cares about) is one in which his followers sacrifice willingly to bring God all the glory and make him the center of whatever ministry is at hand. The healing, clothing, or feeding is secondary to God getting the glory and people seeing the goodness of God at work in human hearts that compels them to go out and serve in His name. That is the Kingdom of God. For another example of these contrasting kingdoms (of God and of man) look at foreign aid. This is essentially money that is stolen from poor people in this country and given to rich people (in governments) in poor countries (in the name of helping). Contrast this with the hands-on privately owned ministries of individuals who go out in the name of Christ as missionaries and often provide free clothing, free health care, and free food in the name of Jesus directly to those who need such things. God gets glory from such giving and going, not from political money being stolen from one group, big chunks going to corruption and layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, and the remnants going to people in need perhaps ways that don't really help (and have unintended consequences that are usually detrimental to the situation).

Government is force whether it is authoritarianism or democracy. The government is to bear the sword (Romans 13) but the New Testament (nor the Old Testament) does not teach it to be the government's job to feed, clothe, or heal anybody. The Kingdom of God is advanced by followers of God not by secular kingdoms of men that seeks their own glory and power. Not to mention that seemingly well-meaning moves for government to do something compassionate usually result in distortions in the market, rising costs, special interests and lobbyists writing the laws (such as Obamacare) to benefit certain companies/individuals at the expense of others, and the moral hazard created when one element of society (government and those connected to it) don't have the same rules apply to them that apply to everyone else. Even if we had a perfect socialistic paradise on earth, and government provided everything perfectly and in just the right amounts, and every single individual under said government was happy with it, God is still absent in your earthly utopia. We didn't need God to take care of our needs, we just needed benevolent bureaucrats.

Ron Paul never accepted Medicare, Medicaid, or any government money of any kind as a Doctor. He provided care to everyone regardless of ability to pay for his services. He is a Baptist. If you listen to his message, especially when topics like these come up, I believe you can learn a lot from what he has to say. Not only is he a stand-up guy, he is the only one running for the office that is consistent, intellectually and morally. He's not a talking point robot and he isn't a shill for the establishment or the corporations. He is the only one (D or R) who is serious about ending the foreign wars. He is the only one special interests can't sway and the only one who fights against the immoral status quo of the establishment. Whether you agree with his positions or not, he doesn't change his message to pander to one group or the next. He certainly doesn't deserve the half-minded criticisms that have been put here that "he doesn't obey the Hippocratic oath." Also, I find your misquotes of him fairly amateurish. It's easy to knock over a straw-man of your own invention (he's the "kill the uninsured guy" candidate).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tscook wrote:
2 Corinthians 8:13-15

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”


Via government? Or voluntarily?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
If government were forced to obey the 10 commandments you would naturally limit what government can and can't do.


Yes, it would limit their ability to represent/hire people who don't worship the Christian God, which would be somewhat affected by the 1st commandment. I also occasionally like to access government services on a Sabbath.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
dandechino wrote:
If government were forced to obey the 10 commandments you would naturally limit what government can and can't do.


Yes, it would limit their ability to represent/hire people who don't worship the Christian God, which would be somewhat affected by the 1st commandment. I also occasionally like to access government services on a Sabbath.


Well, I think the commandments prohibiting murder and theft and lying would be pretty good to cover most of what governments do. Are these services of stolen goods you will be accessing on the sabbath?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
Well, I think the commandments prohibiting murder and theft and lying would be pretty good to cover most of what governments do. Are these services of stolen goods you will be accessing on the sabbath?


Well, ok. So you don't want the government to obey the 10 commandments, just two of them?

And you seem to be implying that the government should collect literally no tax? Is that correct?

Also, I'm curious to what you would define as government murder? It's easy if you think the government should never kill. But if murder is unlawful killing, then no government, practically by definition, is allowed to do it (not that this stops some, of course).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Well, ok. So you don't want the government to obey the 10 commandments, just two of them?

And you seem to be implying that the government should collect literally no tax? Is that correct?

Also, I'm curious to what you would define as government murder? It's easy if you think the government should never kill. But if murder is unlawful killing, then no government, practically by definition, is allowed to do it (not that this stops some, of course).


Just making the argument that government does not have the right to transgress laws that you and I can't. We are all underneath God. In fact, this radical notion (that there are certain things government figures have no right to do) is what led to the rise of limited constitution-bound governments governed by the rule of law in the Western world. My opinion of what makes murder murder is probably irrelevant- what does God see as murder? The NT seems to include even hatred in the heart or "being angry with your brother in your heart" (Matt 5). If we're talking about nation-states, morally unjustified wars of aggression (termed pre-emptive nowadays) which are most likely fought for monied special interests and power would probably fit the definition for those who made such decisions fully aware of their choices. God holds each individual accountable for such things in each scenario so I don't want to paint a broad brush judgement on any thing. Soldiers in war have different information than politicians who send them. Some soldiers qualify themselves for murder even in supposedly justified wars. The way many soldiers I have heard talk about taking out towelheads and dirt farmers probably does not bode well for where their heart is. Liberty, property, and life are cheap in war zones. Then again, I know honorable people who try to do the right thing in war zones (usually the ones who question the war zones to begin with).

In the United States, we got by without the income tax and IRS until 1913 pretty well and we could abolish it overnight and simply need to go back to 1990 spending levels. I agree with the Paul platform and think taxes should be minimal and non-invasive to support a very minimalist "night watchman" state that obeys the strict rule of law governed by the Constitution. If the role of government is to protect property and liberty of individuals, not a whole lot of income is required to fund it. If the role of the US government is to feed, clothe, and heal everyone from cradle to grave and police the world spreading democracy then yes, you need a federal reserve central bank system manipulating the currency and a national income tax (even then their numbers are terribly off- our National Debt just recently exceeded 100% of GDP).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
Just making the argument that government does not have the right to transgress laws that you and I can't.


Well, yes but you are making it in a very specific way.

You said that the government should be held to the 10 commandments, but now you say perhaps just theft and murder.

Before you essentially said that all tax was theft. If this is so, and the government shouldn't be allowed to steal, that means no taxes. Never mind all this minimal to protect private property stuff, theft is theft. And if taxes are theft, then banning the government from theft means no taxes, correct? (Of course, I think this is a grossly oversimplified way of looking at it, but it seems to be exactly what you said).

As for asking you what murder is, I'm not asking you to engage in some theological debate. You said, more or less, that the government should not be allowed to murder. As I say, kill is clear in this context. Murder really, really isn't. So, if you wish to ban governments from murder, what exactly do you mean by that?

As for rules of government being governed by the constitution, this is very different to the 10 commandments (indeed, in exact opposition to the 1st).

As to what money is required to protect private property and liberty, well, that depends on how much and what exactly you want to protect. For example, I believe my practical level of liberty is greatly increased by my the various (3 I guess now) government run healthcare systems I've lived under. Much more so than the healthcare system my uncle lives with in the US. And that is somewhat expensive.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's definitely the argument for anarcho-capitalism which I'm not necessarily opposed to. So your "reductio ad absurdum" still puts me in a place that would be more preferable.

I happen to believe that taxation is theft, especially the income tax which essentially says that the government owns you and decides to let you keep a portion of the fruit of your labor. I'm essentially arguing for less theft in a practical sense (hence why I'm behind one candidate who is trying to be president for 4-8 years who can try his best but even if elected can't eliminate all taxes if he wanted to). If taxation is done in ways that can be avoided that would be preferable to the government being all up in my business.

Romans 13 is a passage of Scripture I would struggle with because it essentially states governments are in place for a reason (the bear the sword/execute wrath ie hopefully handle justice) and we are to submit even in taxation. That doesn't exactly make taxation a good thing. When they asked Jesus whether or not we should pay taxes, he replied with a question: "Whose image is on the coin?" and "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's." The implications for this are mind-blowing. He didn't state taxes are fair, just, Godly, etc. He calls his followers to give everything they are to God. If Caesar wants a crummy coin with his image on it then fine hand it over. It also begs the question: What rightfully belongs to Caesar? Romans 13 seems to say pay your taxes but Paul's other writings also clearly teach that this world is not our home and we won't be comfortable here. There will be things we need to submit to even if we don't agree with them.

The 1st amendment doesn't violate the Bible as far as I can see. What is in the text of the 1st amendment that I'm supposed to not be in favor of?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Subsidized health care is part of the reason, along with onerous regulation, that health care costs have skyrocketed in the US. You can't blame the free market when the government wrecks up the place and use the resulting situation as a argument for more government involvement in health care. Also, what of the unseen costs? One can only wonder what innovations and cures we might have had without the bureaucratization and restraining of the health care industry. In a free market, due to competition and innovation, costs always come down and people have better quality products and services. Even under the so-called robber barons of the 19th century the winner was the consumer. My argument thusfar has been that the means for government healthcare are immoral. Once we tally all the seen and unseen costs with something like government health care, on the whole, society is worse off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tscook wrote:

Jesus was a communist.

Edit: Not sure why I was quoting that chunk.


Communist or Communitarian? Where did Jesus advocate government for anything? Many Jews were turned off by how apolitical Jesus was and thus rejected him as the Messiah. Strangely enough, the authorities (both Rome and the religious leaders of 1st century Palestine) recognized Jesus as a threat to their positions of power.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.