| From | Message |
jp
Guest
8/13/2003
19:30:47
|
 Subject: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
I am interested in understanding the theological basis for a reconstructionist view point. In particular, I find Rushdooney's arguments concerning old testament law to be unconvincing. Under what authority granted in the New Testament would the church seek to establish civil law? Does not tradition teach us that the establishment of the church only leads to a diminished faith?
Additionally, I have a question on a different topic for which I would like a conservative reply. While in the FAQ (section 4.2) the moral failures of the welfare state are noted, the 'culture of dependency' created amongst the sons and daughters of the wealthy through inheritance and trust funds are never explored. Indeed, most conservatives supported the abolishment of the estate tax. The moral failures of the wealthy class, who would more then likely run our corporations and social institutions, would be far more devestating than any corner panhandler.
On the one hand, inheritance is important for passing tradition. On the other hand, each subsequent generation would see a greater concentration of wealth and power. This concentration, combined with the lack of moral inhibitions, would seem to naturally lead to the type of tyranny a conservative would oppose.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
8/14/2003
08:56:21
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
The problem of the idle and self-indulgent rich seems self-limiting, since the more undisciplined they get the less likely they are to stay rich or otherwise have social influence. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what to do about the issue. Confiscatory estate taxes create the impression it's the the government that really owns everything and doles out goodies as incentives, and that's the wrong footing to put things on.
Another point is that not everyone should be a proletarian who lives by his own labor. It's a good thing to have some people born to respectable independence. Even if most of them waste what their situation offers the few who make good use of it can provide an independent and self-assured view of things that's extremely valuable and otherwise irreplaceable.
|
jp
Guest
8/14/2003
11:11:57
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
The idea that taxation implies that the government "owns" things seems rather severe. I would say that taxation implies governments regulation of the economy and the corresponding transfer of goods and moneys. Certainly debate over how much regulation is proper and good can exist.
One of my concerns is that while some policies are judged based on morals others are examined from an economic perspective. So while it is argued that welfare assistance and the welfare state is bad policy morally, the economic consequences are never examined. For instance, what would be the economic consequences on the average middle class family who, without social security and federally insured student loans, had to pay for college education for their children and care for their parents? Would such bills be more of an economic disincentive then marginally higher tax rates?
These types of rhetorical shifts, analyze issue A using this method and issue B with some other method, do not seem to be the basis for good governance. Rather, they seem to be intended as a mask for some other "ultimate" goal. It is in trying to understand what that is, that I asked my first question.
In my own attempt to understand the intersection of faith and politics that I explored this site. Lets say, hypothetically, that I subscribe to Rawls theory of "Justice as fairness" as a legitimate basis for civil government in a pluralistic society, as outlined in Political liberalism and Theory of Justice. Are these notions so opposed to christian view of justice that a counter-revolution needs to occur? And what theory would be introduced? Would this be a Rushdoonian vision of OT law with the stoning of wayward teenagers and all, or is there some other more "enlightened" theological basis for social justice?
|
Joseph
Guest
8/14/2003
14:34:18
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
I must say, you are way off base on the tax issue. My family, for several generations, have been moderately successful ranchers. School taxes are through the roof because of this property, despite the fact that no one in my family used the public school system. If you do not pay the taxes on the land which you supposedly "own", the government can take it away from you--this is not ownership. This is paying rent for state land. If I own it I should not have to keep paying money to keep it.
From your arguments, in my opinion, you are basing everything on a biased view of conservatism, as something naturally brutal and uncaring. There are plenty of examples of governments that were faith-based without becoming like Iran of Afghanistan. If you have a recognized moral standard you naturally discourage deviant behavior before it occurs, without having to stone anyone.
One of my major problems with mainstream conservatism in this country (i.e. Republicans) is the idea that social problems like poverty and unemployment will 'work themselves out' (their environmental policy also leaves something to be desired), but I firmly believe that the answers to these problems cannot be found with bigger, centralized government and a more highly taxed, socialized population.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
8/14/2003
14:56:51
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
I didn't say that taxation generally implies that the government "owns" things, but that confiscatory estate taxes (which is what would be needed to do away with the idle rich) create that impression. The thought is that a life interest in property (which is all one has when estate taxes are confiscatory) justisn't ownership. Also, confiscation at death goes beyond regulation of the economy and corresponding transfers.
I agree that a reasonably coherent overall analysis is needed to know what's being said. I'm not sure though where the analysis is that you're criticizing as incoherent. Lots of people analyze the economic aspects of transfer payments. Others analyze their social or moral aspects. You can find grounds to favor or oppose them from any of those perspectives. A particular discussion can't treat all aspects.
You raise a great many issues in a rather vague way. Some random comments on other points:
1. People have most incentive to act productively when they make their own lives. Transfer payments on the whole reduce the extent to which people make their own lives. Most economists therefore believe they reduce incentives.
2. Formal education today seems to me ineffective, overpriced and unresponsive. If there were fewer government subsidies to education I believe it would help on those points. In particular, I have no idea why many people need 16+ years of full time sitting in classrooms.
3. A basic problem with Rawls is that he does away with the notion of what people deserve as a result of their own actions. His views therefore push things in the direction of a totally administered custodial state. I think that's a bad thing.
4. I don't understand why you raise Rushdoony as the natural alternative to Rawls. Surely history offers a great many other possibilities.
|
jp
Guest
8/14/2003
17:07:12
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
One example. If I purchase an asset at $15,000 and it grows in value to $150,000, I would have to pay a tax on the $135,000 profit at the long-term capital gains tax rate. If this asset is transferred at the time of my death to an heir, taxes would only apply to gains above the $150,000. An estate tax is less confiscation then closing a loophole for tax avoidance schemes. Not all assets transferred are subject to capital gains taxes, but an estate tax is a much simpler method of collection then the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to determine which assets have been properly taxed.
I am not going to suggest that our current tax system is perfectly fair. Property taxes are a good example. What I am going to suggest is that taxation does not necessarily imply some kind of socialist ownership by the state. Historically, and pre-dating both Marx and the income tax, revenue was raised by taxing land-owners and businesses, the affluent.
Certainly, the estate tax, taxes in general, and the welfare state are complex solutions to complex problems. While I agree with Jim Kalb that these can and should be examined from a variety of perspectives, too often simple platitudes are suggested. I raised the issue of the welfare state and the estate tax because they are representative of issues where slogans are used(Death taxes, big government) to cover the complex and contradictory(economic vs.. moral) nature underlining the real debate. "No taxes" or "No big government" are not practical solutions to increasingly complex social problems.
Rawls provides one way, of which there are many, to frame government to make such public policy decisions. What I am still not clear on is what a "Christian" framework looks like or what theology it is based on. Rushdoony is the focus of liberal criticism of the right because his ideas are embarrassing. Instead, some other theological ideas must be behind the movement to 'Christianize America'. I would like to understand what these are. Christ said to 'Render unto Caesar', an explicit endorsement of the 'hedonistic' and 'pagan' Roman state in answer to Pharisees seeking a political messiah. Why would the church want to exert civil authority?
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
8/15/2003
10:12:06
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree that an estate tax can function to some extent as a backup to the income tax. As such though it wouldn't do much for the problem of the idle rich, which I though was the concern.
Most Christians don't have a comprehensive plan for economic life. Part of what's involved in being Christian is the belief that not everything can be controlled and made just so. That's one of the basic objections to socialism and the welfare state, by the way.
|
jp
Guest
8/15/2003
14:40:30
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
The concern wasn't so much over the 'idle rich'. Instead, there seems to be a lot of hand wringing about the 'idle poor' with respect to welfare without similar analysis to other policy issues, atleast in terms of how they are presented publicly. I was curious in learning more about the fundamental ideas behind certain movements in the Christian right, and how they are developed.
It is easy to point out current problems in the US, since there are more then enough. It's also easy to take flagrant examples of extreme liberalism, such as political correctness, and to eloquently call the entire movement tyrannical. You can call taxes 'confiscatory' and welfare 'socialism'.
But it is much harder to develop a viable alternative, grounded in theory and tradition, that is practical and implementable. Any alternative would have to balance conflicting needs of the individual and the community as a whole.
While the rest of the nation tries to define this balance, there is a movement with increasing conviction to make America a Christian nation. If such a state would magically cure all our social ills, I would support it. Seeing that problems have plagued both the secular and religious society, and without a cohesive notion of what a Christian state is or what Christian justice is, I tend to doubt it would be any improvement.
Instead, the Christian right does seem to be a mix of slogans like 'No Taxes' or 'No big government' without a foundation in reality or theory. The idea that things can't be completely controlled isn't particular to Christianity, since it would be shared by nihilists and fatalists. Nor is it a convincing argument to throw up your hands, and not even attempt to make things as best as reasonably possible.
Since we can't control anything, I suppose we should randomly trust that our drinking water is clean and our power stays on. We should also randomly trust that our employers won't overwork us, will provide reasonable benefits, and not lie about how much money the company is making so we won't lose our retirement savings in misguided investments. Then we can randomly trust the S&L institutions, like we did in 1982, to play nice and not need a $1 trillion dollar bailout, which the government won't have since there are no confiscatory taxes. Since you have admitted that there is no comprehensive plan for economic life, I assume that unemployment will remain at its current level, give or take. But the idle poor will be able to live off of the handouts of random charities, so there will enough food to go around. After we get rid of public education, perhaps the masses will randomly come to learn of the ultimate despair that is inherent behind these policies.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
8/15/2003
16:56:51
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
You seem to be making a scattering of comments and asking a scattering of questions about a variety of persons and positions. "Christian Right" is a vague expression mostly used by non-Christian liberals as a term of abuse. It's hard to discuss in general. There are a very few people who call themselves Christian Reconstructionists, which is something you've asked about, but I'm not sure there are any around to expound and defend their position.
Failing an account of the views of the "Christian Right" or of Reconstructionists, you seem to want someone to set forth a comprehensive theory of Christian economics. Your citations of Rawls suggest you have a taste for comprehensive theories of economics and social justice, so perhaps you want a Christian Rawls.
For my own part I don't think there is any such thing. Economics is not at the center of Christianity. To my mind the distinction between the things of Christ and the things of Caesar means (among other things) that there's no definitively Christian politics or economics even though there are clear errors, like socialism, that should be avoided. The errors, at least in recent times, have mostly arisen from attempts to get things out of politics and economics that they can't give, like ultimate grounds for hope and standards of justice.
So for Christians, I think, politics and economics are relative. The ultimate goals are elsewhere. There are important goals to be pursued within politics and economics -- mostly, promoting an environment that encourages people to live a good life that remains open to things that transcend politics and economics -- but how one goes about that depends on any number of complex practical factors, whatever gets achieved will be highly imperfect, and in principle there's no final solution to the issue.
|
Will S.
Guest
8/17/2003
15:27:43
| RE: Some Q's
IP: Logged
Message:
jp:
I'm not a reconstructionist myself, though I find their viewpoint interesting and enjoy reading their perspectives; if you wish to discuss things with them, I suggest you visit these sites:
http://littlegeneva.com/index.php
http://www.gospelcom.net/hsc/index.php
and follow links to various reconstructionist and postmillenialist bulletin boards, where you can find such people and debate with them to your heart's content. Hopefully you can find answers to your queries there. Good luck!
|
|
|