We just finished a sermon series about the 10 commandments this morning with "don't covet", and it raised a question in my mind.
Is there not a point where "pay your fair share" becomes simply coveting what others posses? Does the fact that the covetousness is for some amorphous "greater good" , somehow make it acceptable?
Finally does the very concept of "don't covet" that which belongs to your neighbor at least suggest the notion of private property? I get that everything belongs to YHWH and that we are stewards of what He gives us, but this commandment seems to suggest that what we steward for YHWH is (in a sense) ours and should be protected from others.
20 comments:
Words have meanings, sir.
Covet: In the Bible, to covet means to have an inordinate or excessive desire for what belongs to another person. It is an inner, selfish longing...
Coveting, then, is selfish... wanting something for one's own self and to one's own benefit. You know, the way your felon pervert has coveted other men's wives or other people's money's and belongings. It is greedy, selfish, hedonistic.
On the other hand, thinking "It is right that everyone pays their fair share for the benefit of all, especially the poor and marginalized" is the opposite of selfish, greedy or hedonistic. It is recognizing that Dan who makes X amount of money (not much, but above average) should pay more than the person who is struggling to get by... while the person who has billions of dollars (money they almost certainly did not earn in any reasonable sense by the sweat of their own brow) should pay significantly more... that's not selfish, it's just rational.
You're welcome for the explanation.
Craig:
Does the fact that the covetousness is for some amorphous "greater good" , somehow make it acceptable?
Um, yes. Again, it's literally not covetousness IF it's for the good of the world, not one's own selfish gains.
Words have meanings, sir.
Thank you for the condescending, pedantic, and useless comment.
But the fact that you chose that posture, while missing the point is especially impressive.
Your ability to condescendingly argue against straw men, is impressive.
Well, if Dan says so, then he must be correct.
I guess that wanting what others have in order to impose one's specific political philosophy and gain power, and wealth (see virtually every elected official and high level government employee) isn't "selfish" enough for you. I guess that deciding that the pet solutions of one political party are the only possible answers to all social problems, and that pushing the beneficiaries of those "solutions" to covet more of what "the rich" have for their personal benefit doesn't fit your definition.
FYI, I'm not arguing against taxation, or those who earn more should pay more. I am suggesting that pretending that those who earn little or nothing deserve an ever increasing slice of what those who do earn have is to encourage covetousness.
But in a country where the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of the tax burden, and where some politicians demand that the top 50% aren't paying enough, it's hard to suggest that this doesn't encourage an attitude of covetousness on the part of the bottom 50%. I think that looking at the response of SNAP recipients to their benefits being cut and having a work requirement imposed, and the vast increase in retail theft (and the virtual legalization of retail theft by some jurisdictions) shows us that we've definitely encouraged a culture where people are convinced that they deserve what others have and that seems at least covetousness adjacent.
I once asked Dan if he was capable of making more money than he at that time made. He said he did. I asked this as he spoke of "to whom much is given, much will be required". So here's this guy who believes himself possessed of the ability to make more money...because God gave him that ability, but he doesn't believe himself required to exploit that ability to serve others. He'd rather stick his hand in the pockets of others, and then pretend he's not covetous because he's confiscating for the greater good. Stealing for the greater good when he could earn more himself and give more.
I have absolutely no problem with encouraging the haves to give to the have nots. To preach charity is a worthy endeavor. But taxation is not charity. To tax the wealthy at a higher rate under the guise of concern for the poor is dishonesty. It's just theft and taking pride that one has done something by forcing others to give their money to one's cause. One has done nothing but steal. What's more, it's playing favorites, which is contrary to Scripture. It's covetousness which is at the heart of progressive taxation.
I'm missing the point? I'm answering YOUR questions, how is that missing the point. Once more, and more directly...
Is there not a point where "pay your fair share" becomes simply coveting what others posses [sic]?
No. Two different and contradictory concepts, entirely.
Does the fact that the covetousness is for some amorphous "greater good" , somehow make it acceptable?
No. Two different and contradictory concepts, entirely.
Finally does the very concept of "don't covet" that which belongs to your neighbor at least suggest the notion of private property?
It could. Not sure how that's related to the first two questions, which seems predicated upon a false definition of Covet.
Finally, Craig offered this theory...
He gives us, but this commandment seems to suggest that what we steward for YHWH is (in a sense) ours and should be protected from others.
And that is certainly a theory, but not one suggested by the texts involved. Freely you have received, freely you should give, and all.
I won't speak for Dan and his motivation, or lack thereof, but I do understand your point.
Obviously, I agree that charity (other than under the Israelite theocracy) should primarily be voluntary. As I note elsewhere, scripture seems to suggest that care for the poor should involve work on their part and be grounded in community.
To convince the poor that the only thing standing between themselves and being out of poverty is to take (through taxes) what others have earned seems to absolutely be encouraging covetousness. How else would you describe a class of people who seem to believe that they deserve to be supported through the work of others?
If you say so.
If one looks pedantically at the question, I can see how you might reach that conclusion. The problem is that the definition of "fair share" is a mystery and (in practice) usually ends up being simply "more". How much of what others earn is too much? Is repeatedly telling people that taxing others at an confiscatory rate will alleviate the problems of the poor not encouraging covetousness? They are two different concepts because one actually has a definition, and the other is whatever it needs to mean in order to get votes and make promises that won't be kept.
By your alleged logic, anything is perfectly acceptable as long as it is for some amorphous, undefined "greater good".
I was unaware that I was restricted in the types of question that you would allow me to ask at my own blog.
Interesting. Are you really suggesting that the property that YHWH has entrusted us with as stewards is not to be protected from those who covet it? That someone can covet one's ox, or ass and then act on that desire to take said ox and ass?
Protecting ones possessions from those who covet them and choosing to give to others out of what is given to us, are indeed two completely different concepts. Of course they are not mutually exclusive either. Leaving my door unlocked so a thief can steal what they covet, is quite different from choosing to give to others. Much like the use of force or coercion to levy taxes to provide for those who don't produce, is quite a different concept from my choosing to support charitable organizations, fund entrepreneurs, or employ those in need.
Craig:
The problem is that the definition of "fair share" is a mystery and (in practice) usually ends up being simply "more". How much of what others earn is too much?
It IS a problem that there is no definitive authoritative definition of "fair share," (which is a term you've introduced to the conversation, not me, but still...). But let me ask you this: Do you think it is THAT difficult to say that a CEO who "earns" $400 billion from his company while the average worker is making, say, $30/hour... do you think that THIS income is a "fair share..."? HOW MUCH more than the average worker can a CEO make and still be rationally considered fair?
Further, once someone is making, say, $1 MILLION each and every year, how much more is needed? What could you possibly spend $1 million a year, each and every year ON? Does a person who is making one million this year and another million next year and yet another million the year after, on and on and on... are they not making enough? What if it were one billion dollars a year... is that enough?
Is there ANY hedonistic limit that you would start to say, "Well, maybe that IS enough?" or is it the Rule of the Cancer, where unlimited growth of income is never enough?
Do you find that, in any way, Christ-ian?
Really?
By your alleged logic, anything is perfectly acceptable as long as it is for some amorphous, undefined "greater good".
No, of course, not. I've been consistently clear that causing HARM to another is a rational limit. IF some would say, "IF there is a billionaire, let us cut off his head for being a billionaire!!" I would say, NO, that's a harm.
BUT, if someone were to say of a billionaire, a man making one billion dollars each and every year, "He has benefited greatly and far and away above nearly all in our system, therefore, he should be taxed at a greater rate... let's tax that one billion a year at 90%! "Only" leaving that billionaire $100 million a year in profit..." Well, that's not really harm, is it? Or in what moral and rational world IS that somehow "harm..."?
Come. Be rational. Be moral. Reject hedonism and cancerous ideologies.
And finally, IT IS NOT "coveting" to think the person who is making $1 billion/year should be taxed at 90% to help pay for the great benefit that person has received from our system, "only" leaving them $100 million/year. That's just thinking of what is fair. Words have meanings. Thinking that those who benefit most - far and away so - should pay the most, is not being "covetous..." MAYBE it would be if someone were saying "That billionaire should be taxed at 90% so that I PERSONALLY can receive his hedonistic wealth...." But then, no one is saying that.
Sir, you must understand: Words have meanings. You can disagree with the notion of a progressive tax scheme if you wish, but you can't rationally call it "covetous..." Words have meanings.
Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods and thou shalt not steal absolutely suggest private property...ownership of property...mine vs yours.
No encouragement of charity in Scripture is a mandate to give as if what we give isn't ours and under our control. To give freely means we give by our own volition and by our own criteria for determining the best destination of our charity.
Progressive taxation is not a manifestation of "fair share". It's coveting the wealth of the producers, rationalized by an unproven belief it was not actually earned, because the earner doesn't have calluses or a busted ass. Tax wise, the only "fair share" is the same tax rate regardless of one's income level or the size of one's estate. Note that the OT tithe was the same for all with no mention of one's income level.
When progressives speak of the rich giving their fair share, as if they're not already responsible for the lion's share of revenues to federal coffers, they are indeed coveting the wealth of the wealthy, regardless of what's done with the dough. If a prog can talk a rich man into giving 95% of everything he has or will have to whatever cause, good for him. If a prog votes for Democrat asshats to force 95% out of the rich man on the excuse he hadn't already been given enough, the prog is a liar and a covetous thief.
I also want to say that Craig's concern about recipients of welfare are too often possessed of an entitlement attitude toward the charity extended to them, be it actual charity or forced charity of government programs funded by our tax dollars. Too many believe themselves deserving simply because they're without.
"HOW MUCH more than the average worker can a CEO make and still be rationally considered fair?"
There's no limit to how big that disparity can or should be. There's also nothing holding Dan Trabue from starting a business of his own and paying his employees more than he makes. I'll wait here while you doesn't.
"Further, once someone is making, say, $1 MILLION each and every year, how much more is needed?"
"Need" has nothing to do with it, you covetous little girl. It's none of your business nor is it your business to dictate to him how much he should keep for himself as opposed to giving to others. How typical for one like you who brings little value to the world to dare criticize those who bring so much!
"What could you possibly spend $1 million a year, each and every year ON?"
None of your business, putz. Earn more yourself and give it all away. THAT is your business.
"Does a person who is making one million this year and another million next year and yet another million the year after, on and on and on... are they not making enough? What if it were one billion dollars a year... is that enough?"
It's not for you to say, you covetous POS! You're such a vile and petty little girl!
"Is there ANY hedonistic limit that you would start to say, "Well, maybe that IS enough?" or is it the Rule of the Cancer, where unlimited growth of income is never enough?
Do you find that, in any way, Christ-ian?"
I have no desire to put limits on anyone's ability to build wealth. Why would I? It most often results in more for everyone and as such is not unChristian, nor is there any verse or passage which preaches against it. It does not affect my life or anyone else's that someone gets filthy rich, unless they're hired by the guy.
"BUT, if someone were to say of a billionaire, a man making one billion dollars each and every year, "He has benefited greatly and far and away above nearly all in our system, therefore, he should be taxed at a greater rate... let's tax that one billion a year at 90%! "Only" leaving that billionaire $100 million a year in profit..." Well, that's not really harm, is it? Or in what moral and rational world IS that somehow "harm..."?"
It's called "unequal application of the law". It's called favoritism (in reverse). It's called "Dan covets the wealth of the productive in order to posture as caring for the poor". It's like constantly shooting spitballs at someone on the pretense that "it doesn't really hurt him".
"And finally, IT IS NOT "coveting" to think the person who is making $1 billion/year should be taxed at 90% to help pay for the great benefit that person has received from our system..."
Yeah. It is. And the Obama lie "you didn't build that" is just that...a lie you don't mind repeating because you're a liar, too.
"MAYBE it would be if someone were saying "That billionaire should be taxed at 90% so that I PERSONALLY can receive his hedonistic wealth...." But then, no one is saying that."
That's EXACTLY what you're saying, dumbass.
Progressive tax rates are absolutely covetousness.
I'd draw the distinction between ownership and stewardship in that we own property based on our legal system in the US, while from a Biblical point of view YHWH owns it all and we are stewards. However, the principle holds. If YHWH has given us things to steward on His behalf, then those things should not be taken from us.
I think that there was some degree of governmental "charity" under Israel's laws, and the tithe to the Temple supported the priests, but I don't think that you can justify our current system Biblically.
During the 20 years when I was employing the homeless and building for the low income, I can say without a doubt that the level of entitlement was off the charts. I'd give my guys a bonus for something done exceptionally well, and they acted as if they were entitled to similar gifts when they had done sub par work.
The plethora of videos showing the level of entitlement of welfare recipients simply demonstrates the problem. Hell police body cam video of minor traffic or shoplifting stops shows the entitlement problem.
If there is "no authoritative definition of fair share" why would those on the progressive side of things use such a vague and undefined term so frequently? Why demand something that you can't define or quantify?
You don't have to answer, I know what the real reason is.
If by "introduced" you mean that I pointed out that "fair share" is a term used often by you and your ilk, then sure.
The problem with your questions is that I (mostly) reject the notion of fair as a standard. With the exception of specific and designed arenas (sports, and courts come to mind) fair isn't a factor. Given the reality that talent, ability, intelligence, drive, and any other of the factors that drive success are not distributed equally, fairness is usually an excuse. If I'm better at my job than others should limits be enforced so that everyone's outcomes are "fair"? Is it "fair" that hundreds of millions of dollars were stolen from federal food programs intended to feed "the poor"? Is it "fair" that one of those convicted in this massive fraud just had his conviction overturned despite being convicted by a unanimous jury? Is it "fair" when an adult man gets a light sentence for kidnapping and raping a 12 year old?
Fair is and arbitrary metric usually defined as "what is best for me".
This notion that wealth automatically equals hedonism doesn't seem to be based on any reality is seems much more like you slandering people who you don't know.
Why on the world would I presume to artificially and arbitrarily limit the income that someone earned legally? If someone provides a legal product or service that people want to pay for, what right do you (or I) have to decide what is enough?
How is using one's God given gifts, abilities, creativity, and talents to provide a good or service in any way contrary to Scripture?
Ahhhhhhh, the "harm rule" surfaces again where Dan gets to decide what constitutes "harm" for someone else.
I'd argue that using coercion and the threat of force to take what someone has legally earned could easily be considered "harm" by an unbiased person.
Again, if you can't prove that wealth=hedonism then stop making that stupid accusation. I reject your idiocies.
Yet, if the result of your scheme is to convince millions of people that they "deserve" what this person earned, that is covetousness.
FYI, those who earn the most already pay far and away a disproportionate share of taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 97% of taxes. That seems like the definition of unfair.
Yes, words do have meanings. Unfortunately, you have a gift for manipulating words, lying, and engaging in slander/libel/defamation.
Art,
Great point. There IS absolutely nothing to stop Dan from starting his own company and paying his employees whatever he wants to. Except the willingness to exert the effort to do so. It's easier to put in one's hours at a business/ONG which gets a significant amount of funding from taxpayers that to take the risk and start one's own business.
Likewise, we as a society, passed the point of need long ago. No one needs A/C, multiple cars, designer clothes, a $1,000+ phone, junk food, and all of the other things we take for granted. Who is Dan to determine what someone else needs anyway?
Great point, Dan deciding that his uses for the money someone earns are better than the one who earns the money is simply Dan coveting that which is not his.
Dan's ignorant interchanging of wealth and income make this conversation difficult. In either case those with higher income/more wealth almost always (unless they hoard gold coins in their basement) provide some level of benefit to others. Whether it's through the taxes they pay, the money they invest, the money they donate, the people they directly employ, or those they employ through their spending, their income/wealth does benefit those outside of themselves.
I think it's Deuteronomy 19 that talks about not showing favoritism or the opposite to people based on their income, position, or status. Dan doesn't seem like he agrees. As I noted somewhere, this type of taxation is an example of coveting what others have cloaked in the greater good. Further, it encourages those who benefit from this largess to see the income/wealth of others as rightfully theirs and to covet what others earn.
The "you didn't build that" falsehood is built on a kernel of Truth. Absolutely we live in a country where all benefit from the infrastructure. Society and individuals benefit from public safety (except when left wing judges and prosecutors release hardened, violent, multiple, offenders to prey on society), the legal system, roads, and the like. The problem is that those things aren't why some people do better than others. You could argue that Amazon/Bezos benefits from the infrastructure that everyone's taxes pay for. Yet, people CHOOSE to shop Amazon because THEY ALSO BENEFIT from the service Amazon provides. The use of infrastructure to deliver goods is a two way street, it benefits both sides of the transaction. Further, if you took all of the direct and indirect taxes Amazon is responsible for, I suspect that amount alone with be staggering. But instead, people like Dan think that people like Bezos should be stripped of the incentive to innovate because the potential to make "hedonistic" amounts of money exists. People like Dan want to share the benefits of Bezos work, without sharing the risks.
I'd argue that any tax system that takes from those who produce at high levels and gives to those who don't produce, and where those who don't produce have the ability to vote for people who promise to take more from the producers and give more the the non producers. is based on covetousness. It's the fact the people think that they can vote to take more of other people's money (and that there is a political party dedicated to that premise) that breeds coveteousness.
And still, you fail to understand the meaning of covetousness. It's NOT "I'd like the world to be a better, more just and balanced place, specifically for the sake of the poor and marginalized, but also because filthy lucre is a trap for the wealthy... it will diminish the soul and reason and decency of many who accumulate too much. As God is cited in Isaiah 5...
Woe to you who add house to house
and join field to field
till no space is left
and you live alone in the land.
The Lord Almighty has declared in my hearing:
“Surely the great houses will become desolate,
the fine mansions left without occupants.
I don't think the many such passages in the biblical texts are some kind of voodoo curse. I think it's stating the reality of the debilitating and cancerous dangerous of too much wealth.
Likewise, I think another big problem you all are experiencing is that you just don't understand the reality of how very deviant and dangerous leaders like Trump are. He's not just a "Well, I wish he were less belligerent and more rational and adult-like..." kind of leader. Historians, scholars, educators, political experts, mental health experts, scientists and just plain regular people who aren't blinded by some weird partisanship all recognize that he is a great and deadly deviation from all other presidents in our past. And that's from experts across the spectrum of expertise and across political spectrum and around the world. This is just not normal.
"Why do you all spend so much time worrying about the Felon and not Biden or Obama??" You all regularly ask. It's because he's behaving in a uniquely dangerous manner, leaning into totalitarian policies that are an active threat to a free republic. He is a perfect example of a person whose mind and soul were warped by his great hedonistic wealth and privilege.
And you all just don't see it or at least, won't acknowledge seeing it and you won't be educated by the many experts and others who are pointing it out.
No, I do understand the meaning of the word. What I am saying is that when one group of people are convinced that they deserve the income/wealth that another group has earned, and any system that promotes this attitude, breeds covetousness.
The problem with your proof text is that I highly doubt that you actually would argue that YHWH literally "declared" in the "hearing" of the author what He is credited as saying. Since you are quite clear about your doubt that YHWH intervenes directly or speaks audibly, I fail to see how you can arbitrarily pretend as if this proof text is magically authoritative for everyone in every time period.
That you "think" something is irrelevant and of virtually zero value. Especially as "too much wealth" is a subjective/arbitrary measure which you can't/won't define.
This isn't about Trump or your monomaniacal obsession with him.
The real question is why do you not seem to give enough of a shit to say anything negative about the hundreds of millions/billions of dollars fraudulently stolen while the guy you touted for VP did nothing.
"I think it's stating the reality of the debilitating and cancerous dangerous of too much wealth."
That's how you choose to see it because you're a fake Christian marxist POS. Greedy people come in all tax brackets and they always have. "Too much wealth" doesn't corrupt decent people of character. It only corrupts the corruptible.
If I'm not mistaken Jesus is quite clear that what defiles a person comes from inside, rather than outside. For someone who is virtuous, wealth is unlikely to magically make them not virtuous. For someone who is greedy, or obsessed with money, more money will simply amplify those internal traits.
I saw a quote from Musk this week where he talks about how to make money, and he's pretty clear that the path to earning money is to make or do something that provides value to people to the point that they are willing to pay for it. The "secret" to making money is basically to focus on providing people with things they need or want. That's what folx like Dan don't understand. The majority of the wealthy who've earned their wealth, have done so through hard work, innovation, and risk. Apple didn't magically turn into a multi billion dollar company, they made cool stuff that people were willing to buy. It's not rocket science.
Indeed. Objections such as those expressed by Dan and his kind are simply covetous disdain for people who actually had ideas which resulted in massive amounts of people wanting what the idea could provide for them! How dare the guy with the idea profit so much by an idea which had such great appeal!
It reminds me of the Pet Rock craze. It was stupid and short lived, but the joke of it had fairly large appeal and people were happy to indulge in the joke to an extent the "inventor" made big bucks. God bless him for his ingenuity and imagination! In Christ's Name I pray God so blesses more people in a similar way...with me included!
Dan's objections tend to focus on those he dislikes or who disagree with him. He'll never say anything negative about any of the millionaires/billionaires that align with him, donate massive amounts of money to his candidates, or back his pet causes.
The problem is that I truly don't think that he understands what is involved in accumulating wealth. He seems to think that wealth just magically appears with absolutely no effort.
As to your pet rock example, that is simply a matter of someone who had the right idea at the right time. People saw some level of value in his creation and bought them. It's that whole voluntary exchange of money for goods and services thing.
Post a Comment