Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From uber-nut Janet Porter (formerly Janet Folger, back when she was citing neo-Nazi "scholars" to bash gay people) at, naturally, the Worldnutdaily:
All I want for Christmas is my life and my freedom. Two-thirds of America doesn't want this horrible health-care bill, but it's going to take all of us doing everything we can to stop it -including using a secret weapon they don't have.The weapon we have that they don't is prayer and fasting...We need to act and pray like our lives and the lives of millions of children depend on it. Because they do. So it may mean passing up some Christmas cookies or missing your favorite shows, but one thing's for sure, I don't want to wake up on Christmas morning thinking I didn't do everything I could to stop this lethal legislation.
I think that's a great idea. You should also throw salt over your shoulder, sprinkle chicken blood around the perimeter of your house, cross your fingers and stick pins in a voodoo doll of Nancy Pelosi. They will all have the same effect -- none whatsoever.
Politics
Comments
Didn't they already pray that enough people wouldn't make it to the vote to lass the legislation? God didn't answer those prayers so maybe God wants the bill to pass. And that means now they're making Baby Jesus cry. Oh, poor Baby Jesus. God, make your followers stop!
...gee, maybe he will smote a few of them...
Posted by: Skip | December 24, 2009 9:37 AM
Worldnutdaily. The gift that keeps on giving for 365. Laughs of derision are not just for Xmas anymore.
Posted by: Budbear | December 24, 2009 9:39 AM
The weapon we have that they don't is prayer and fasting...
How come "they" don't have prayer and fasting too? What are "they", a bunch of atheists or something?
Posted by: 386sx | December 24, 2009 9:57 AM
Okay, Janet Porter, er, Folger (whoa, did somebody marry you?} you fast and pray til the cows come home.
Posted by: Rodney | December 24, 2009 9:58 AM
I will not make the obvious Monty Python reference. Far too easy.
Posted by: Adrian W. | December 24, 2009 10:08 AM
I cast my vote for self-immolation protests.
Posted by: Dr X | December 24, 2009 10:13 AM
Prayer and fasting vs. compassion, reason, and a will to act.
Yup, we're doomed, all right.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 24, 2009 10:22 AM
I hope she doesn't have much of a family. I could see these nut jobs forcing everyone down to little Timmy to spend Christmas fasting and praying. Ugh, this just might be a faster way to make atheists than the whole reading the bible thing.
Posted by: deep | December 24, 2009 10:51 AM
God wants universal health care. He told me on the bus last week. Spread the word.
Posted by: James Thompson | December 24, 2009 10:53 AM
They should be encouraged, maybe they'll get worked up enough to fast until medicare is shut down. Me thinks all those dead crackers would improve medicare's finances considerably.
Posted by: The Pale Scot | December 24, 2009 11:00 AM
Translating from Religious Right Speak: By "want", she means "demand"; and by "my life", she means "control over other people's lives"; and by "my freedom", she means "not having to be bothered with other people's well-being."
Posted by: Wes | December 24, 2009 11:02 AM
Ironically, that just might drive people to seek healthcare.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 24, 2009 11:10 AM
Yes, Ms. Folger, deny yourself food until you get dizzy and faint-- and let the rest of us have your Christmas cookies.
Posted by: Emily | December 24, 2009 11:11 AM
I am a big, big fan of prayer for right-wing religious nuts. The more time they spend on their knees, the less time they have to get into actual mischief. Pray, you suckers!
And a lot of them could stand to go on hunger strikes.
Posted by: Zeno | December 24, 2009 11:16 AM
Superglue.
Posted by: blf | December 24, 2009 11:55 AM
#9: I find that hard to believe. It's a proven fact that God doesn't reveal himself to literate people. Now unless you had someone type that for you while you dictated, I don't believe it.
Posted by: nickcan | December 24, 2009 11:58 AM
Ironically, there are quite a few "they" that are praying and fasting: praying that they won't go bankrupt and fasting because they don't have enough food. All due to medical costs.
Posted by: natural cynic | December 24, 2009 12:05 PM
Deep (@8) - That was my take too; even nonbelievers recognize Christmas as an occasion for good times. When you find someone who proposes sucking the fun and happiness right out of it, they're invariably motivated by religion.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 24, 2009 12:14 PM
Awww c'mon Christians, don't be so lame. Don't you realize that there is a religion gap building? While you're just out there praying and fasting, Buddhists have upped it a notch! You don't want those evil Asians to get ahead of you on the road to heaven do you? Join them in protest!
http://www.sott.net/image/image/17212/full/thichquangducselfimmolade7.jpg
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 24, 2009 12:24 PM
While I agree that intercedent prayer if as effective as chicken blood or fish entrails, it does not seem to occur to these people that praying is just telling God that you don't agree with his plan.
Of course, since one creates gods in their own images, with their own selfish desires and fears, prayer is really just talking to yourself.
Posted by: bobarnold | December 24, 2009 12:31 PM
Mr. President, we must not allow a prayer-fast gap!
Posted by: General | December 24, 2009 12:37 PM
@14 - am a big, big fan of prayer for right-wing religious nuts. The more time they spend on their knees, the less time they have to get into actual mischief.
Ted Haggard, Larry Craig....I'm sure they were calling out God's name while they were on their knees - does this count?
Posted by: Badger3k | December 24, 2009 12:45 PM
Gwan, you fucking moroons, pray and fast til the redeemer comes...
Posted by: woody | December 24, 2009 1:12 PM
Didn't they try this already, with it not working?
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 1:14 PM
Yes, Rutee, but failure of positive return is not a mark against ritual. It simply means you were doing the ritual wrong, or for the wrong reasons, or you were the wrong person to do it. It's always possible that this time none of those factors will apply, and God will accede to your requests.
(No, I don't believe this stuff...but that's how the rationalization works.)
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2009 1:23 PM
Obama’s boss gets permanent death panels
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18206
---------------
God hates socialism. It is a form of slavery and is evil. This so called healthcare bill will harm more people than it will help. In the end God will judge those who caused the death of people through socilaized medicine and population control.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 1:24 PM
So, Captain Patriot, in the end will God judge those who caused the deaths of people by trying to prevent them from getting socialized medicine? How many True Believers® are gonna get Mat25:40 or Mat7:23 from JC?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 24, 2009 1:34 PM
So when Jesus said that you should give the shirt off your back to a poor man, he /really/ meant you should sell it for the low, low price of 99.99.99?
Jesus was a communist hippy, dude.
@Gretchen: Yeah, but.. they nailed Inhofe... does that all still apply? o.O;
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 1:41 PM
Jesus was no socialist. He encouraged other to give to the poor and help the sick and needy on thier own. It was a personal responsibility issue, not a government endorsed system where the government forces people against their will to give up a portion of their income and then give it to someone else. Did you read the link. Since your mentor and secular king, Mr. Brayton brought up the subject of nazi sympathizers,the name George Soros came up. He is an evil communist that should be imprisoned for his crimes against humanity. He has caused more harm in one day than all dictators throughout history have put together.
This population control bill / enslavement bill may pass, but that does not mean everyone will love it. People will hate and despise it just the same.
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 24, 2009 1:45 PM
He called for society to help people. The only reason he did not for the government to do so is because he legitimately did not feel that he should comment on politics. The best way for society to help people is for the government to intervene.
At best for your position, you can claim he had nothing to say about the state doing it. that's not assent or dissent.
In other words, the bible doesn't disprove (Or disapprove of) social democracies, so don't pretend it does.
And yes, I looked at your link; It uses the word death panels as a serious thing that exists. It is therefore irrelevant.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 2:03 PM
Captain patriot, you're adorable.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 24, 2009 2:05 PM
FYI, for your future attempts at appeals to stupidity:
The Nazis hated black people. You could not be a black nazi, because it was about 'Aryan' superiority. That is why Hitler reaaaally was not amused by the Munich Olympics.
Why does Religion get to substitute for education? It's so bad at it.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 2:05 PM
It amazes me when social conservatives try to argue exactly this. The cognitive dissonance must be overpowering.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 24, 2009 2:06 PM
Wasn't Janet Folger in the "a jar of peanut butter refutes atheism" video? Hah!
Posted by: AL | December 24, 2009 2:17 PM
He called for individuals to help people. He called for individuals to submit their lives to God, then in obedience to God, help the poor and the sick and needy.
Government intervention is not necessary.
As a matter of fact the only job that government is mandated to do is to protect us from foreign armies and threats. Government has no legal means whatsoever to intervene in personal lives of the people. Their only job is protection from foreign enemies and to maintain law and order, not social justice. Our country is a Republic, not a socialist dictatorship like the UK.
The government has no right to dictat to me whether I have health insurance or anything else. That is MY personal private decision. Not the government's! I am a soverign citizen, not a slave. I am not government property, I am a free man and I intent on keeping it that way. This bill essentially makes you (not me) government property. Congradulations! You abolished slavery and now have brought it back from the dead.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 2:24 PM
This is one "weapon" I have always thought the conservatives should rely on more often. If only they relied on prayer exclusively, we'd be better off and both sides could be happy with the tactic: conservatives because of their religion and liberals because of the results.
Posted by: TheDude | December 24, 2009 2:26 PM
As a statement of fact, this statement is untrue. As a statement of your norms and what you think government ought to be, tell your fellow Christians to quit using government as a tool to dictate what marriage is, then you might begin to have a point about interventions in personal lives.
Posted by: AL | December 24, 2009 2:27 PM
Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…
isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,40909.0.html
you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
Posted by: edisafool | December 24, 2009 2:41 PM
Marriage has nothing to do with government either. We conservatives are not using government as a tool to define marriage. We use the Bible - God created the definition of marriage. It is the liberals who defy the Biblical marriage covenant and use government to define marriage. The liberals want goverment to abolish 6,000 years of Biblical marriage and replace it with a secular government mandated definition of marriage that can be changed every few minutes depending on what is most popular in the culture at that given time.
Marriage is a God inspired institution which government has no legal, ethical, moral, or cultural rights to redefine any way they see fit.
Evil exists. Evil has inspred today's secularism and wants marriage (a Biblical covenant or cntract) abolished and replaced with the popular trends. That is wrong and it is even worse when government gets involved. Again, get government out of the lives of people. Government does not have a say in what Gid has created!
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 2:47 PM
"He called for individuals to help people. He called for individuals to submit their lives to God, then in obedience to God, help the poor and the sick and needy.
Government intervention is not necessary. "
Right, government intervention isn't necessary; THat's why we not only have no sick and starving people, we also have Cribz and Forbes.
Oh wait. Personality responsibility has really worked out well for social justice, hasn't it?
"We use the Bible - God created the definition of marriage. It is the liberals who defy the Biblical marriage covenant and use government to define marriage. The liberals want goverment to abolish 6,000 years of Biblical marriage and replace it with a secular government mandated definition of marriage that can be changed every few minutes depending on what is most popular in the culture at that given time."
You're aware that you can't use religion as a basis for law, right? That's why we have an establishment Clause. You /have/ to use secular proof.
I hate libertarians.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 3:00 PM
Religion as you call it is the basis for all law anyway.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
etc.
Maybe we should allow killing and stealing if they are only religious laws. Right?
In a way we do. Socialism is theft. It also leads to preventable death, which could be defined as murder. Therefore, socialism is evil and should be abolished.
What establishment clause? That is the oldest liberal conspiracy theory in the book. There is no clause in the constitution that prohbitis people from practicing religion. The president and every member of congress have every right to practice religion as the next person. As a matter of fact, God is to be placed above anything else. Put God first, family second, everything else last.
Of course what you are talking about is the non-existant wall of seperation. This wall does not exist. No where in the constitution does it say that religion has to be seperated from public life.
What you refer to is the fact that government cannot establish a religion. I agree. However, government also cannot prohib religion either.
Don't think of Biblical marriage as religion. Think of it as history. Christians not only think of the Bible as spiritual inspiration, we think of it as literal human history.
I am not a libertarian. I am an independent sovereign citizen.
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 24, 2009 3:12 PM
It seems most of you do not understand the founding fathers' mentality of the free man. Here is some help for you:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sovereign-citizens-our-founding-fathers-intended
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 3:16 PM
"God created the definition of marriage. It is the liberals who defy the Biblical marriage covenant and use government to define marriage. The liberals want goverment [sic] to abolish 6,000 years of Biblical marriage"-Captain Patriot
Wow you really know absolutely nothing about the history of marriage do you? What the purposes of marriage are have changed drastically over time; compare Pride and Prejudice to a modern day romance to see what I mean. That is even ignoring that the bible is inconsistent when it comes to marriage, King David and King Solomon both had many wives just as an example.
"Government has no legal means whatsoever to intervene in personal lives of the people. Their only job is protection from foreign enemies and to maintain law and order, not social justice."-Captain Patriot
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States;"-Article 1, section 8 clause 1 of the United States Constitution(emphasis mine)
Notice the GENERAL WELFARE part of that, social justice seems to fit under that nicely, especially the power to tax and spend for said welfare.
"This bill essentially makes you (not me) government property."-Captain Patriot
Making this statement requires one's mind to be twisted past the point of being able to understand reality, so I won't even bother.
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 3:18 PM
"It seems most of you do not understand the founding fathers' mentality of the free man. Here is some help for you:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sovereign-citizens-our-founding-fathers-intended"-Captain Patriot
I did not see a single thing it that article to show any link to the founding fathers at all. All he cited was Ronald Reagan-an actor.
If the founding fathers thought an individual were sovereign (like you seem to think) why does the constitution not say anything about that at all?
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 3:25 PM
Okay, for the brainwashed left. Here it is one more time:
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/
GENERAL WELFARE does not mean SOCIALISM!
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 3:32 PM
Socialism will lead to dictatorship which will ultimatly lead to this: http://www.campfema.com/ which will lead to revolution.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 3:35 PM
"Maybe we should allow killing and stealing if they are only religious laws. Right? "
You're an idiot. We have objective proof of what happens when you lift those bans. Heard of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, perchance?
"In a way we do. Socialism is theft."
Taxation is not theft.
"It also leads to preventable death,"
How?
"It also leads to preventable death, which could be defined as murder."
So free market capitalism can be defined as a causal factor in murder. Got it. I'll get right on prosecuting everyone on Cribz, and every CEO in the Fortune 1000 for murder.
"Of course what you are talking about is the non-existant wall of seperation. This wall does not exist. No where in the constitution does it say that religion has to be seperated from public life. "
The constitution specifically says that the government shall not establish (Endorse, promote) any religion. I didn't say you couldn't obviously be a Christian. I said Christian belief alone is not sufficient grounds to create a law; It's establishment.
"What you refer to is the fact that government cannot establish a religion. I agree. However, government also cannot prohib religion either. "
Right, and you can believe what you want. But you can't force your beliefs on the rest of us
"What establishment clause?"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - First Amendment
"That is the oldest liberal conspiracy theory in the book."
If this is a conspiracy, it's a very weird one, because it's right there in black and white in the law, where everyone can see it.
"There is no clause in the constitution that prohbitis people from practicing religion. The president and every member of congress have every right to practice religion as the next person."
So far, so good. You are correct, you do get to PRACTICE religion. Just not ENSHRINE IT in the law.
"As a matter of fact, God is to be placed above anything else. Put God first, family second, everything else last."
Why? Even Jesus told you not to do that. Were you not paying attention to your hippy leader? I don't entirely blame you, you wouldn't like what he has to say.
"Don't think of Biblical marriage as religion. Think of it as history."
I prefer to avoid factual error. Biblical Marriage is only history for about a third of human civilization. Well, half, considering that the Jews predated Christianity by a fair bit.
"Christians not only think of the Bible as spiritual inspiration, we think of it as literal human history. "
Then you are demonstrably wrong. Sorry.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 3:38 PM
"Socialism will lead to dictatorship which will ultimatly lead to this: http://www.campfema.com/ which will lead to revolution."
No, not necessarily. Marxist Communism does, but social democracies are republics.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 3:46 PM
Marriage has nothing to do with government either.
Really? Government has nothing to do with establishing and enforcing the obligations inherent in a marriage contract?
We conservatives are not using government as a tool to define marriage. We use the Bible - God created the definition of marriage.
So "we conservatives" still support polygamy, as described in the Bible? And where's your proof that your God (as opposed to, say, my Gods) created ANY definition of marriage?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 24, 2009 3:46 PM
"As a matter of fact, God is to be placed above anything else. Put God first, family second, everything else last."-Captain Patriot
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"-John 14:26
It seems Jesus did not say what you think he said.
"Okay, for the brainwashed left. Here it is one more time:
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/
GENERAL WELFARE does not mean SOCIALISM!"-Captain Patriot
I don't even begin to see the relevance of this link at all, just a bunch of idiots acting like they have PhDs in history and Law Degrees and know anything about those two subjects.
"Socialism will lead to dictatorship which will ultimatly lead to this: http://www.campfema.com/ which will lead to revolution. "-Captain Patriot
Wow citing the conspiracy theory even Glenn Beck debunked (I recall him doing so, please correct me if I am wrong), you are either a Poe or someone who it is not possible to have a rational argument with.
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 3:47 PM
Rutee, You truly are a blessing to your to your religion. Wether you like it or not, you are religious.
ou worship at the alter of secularism where government is your sactuary, darwin is your God, socialism and radical environmentalism is your message, and abortion is your sacrifice to your God. See, you are religious. Just as Ann Coulter stated in Godless.
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 24, 2009 3:52 PM
775,000 + people are on an illegal government watch list. I suppose my name is at the top already. Who cares? I know how to survive in the wilderness.
Rutee, your form of goverment leads to tyranny and slavery. Ultimately it will lead to civil war. Not everyone wants to be a slave. We are soveriegn citizens, not slaves.
Your form of government leads to this:
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 3:55 PM
Really? Oh, okay.
You worship at the alter of strawmen where the internet is your sanctuary, Anne Coulter is your God, trolling and ignorance are your message, and dignity is your sacrifice to your God.
Hey, this making up religions for other people thing is fun!
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2009 4:02 PM
@51: You don't know my religion, or my religious beliefs. All you know is that I don't believe in enforcing them on others through the law. Well, you also know by extension that I don't believe in proselytism, because I'm not trying to spread them.
Further, even if I was purely atheist, it is a rejection of spirituality. Zeal does not make for religion alone. You and Ann Coulter are both morons of the highest order.
@52
...No? Even if your conspiracy theory would be correct, it's effectively established by Executive Orders, by your own citations. That makes it a monarchy, not a Social Democracy. Nice try though.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 4:09 PM
She took down her Christmas tree and her Christmas lights because the health care bill is "just ridiculous" for a nation under God. She wants everyone else would do the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrnxA2sqWvU
Posted by: dr x | December 24, 2009 4:09 PM
"http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm"
Man I actually read some of the nonsense on that page. I got the same feeling reading that as I did reading the Time Cube guy's page
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 4:14 PM
For you who believe that America is not a Christian nation, it is apparanet that you never read the Thanksgiving proclamation by the 1777 Continental Congress:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=3847
By the way, I don;t know if there is much validity to the whole FEMA camps thing. I sort of believe it becuae this nation is headed towards tyranny. I will say that I would rather die in firefight (and I have planety of firepower myself)than be a slave in one of these camps. There are thousands of others who feel the same way. Implementing these camps will spill much blood on both sides, not to mention rescue attempts.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 4:25 PM
America has no Christian heritage eh?
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=78
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 4:30 PM
LOL, Wallbuilders. Didn't you notice the thread just yesterday noting David Barton's fucking idiocy?
Also, since you're so very pious, why are you posting blog comments on this most holy of days, eh?
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 24, 2009 4:40 PM
It appears that you sir have never read the Treaty of Tripoli
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
Article 11 I think is some pretty strong contradiction of your statement that it was founded as a Christian nation. It was approved with Unanimous consent of the Senate and signed by John Adams. this combined with Article six of the United States constitution
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Treaties are the supreme law of the land according the the US Constitution, combined with a treaty saying the United States was not founded as a Christian Nation.-This disproves your point.
Checkmate.
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 4:41 PM
Treaty of tripoli? Is that all you got? That proves nothing.
I got your treaty of tripoli here:
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/tripoli.htm
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 5:32 PM
Zaxro: Just like we don't torture anyone because we are a signatory of the anti-torture treaty, right?
Posted by: kehrsam | December 24, 2009 5:34 PM
Good rule of thumb: If your argument involves "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", you are wrong.
Thanks for the laugh, Captain Crunch.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 5:45 PM
If I were going to torture a prisoner I would start by playing liberal lectures on the environment and history and religion. Now, that truly is torture.
I figure that I will be subjected to clean bathrooms and fresh food/water. Maybe they'll even give me a Bible and some magazines and possibly even cable tv. This will happen one day when I am a FEMA camp prisoner. HMMM. A vacation with truly free healthcare and room service. Yep, torture truly is terrible in American detainment centers.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 5:49 PM
@62
You make a fine point,the torturing of people by the government is illegal because of that treaty. However, I fail to see the relevance that has to a discussion of a treaty approved with unanimous consent in 1797. The point of citing the treaty of Tripoli is that there is an official legal document from the time stating that the United States was not founded as a Christian Nation.
Saying that torturing people shows that all treaties are invalid is like saying the fact that there are restrictions on speech disproves the fact that the first amendment has legal authority.
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 5:50 PM
An article bound to drive you crazy:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/baldwin/091222
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 24, 2009 5:51 PM
Back to the subject at hand. Jesus was no socialist. He encouraged other to give (personal responsibility) to others who were poor and needy. He did not encourage them to set up a tyrrany form of government and steal people's money through taxation to pay for abortions (murder) and other illegal things. My point is:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/24/jesus-the-socialist/
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 24, 2009 5:55 PM
Once again, taxation isn't theft.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 24, 2009 6:00 PM
For those interested in signing a declaration to stay true to our faith rather than place our faith in man made government, here is the Manhattan Declaration in its full glory. You can count me in!
http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration
For more infor see:
A christian call to arms
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/21/a-christian-call-to-arms/
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 6:03 PM
@62: "The whole thing falls apart because of one instance of hypocrisy" is going to destroy pretty much every single train of thought everywhere forever. I'm okay with you saying it, but you're aware of what happens when you pull the thread on that sweater, right?
@67: Keep telling yourself that taxing the folks who make way more then they can spend is tyranny. That makes it true!
Note: I checked your links. You're effectively claiming "We made the first treaty in the name of God, therefore we're Christian". That's not a zero validity argument. You should have said that, instead of trying to be smug with a link (Which, incidentally, fails to back up its sources, if you check your link's link. I had to google the treaty).
I would argue that stylistic niceties to the established religions of other countries rank beneath articles of a peace treaty. After all, if you check the next few lines of the first column, it's all one big celebration of King George, and we're not King George's country, going by the actual terms of the treaty, right?
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 6:08 PM
The manhattan declaration? The one that acts like Christians have to face persecution in the US? Lunatic.
Why don't you try focusing on that first line.
"Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering."
The poor and the suffering have some problems in this country that could be solved with universal health care, and there are actual oppressed people in this country who have to deal with folks actually stripping their rights away, rather then disagreeing with them.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 6:12 PM
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2009/12/24/reply-to-the-racist-on-youtube/ Well, I hate to keep grinding on Pat (no I don't)but, this video ties in nicely. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 24, 2009 6:23 PM
Maybe the poor an opressd in this country never asked the church for help. If they ask, they would receive. Universal health care is evil. It is socialism and that is evil and wrong.
Now, if we had a system where everyone could get health care, that would be great. However, your so called universal health care will make things worse. There will be rationing and the country will fall. More elderly will die becuase they will be refused treatment becuase of their age and/or medical condition. Do you think an 80 year old man in England could get a kidnye transplant? I doubt it. Even if he could, he would would die waitng for it becuase the UK medical system would give it to someone young (who could pay more taxes for a longer time) and let him die anyway.
Your system has failed in every place it has been tried in. Socialism has collpased every time it has been tried.
Do you think a 69 year old with cancer would get treated with your system?
I know what your comeback argument is already: "Will th current insurance industry pay for the 69 year old cancer patient? Will the insurance aganecy pay for the 80 year pateint with kidney failure"? I can read your mind.
Quite frankly they have no choice, except to get sued or dropped. The same goes for government insurance. If your so called socialism plan ever gets into place and I have cancer, they had better damned well treat me at the location and doctor of MY choice, not theirs. If I have to pay, then I get first choice of care priotities, otherwise, I'll kick someobody's butt. Socialism should be abolished. It is evil.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 6:24 PM
Captain Patriot
@73
You said:
"Universal health care is evil. It is socialism and that is evil and wrong.
Now, if we had a system where everyone could get health care, that would be great."
I am confused, isn't a health care system that is accessible to everyone the very definition of universal health care?
Also, if Socialism has collapsed every time it has been tried then hasn't it already been abolished?
Posted by: General Liberty | December 24, 2009 6:48 PM
Are you aware of what the Manhattan Declaration was actually made for? The mind boggles.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 6:50 PM
The Manhattan Declaration is a "treaty" so to speak declaring that Christians will stick to our faith and risk enduring ersecution rather than giving in to secular evil in this world. For example. Some pastors will absolutely refuse to bless or marry gay couples in a church. That pastor has that right. If the government creates a law (illegally) that states that gay couples cannot be "discriminated" against by pastors making it illegal to decline these coups from being married in a church, then that pastor will, according to the Manhattan Declaration, refuse to marry the couple even if it means going to prison. It is basically a decree stating that civil disobedience is okay as long as the law being disobeyed contradicts the laws of God.
In other words a doctor can refuse an abortion even if he is punished for it with jailtime or being fired.
A pastor can refuse to "marry" a gay couple even if he is imprisoned.
In other words enduring persecution is better than going against God. I signed this declaration myself. I also refuse to obey man's laws that contradict God's laws. Go ahead, put me in jail. Fire me. cast me out. I don' t care. In the end I will be rewarded for my faithfulness.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 24, 2009 7:02 PM
"However, your so called universal health care will make things worse. There will be rationing and the country will fall."
Cap'n, we already have health care rationing. It's rationed by ability to pay and by pre-existing conditions. It's just hidden so that people like you can pretend it's not there.
Jesus may not be a socialist, but he sure as hell isn't a capitalist either.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | December 24, 2009 7:05 PM
"if Socialism has collapsed every time it has been tried then hasn't it already been abolished?"
------------
becuase people refuse to learn from mistakes. Besides do you think that governments that endorse or creat a socialist style of government is willing to give up their power? They love power too much.
With secularism comes, socialism. With socialism comes tyranny. With tyranny comes revolution.
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 24, 2009 7:07 PM
To the poster who is neither a captain nor a patriot: many more Christians will ignore said declaration than will sign it. Count me as one of them.
Posted by: Shay | December 24, 2009 7:13 PM
Captain Patriot:
Thank you for addressing my questions, but I am still a bit confused. I am still not sure how you define universal health care.
Where you say "With secularism comes, socialism." Do you mean that where the government is secular it is also socialist?
You say you will obey God's laws, to what exactly are you referring?
In comment 76 in sounds like the Manhattan Declaration is a pledge to uphold the US Constitution. Is my interpretation correct?
Finally, you refer to "Christian" throughout your posts, to which sect are you referring?
Posted by: General Liberty | December 24, 2009 7:21 PM
I read the Manhattan Declaration. BFD.
Marriage is a legal contract, authorized by the state. Don't confuse your pastor's wedding "magic show" with legal marriage. No one cares if your pastor refuses his magic show to a gay couple. No one! So, no persecution, no one's going to prison.
Doctors aren't being forced to perform abortions. Not one! So, no persecution, no one's going to prison, no one's being fired.
If you're hell-bent on being persecuted I suppose no one can stop you, Cap'n. But don't pretend the Manhattan Declaration is anything more than a smug statement of moral superiority and self-satisfaction.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | December 24, 2009 7:29 PM
Churches mostly refuse to let women be pastors. Do you honestly think we evil secularists are going to "force" you assholes to treat gay people equally in your churches when most of you backwards fucks won't even acknowledge the equality of half the population?
Ever heard of the Civil Rights Act? Religious groups are largely exempt, with few exceptions. If you have some particular evidence that suggests gay marriage would be such an exemption while gender would not, please, by all means present it.
Posted by: Leni | December 24, 2009 7:34 PM
Alternatively you could just drop out of society and leave the rest of us the hell alone. That's more or less what the rest of us want you to do. Why not do that? Be all stoical and Amish or something.
Posted by: Leni | December 24, 2009 7:42 PM
You're not being persecuted, nobody wants to throw pastors in jail for preaching that homosexuality is immoral, and secularism (And for that matter, socialism) doesn't lead to tyranny by default.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the medical system involves a lot of specialization. You're not called on to perform abortions unless you were pretty much already going to (IE you work at an abortion clinic). Priests can say whatever they want free of legal repercussions as well. They don't have to marry anyone the church doesn't tell them to.
In other words, it's a lie you were sold because your cults hate gay people.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 7:47 PM
Zaxro "I got the same feeling reading that as I did reading the Time Cube guy's page."
He used to be much more stable, back when it was Time Plane. Then he discovered the third dimension. The experience drove him quite mad.
Captain Patriot "For those interested in signing a declaration to stay true to our faith rather than place our faith in man made government, here is the Manhattan Declaration in its full glory. You can count me in! http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration"
I thought it was just a political Party but, wow, small-minded, history-challenged, fear-based thuggery is a religion now. The modern Pharisee.
"Do you think a 69 year old with cancer would get treated with your system?"
[lengthy pause] You might want to think about that one a bit longer.
"If the government creates a law (illegally) that states that gay couples cannot be "discriminated" against by pastors making it illegal to decline these coups from being married in a church, then that pastor will, according to the Manhattan Declaration, refuse to marry the couple even if it means going to prison."
Are you high? You do know that there are still "aryan" churches that won't marry brown people, Catholic priests can still refuse to marry mixed-sect couples, etc. Again, are you high?
"I signed this declaration myself."
Willingly? Well, then. Good luck with that. Douche.
"In the end I will be rewarded for my faithfulness."
Do you get 72 virgins?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 24, 2009 8:09 PM
Modusoperandi @ 85: "Do you get 72 virgins?"
If he doesn't, he'll probably accuse St. Peter of persecuting him for his beliefs.
Posted by: Kris | December 24, 2009 9:12 PM
Health care rationing? Medical decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors? Are you dumb enough, CP, to ignore the fact that insurance companies have been doing these very things for some time now?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 24, 2009 9:48 PM
Captain Patriot: Do you believe government ought to enforce marriage contracts? If not, aren't you being a tad hypocritical?
Rutee: How is taxation not theft? What differentiates the two?
Socialism doesn't lead to authoritarianism. It IS authoritarian, unless your view of socialism ends at worker's ownership.
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 24, 2009 11:10 PM
!@#$%, that should be "if SO".
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 24, 2009 11:12 PM
Three Wolf Shirt @ 89: "How is taxation not theft? What differentiates the two?"
HUH? Theft implies the taking of goods or money from a victim solely to benefit the thief. I can understand how someone wearing blinders might be able to equate that with taxation, but I'm having a hard time believing someone genuinely interested in understanding the world having that mindset.
Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on your word choice of 'theft'?
Posted by: Kris | December 24, 2009 11:21 PM
There is nothing that exempts acts committed for the benefit of others from this definition.
Are you implying it is morally acceptable for me to rob others as long as I am not doing this for my own benefit?
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 24, 2009 11:35 PM
Theft: "the unlawful taking and carrying away of personal property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently; also : any of several types of theft (as embezzlement or obtaining another's property by false pretenses) that have been traditionally distinguished from larceny."
Taxation: "imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by governments. Taxes are levied in almost every country of the world, primarily to raise revenue for government expenditures, although they serve other purposes as well."
Hope that helps - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 24, 2009 11:43 PM
The key word here is "compulsory".
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 24, 2009 11:54 PM
Rutee: How is taxation not theft? What differentiates the two?
[snark]Legality[/unsnark].
Unsnarky: Assuming that you live in a developed nation, there is a substantial difference.
The first, and largest, is that taxes are ideally used for the benefit of society at large. The maintenance and construction of public works is done by taxation, for instance, and these public works are things you may be familiar with, like schools and libraries. In a representative democracy, this usually has some loss of pure efficiency in the form of pork barrel horse trading, but these typically still employ workers and aren't all bad.
Most public works are at minimum, of things that benefit society. Ideally, these are of things you don't want motivated purely by profit (Which means cost cutting measures wherever possible, and over-reporting of success when piecemeal oriented). Education is one obvious facet (Ironically, in the US, still plagued by cost cutting measures due to insufficient funding by relevant municipalities and states), but others can include environmental cleanup (Which benefits everyone, but costs money so few companies willingly do their own), or law enforcement (Where privatizing can lead to even more dishonest reporting, a lack of public accountability, etc etc), and other fields.
In a republic or democracy, you also generally got a vote on it. Unlike theft, which I guarantee you had no or very little choice in, either your elected representatives or yourself got to vote on the matter. This lends fairness to the matter, and optimally means that the money will at least be put to public use, if not necessarily the public use of highest utility.
If you live in a sovereign state where War were Declared, you can also bet that every tank, APC, gun, and drop of fuel has been paid for with public money, obtained (generally) via debt. Debt that has to be paid back with taxes.
Obviously, taxes that are meant to be dumped into the pockets of the ruler, the representatives, or the representatives best friends bear little resemblance to any of this, and are ultimately legalized theft. That's why I assumed a level of development, as developed countries have less of this. Obviously, not 0, as we've seen in Haliburton and the financial institutions bailed out recently.
Did you not take a Civics class that covered all of this or something? Granted I didn't have to in high school, but I took classes that took these basics for a given.
"Socialism doesn't lead to authoritarianism. It IS authoritarian, unless your view of socialism ends at worker's ownership."
I am going to legitimately need clarification, due to the fucked up state of Merikan politics, where it is possible to apply socialism to pretty much everything you don't like (But generally things where the state spends money for social welfare). Unfortunately, this means I continue to use the word wrong when dealing with someone else who does.
"Are you implying it is morally acceptable for me to rob others as long as I am not doing this for my own benefit?"
ARe you aware of the classic moral dilemmas involving theft for the benefit of others? "Would you steal to feed your own starving children?" and the like.
Notwithstanding that taxes (Optimally) benefit the taxed person directly.
Posted by: Rutee | December 25, 2009 12:04 AM
That bit on "War were declared" pretty much applies to "Ever", incidentally. Unless the nation has at some point since then repudiated its debts, part of its deficit is generally due to war.
Posted by: Rutee | December 25, 2009 12:07 AM
Shit, I'm copying that to notepad. I've seen too many wiseasses pretend they don't drive on roads, didn't go to public schools, and if, God forbid, they're in Europe or Canada, forgot that the government maintains their Intertube Infrastructure and their guaranteed health care, and I'm pretty sick and tired of it.
Posted by: Rutee | December 25, 2009 12:13 AM
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
The key word here is "wrongful," implying that there can be at least one instance where the "taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another" is "rightful." (otherwise, there would be no need for the inclusion of the "wrongful" adjective in the "theft" definition)...and that instance is taxation.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 25, 2009 12:17 AM
Thanks for the meaty reply. I'll get back to you once I'm done wrapping presents.
On a lighter note:
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
I like the choice of people on the EVIL side (pregnant women?)
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 25, 2009 12:18 AM
Theft is the illegal taking away of money or goods (with the intention of depriving the person of the goods/money permanently) for the personal gain of person (or persons) taking or receiving the goods or money. Thefts are rarely compulsory.
So is taxation theft?
a) Since it is sanctioned by law, it's not illegal.
b) Is there an intention to deprive a person of the goods/money? Well no, since they are returned in the form of infrastructure (bridges, roads, government buildings such as hospitals, police stations, fire stations, amenities such as municipal pools, libraries, parks and gardens and so on) and services (hospitals, police, fire, armed forces, librarians, advice bureaus and so on),
c) Does it benefit 'the government' only? Firstly, who are 'the government'? Well, 'the government' is us. The government is made up of the citizens of the country, who hire other citizens to provide services and create infrastructure for the citizens of the country generally.
Cui Bono?
Taxation doesn't satisfy even a basic definition of 'theft'. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 25, 2009 12:19 AM
In Spain we have the Evil with a socialist government, since 1980, and we have Universal Heath Care too, and gay marriage.
Posted by: Hel | December 25, 2009 4:00 AM
HI-TECH TALIBAN by Alan Kaufman
From Evergreen Review #121
http://www.evergreenreview.com/121/hi-tech-taliban.html
Posted by: Alan Kaufman | December 25, 2009 6:44 AM
James M. Phillips, I hate you for pointing to that imbecile's site, but here's the comment he'll no doubt delete:
How do we know you aren’t just lying, since your real bible, the Koran, orders you to lie to the infidels in order that you may turn against us when the time is right?
You muslin freak, you! I bet your hands still burn from touching that KJV bible, huh Jihadboy? ~(yes, muslin.)
And your mom sounds like she has a fuller beard than you do.
Please don't thank me; It makes me wanna stab out my eyes when you use that in every comment.
Posted by: trog69 | December 25, 2009 9:45 AM
Captain Paranoid:
In Canada, we have had universal health care coverage for about 40 years. We have always treated people 69 and older for cancer. Sometimes we do limit the treatment when it seems more likely that it would kill the patient than improve the situation. I'm sure they do that in the USA, too.
As far as kidney transplants go, the real problem is a shortage of donor organs. A younger person would naturally get priority. I'm sure that happens in the USA, too.
I suppose in your ideal system, the donor kidneys would be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 25, 2009 10:46 AM
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/fact_sheets/did_you_know.jsp
The oldest solid organ donor ever recorded in the UK was 84.
What say you now Captain Idiot?
Posted by: Donalbain | December 25, 2009 11:37 AM
The oldest recorded recipient of an organ in the UK was an 85-year-old kidney patient.
Copy paste fail
Posted by: Donalbain | December 25, 2009 11:42 AM
Patriot @ 73:
'Do you think an 80 year old man in England could get a kidnye transplant? I doubt it. Even if he could, he would would die waitng for it becuase the UK medical system would give it to someone young (who could pay more taxes for a longer time) and let him die anyway.
Your system has failed in every place it has been tried in. Socialism has collpased every time it has been tried.
Do you think a 69 year old with cancer would get treated with your system? '
You are an ignorant moron.
It is apparent from what you have written above that you know nothing at all about the health care system that operates in the United Kingdom. Therefore, kindly stop making up lies about it.
I, and members of my family (of all ages) have been successfully treated for various medical conditions throughout our lives under the UK National Health Service. Most recently, one of my elderly parents was operated on successfully and given a hip replacement. They are in their very late seventies. The standard of care they received throughout was excellent, and it was all carried out 'free at the point of delivery' under the NHS - which we all pay for through taxation.
It's just one example, and I don't expect it to sway you, and nor do I care. But your raving needs to be countered with facts.
Posted by: Chris | December 25, 2009 11:55 AM
He thinks that stuff doesn't happen /here/. He's not exactly operating on an evidence-based position.
@CAptain Crunch, regarding your complaints on health care.
In the states, if you're really old and not-really-rich, you're probably not getting an organ transplant. It's probably (But not necessarily) true in systems with Universal-Health-Care. It's not because the people are evil; It's because there is always a shortage of organs, and they want them to go to the people who'll use them longest.
It's like the idiot believes the lies Glenn Beck and others told him that say "We have the best health care system in the world", and then went on to extrapolate that it's somehow perfect.
Posted by: Rutee | December 25, 2009 12:08 PM
"HI-TECH TALIBAN by Alan Kaufman
From Evergreen Review #121
http://www.evergreenreview.com/121/hi-tech-taliban.html"
Wasn't this guy on the Colbert Report? It was stupid then, it's stupid now. Libertarian Paranoia mixed with utter technological ignorance.
Posted by: Rutee | December 25, 2009 12:39 PM
Yes you are. Wow, complete spin on your part. You stated that government should not intervene in people's personal lives and that government should not define marriage, and yet Proposition 8 in California does both those things. If you were truly "libertarian" on this issue, your position ought to be that marriage is a private matter and the state should not get involved, period. You can have your whacked out silly belief that marriage is "defined" by some nebulous god thingie that manifested himself as an undead carpenter Messiah that people have written various dubious texts about which church authorities then declared by fiat to be canon, and those who don't agree with all that ridiculous bullshit can have their own definition of marriage. But as soon as you get the government involved in any way, you are not as "libertarian" as you think you are, and you further undermine your own position with respect to healthcare if it is truly your belief that healthcare is a private matter and as such, government shouldn't be involved.
Don't spin. We notice.
Posted by: AL | December 25, 2009 1:07 PM
All I can say is, look at some of the links to our provincial health department sites and medicare benefits and see what you're missing: simple, affordable health care for all. If it's smart to offer universal, publicly funded education, then it's smart to offer universal, publicly funded healthcare that won't bankrupt you
Posted by: Monado, FCD | December 25, 2009 1:09 PM
Doesn't it make you wonder how many goats Cap'n P paid for his first, second, and third wives, and what is the going price for an educated daughter.
Funny that the New Testament describes the earliest Christian communities as holding all property in common, and describes how God struck down the couple who decided to hold a little back for a rainy day... Oh, and atheism is a religion as much as bald is a hair color.
So go practise your religion. Go away and practise your religion.
And when you have time, look up how Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and other conservative figures have endorsed end-of-life planning, which I suppose is what you mean by population control.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | December 25, 2009 1:21 PM
Yes, by all means, let's work with thought experiments.
It's not like any country with universal coverage might have run into this situation and recorded the results, right? Sadly, since the US is going to be the first industrialized country to try to get health care to everybody, we just don't have a baseline for comparison. In order to figure out what it might look at, we're limited to the imaginations of net kooks.
My kingdom for some data in these dark times! Oh, the perils of early adoption!
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 25, 2009 1:40 PM
@22
"Ted Haggard, Larry Craig....I'm sure they were calling out God's name while they were on their knees - does this count?"
I understand that it went something like this:
"SOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEE!! Amen."
Happy Solstice
Posted by: NJ Osprey | December 25, 2009 2:42 PM
Do you think a 69 year old with cancer would get treated with your system?
You're a loony.
WTF do you think Medicare is and does, you brainless asshat? Medicare is socialized health care for the elderly! Americans pay taxes to give government-funded health care to senior citizens.
Jaysus Haploid Criminy, how fucking stupid do you have to be not to get that?!
Posted by: Aquaria | December 25, 2009 4:41 PM
Do you think a 69 year old with cancer would get treated with your system?
My parents' government-funded health insurance did much, much better than that. It's a combination of Medicare and insurance negotiated through the postal workers' union, back before the U.S. Post Office became the USPS.
My father was treated aggressively for Hodgkin's lymphoma -- and cured -- at age 76. His government-funded insurance covered it.
When, several years later, he developed a different form of cancer that really was terminal, his insurance covered treatment until he decided on his own that he didn't want it any more. Then, his insurance covered his home hospice care.
My mother developed a life-threatening metabolic problem at age 89. She not only got aggressive -- and successful -- treatment for it, but her rehabilitation treatment was covered after she got out of the hospital. She's almost 91 now, considerably healthier, and still living semi-independently.
So, excuse me if I refuse to bitch about the government having any involvement in health insurance.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | December 25, 2009 5:38 PM
Did the evangelical right flip out like this when Medicare was passed under LBJ?
Posted by: CHV | December 25, 2009 6:35 PM
trog 69, The reason I keep going back to Pat is twofold: A)We as liberals must continue to hound these people until they see how ridiculous they sound and change their thinking or just shut up about it and realize that the majority of Americans don't feel that way. B) The reason I always sign off with a "thanks" is because we as liberals constantly rage over the Right's lack of civility. When we sink to their level of cussing and name calling we are as bad as they are, regardless of how right we might be in our arguments and debates. Now, I am not saying I am guiltless of this same behavior, but at least I'm trying and I beleive it would behoove our cause for all of us to do the same and not sink to their level. So... Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 25, 2009 8:29 PM
@ 116
No. They had their hands full with preventing black people from voting, sitting at lunch counters with white people, attending schools with white children and marrying white people. Evil must prioritize.
Posted by: Dr X | December 25, 2009 8:48 PM
Re Three Wolf Shirt @ 91: That seems like an odd rebuttal. I basically said that the difference between the two is that with theft, person B benefits at the expense of person A. Your response seems to be, "But what if person C benefited?" That's oblique to the argument at hand, namely that (as others have pointed out), it ignores the fact that regardless whether persons B—Z benefit, A is reduced in wealth with no gain. Again, as others have pointed out, the 1-word response to your question is, "Infrastructure."
If we change the scenario from, "a thief steals $100 from you," to, "the person hired to redo your driveway accepts the $100 you pay him," the analogy becomes much more in line with taxation.
Posted by: Kris | December 25, 2009 10:47 PM
What is it with authoritarian assholes and the title Captain? Do they think it makes them look cool or military or something? Anyway...
Cap'n Pat's been pretty comprehensively downsmacked already, but I'll add an anecdote, my favourite form of "evidence".
My grandmother-in-law had a number of bouts with cancer, starting in her 60s. All I can say is that she got the care she wanted. When she decided it was time to check out, our public health system paid for hospice care.
Basically, a hospice is a very nice place to die. There are trained medical staff on call 24 hours a day to make patients last days easier. For my grandmother-in-law, that meant a special inflatable air mattress, people to massage her legs, an oxygen machine in her room, and private accommodations. The grounds and the building were absolutely beautiful. All in all, it was probably a pretty good place to die.
My other grandmother-in-law died of cancer the same year. She wanted something else. And she got it. Instead of a hospice, she wanted to spend her last days at home, with her husband. A few things needed to be installed, and nurses had to visit three times a day, every day, for weeks on end.
Do you know who paid for this, Cap'n? We did. All of us, working together, to make the lot of humanity a little tiny bit easier than it would be otherwise.
Oh, and James? Thanks.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 26, 2009 12:52 AM
Are your children your slaves?
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 26, 2009 1:24 AM
Taxation isn't theft for the same reason being brought the bill and expected to pay it after sitting down and having a meal in a restaurant isn't theft.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 26, 2009 1:27 AM
Ruttee, DingoJack, Azkyroth, Kris:
Hope everybody had a great Christmas.
“Aren't you aware of moral dilemmas like whether it is okay to steal to save a starving child or break into someone's shack to avoid freezing to death?”
Of course I am. When examined more closely, however, these scenarios have to do with time constraints rather than generally bending moral rules in order to do good. The question presented is whether a particular aggression is appropriate when there is not enough time to make a deal with the victim. This is quite unlike taxation, which is scheduled well ahead of time. Furthermore, most solutions to these problems propose restitution in kind, the implication being that the victim would agree to help out if there was enough time.
“Taxation is legitimate because it's legal.”
This is circular logic since the entity defining legality (the state) is the same one levying taxes. Furthermore, I think you and I would agree that legalizing something does not give it moral justification.
“Taxation pays for things which are good for society, such as schools, libraries, roads, health, environemental cleanup, law enforcement and war (?).”
Ultimately, all acts of theft benefit somebody. Taxation is simply carried out on a mass scale by an entity with large popular approval so that perceived beneficiaries make up a large portion of our society. It is still being carried out for largely personal gain, whether by the officers who collect taxes in exchange for a salary, the politicians who put taxes into law in exchange for power or the majority of the public who condone taxes due to perceived benefits. Even if forceful confiscation of wealth is the best way to finance the services mentioned (and I doubt it), this does not change the fact forceful confiscation of wealth is wrong.
“Taxation is not stealing because you or your representatives voted on the matter.”
What about the people who voted for a losing candidate or didn't vote at all? Since there is no way to opt out of the system short of faking your own death, participation cannot be construed as an endorsement of the criminal acts that follow.
“Why are you so goddamn stupid? Didn't you take civics or something?”
I did, and for a while sat smugly pondering why there are still selfish rubes out there who deny the existence of roads and healthcare.
“Taxation benefits the taxed person (optimally).”
If taxation is done for the good of the victim, why must there be coercion involved? Are they just too stupid to see what's in it for them? On the flipside, if taxation overall does more harm than good to the person being taxed, why don't they have a right to opt out?
“The dictionary says theft only counts as such when it's wrongful.”
I don't wish to argue about semantics any longer (my point is that taxation is fundamentally the same thing as what people call theft and correctly recognize as wrong, not that the English language accounts for this). I wouldn't really expect the dictionary to be an anarchist, as delightful as that would be.
“Taxes are just like paying at the restaurant.”
This is by far the weirdest argument. When ordering items at a restaurant, I make an explicit promise to pay for what I order, which is nothing like a murky “social contract”. If I don't like the price of things or the quality of the product, I'm free to not order anything. This is so far removed from taxation it's not even funny.
And finally, a word about Alan Kaufman:
I love that guy.
Posted by: CAPTAIN Three Wolf Shirt | December 26, 2009 2:57 AM
Posted by: Michael Ralston | December 26, 2009 5:18 AM
Capt. Three Wolf Shirt -
Thanks I did, how about you? I hope Santa brought all the right goodies (no socks and underwear). :)
Firstly, you obviously had a little snooze through your civics classes (do they still do them these days?). Democracy is predicated on representing the will of the people (either directly or through representatives) by MAJORITY vote. The rights of the minorities have to be preserved but not their viewpoint on every vote. Also the courts decide what is legal or illegal, they don't decide what taxes to raise; the legislature decides what taxes to raise, not what is legal or illegal. 'Separation of powers', 'checks and balances', any of this sounding familiar?
The whole point of 'illegality' is germane because it is an intrinsic part of the definition of theft. If the Repo man comes to take your TV away, or if the bailiffs come to turf you out of your house (I hope it never comes to that), it's not theft because it's LEGAL, if it were illegal it would be theft. Similarly, if a soldier kills an enemy during a time of war it's not murder because it's LEGAL and murder is, by definition, ILLEGAL. Who defines what's legal or not, is irrelevant (the courts, as it happens).
Also since you benefit, directly and indirectly, from the taxes raised you can hardly be said to be 'illegally permenantly deprived of goods or money' could you?
As a citizen you are bound by the laws of your state. If that law requires you to pay money so the government can provide services, amenities and infrastructure for the benefit of all citizens (including you), then you not paying is breaking the law (it's illegal) and could be regarded as theft against your fellow citizens.
Of course, if you don't like the law why not get yourself elected to office? Or campaign to get taxation repealed organising a 'letter writing' campaign to your representatives*?
Anyway just some random thoughts.
Oh by the way, Alan Kaufmann you can shut yer piehole too! We don't care about how much the tinfoil turban is cutting blood flow to your brain, take your crackpot ideas and shove 'em where the sun don't shine, and fuck-off while you're doing it! - DJ
* isn't that what you Americans were whining about in the first place? Taxation without representation? To paraphrase John Cleese "well you're represented now so shut up!"
Posted by: Maj. Gen DingoJack, ret. (Mrs.). | December 26, 2009 5:21 AM
For fuck's sake.
This is what exasperates me most of all about the health care debate.
Can we please, please stop pretending that it's in any way reasonable to equate a public health care system with some sort of stealth gulag? Out of all the industrialized nations, do you know how many do not have universal health care? Two: the U.S. and South Africa. Universal healthcare is, well, damned near universal at the international level- and yet not a death panel or slave labour camp in sight.
Yes, cost is a concern. Yes, there are good and bad ways of doing things. Can we have an adult conversation about them and drop the hystrionics?
Posted by: DaveL | December 26, 2009 8:29 AM
I've never bought the taxation = theft argument for one simple reason: Human beings are by nature social animals and human societies beyond the most primitive and basic (very small tribes - and quite possibly even those) cannot exist without taxation in some form. Some forms of taxation may well be better -- more fair, more effective, etc -- than others, and there may be particular levels of taxation and particular situations where taxation is unjust for one reason or another (example: taxing the middle class for the purpose of giving subsidies to rich corporations which are then able to destroy their competition as a result), but the notion that taxation, in and of itself, is a form of theft or is a moral evil has always struck me as nonsense.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2009 8:31 AM
@Three Wolf Shirt, re:taxes
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/christian_scientists_and_healt_1.php#comment-2000803
Posted by: DaveL | December 26, 2009 8:35 AM
General Liberty inquires (of Capt. Pantiesinawad) @80:
"Finally, you refer to "Christian" throughout your posts, to which sect are you referring?"
Lying fuckbags for JESUS, Lunar Synod.
Posted by: democommie | December 26, 2009 9:15 AM
Guys, there's no point in arguing with Private Puddles here. The man's clearly not bright enough to use logic.
Posted by: Katharine | December 26, 2009 11:07 AM
"Ultimately, all acts of theft benefit somebody. Taxation is simply carried out on a mass scale by an entity with large popular approval so that perceived beneficiaries make up a large portion of our society. It is still being carried out for largely personal gain, whether by the officers who collect taxes in exchange for a salary, the politicians who put taxes into law in exchange for power or the majority of the public who condone taxes due to perceived benefits. Even if forceful confiscation of wealth is the best way to finance the services mentioned (and I doubt it), this does not change the fact forceful confiscation of wealth is wrong."
Ah hah. This is a disguised "Oh noes! The poor rich! Whatever shall they do with only 700 million dollars, instead of the billion they earned!" argument. I wasn't sure until you got to "...The majority of the public.."
THe rich get the most out of taxes. Their trade empires rely on (and receive, to a very unfair degree) the full force of the law to operate in any safety. Further, those trade empires don't generally work without the transit infrastructure that carts their goods and/or peons around. To imply that the majority can't take their money to help maintain the structure they use.
And uh, how up on history are you? If you don't think taxes are the best way to cover important infrastructure, are you perhaps thinking of Privatized structure? Are you familiar with modern for-profit prisons? Or with the railroads of the Gilded Age?
"What about the people who voted for a losing candidate or didn't vote at all? Since there is no way to opt out of the system short of faking your own death, participation cannot be construed as an endorsement of the criminal acts that follow."
If you did not vote out of apathy (Most non-voters), then it was obviously not important enough to you to try to change things. If you lost, well, I empathize. My tax dollars funded and will continue to fund the Iraq War for a very long time. But ultimately, even if you lost, and even if the money isn't going to everything you'd like it to, the fact is that it'll keep going to the things I absolutely need, like roads (Or, God or any other deity willing, public transit), and schools for... well, not my kids, but other people's. Schools that will hopefully not turn them into folks who repeat this stupid "Taxation is Theft" canard.
"If taxation is done for the good of the victim, why must there be coercion involved? Are they just too stupid to see what's in it for them? On the flipside, if taxation overall does more harm than good to the person being taxed, why don't they have a right to opt out?"
Yes. Yes they are often too stupid, that's why we're having this conversation in the first place. And they can opt out; But they really, really, reaaaaaaally don't want to. I promise you, you very much prefer paying taxes to living in Somalia, Egypt, Morocco, or other incredibly poor nations.
The second reason why you need Coercion is related to what someone else said about opting out. You don't want people to reap the benefits without contributing (Or submitting why they can't contribute to the government).
Posted by: Rutee | December 26, 2009 12:10 PM
But what we have is stomping our feet and holding our breath until we turn blue, so there!
Posted by: BaldApe | December 26, 2009 12:17 PM
No, not at all. The problem is that while they realize that it's good for them to pay, they understand that it's in their individual best interest to free-ride and screw everybody else into paying for his stuff. Saying, "Sure, I'll pay for the police force that equitably protect all of us," and then not paying because isn't "stupid" at all.
Of course, it might be considered "stealing" if you thought about it long enough.
The answer boils down to three words: Anarchy doesn't work.
OK, so your point is:
1) By definition, taxation is theft and it's wrong. Logic win!
2) Other people point out that by the definition *you chose*, it's only theft if it's "wrongful" and you are simply assuming that the word "wrongful" applies here. They're just playing semantic games, though. Bad people! Bad!
Normally, I'm not big on using Webster as my ultimate authority on morality, but whatever floats your boat is fine with me.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 26, 2009 2:03 PM
[pedant]
Do Egypt and Morocco really belong on a list of "incredibly poor nations" alongside Somalia?
Per-capita GDPs from the U.S. State Dept website:
Somalia: $600
Egypt: $5,400
Morocco: $4,309
Better examples might be:
Liberia: $185.50
Bangladesh: $554
[/pedant]
Posted by: DaveL | December 26, 2009 2:34 PM
You know what services the government (which, much as you like to pretend otherwise, is an extension of society rather than an external force) offers and what your tax rate is, and the borders are open. If you don't want to receive those services (including ones like fire protection that you can't reasonably opt out of, and ones like driving on the public roads that the bureaucratic machinery needed to keep track of people opting out of would be a bloated budgeting and intrusiveness nightmare), you're free to leave. I dare you to find a restaurant that'll let you occupy a table indefinitely without ordering anything.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 26, 2009 4:38 PM
How does praying to the god of the Bible for the outcome of a congressional vote (or the outcome of ANY vote, for that matter) not contradict the idea that this same god gives people (the "people" in this particular instance being members of Congress voting on the health care bill) free will?
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 26, 2009 7:42 PM
Michael Ralston, DingoJack, DaveL, Rutee, Troublesome Frog, Azkyroth and of course ED BRAYTON:
“Why don't you just leave?”
This argument (which I especially hate as it was my go-to moral justification back when I supported the state) is fallacious as it presupposes that the state is the ultimate owner of everything within its borders, when this “ownership” was achieved through violence and conquest rather than mutual agreement (the proper way to determine ownership). When these states were set up, not one person was given the choice to join the United States, or the British empire, or my own government of Canada. What is essentially being argued for here is a permanent, hereditary slave contract.
“The rich get the most out of taxes / free rider problem.”
Not only that, they also pay the least! I can't remember the exact figures, but the richest pay something like 5% of their income in state and local taxes, while the poorest pay something like 10%. This is without saying that keeping 60% of a $10 million fortune is significantly less tough than keeping 90% of 20 grand. Taxation decouples consumption from compensation, creating more public goods problems than it solves. And please, I'm not one of those libertarians who identifies on a visceral level with big business. I only mentioned the general public to point out that a state needs widespread popular submission in order to survive, not to proclaim that “OHNOEZ the MOB is coming to pillage JOHN GALT.”
“It goes to things I absolutely need like roads and education.”
These things may look like necessities to our 21st century Western eyes, but in the greater context of humanity they are essentially luxuries. While I do believe every child (and adult) deserves a shot at educational enrichment, this is not necessarily a consequence of state-funded or operated schools, and universal education is not (at the risk of sounding crass) is not a life or death matter. You can't eat a right to food or learn a right to education. I have absolutely no qualms with saying paved roads are a luxury, having spent my early life 200 km from the nearest one without dying as a result.
“If you read up on history you would know the evil robber barons made shitty railroads.”
I am aware of this fact, believe it or not. However, even the least dickish Gilded Age railroad tycoons (such as James Hill, who made extremely not-shitty railroads) were heavy beneficiaries of state interventions such as land sold well below the market rate. I fail to see why this is an argument against leaving infrastructure to civil society.
Speaking of history, I encourage everyone to read up on medieval Iceland.
“You say you don't want to argue about semantics when this is what started the whole conversation.”
Yeah, I fucked up. But I stand by my later comments.
And an argument from our lovely host:
“Taxation is a constant in any civilized society.”
While there certainly need to be social services and someone needs to pay for them, this is pretty standard is/ought fare. There are many alternative ways of providing these, such as mutual aid (my favoured system), free entreprise and charity. A successful example is the aforementioned medieval Iceland, which was pretty darn civilized and prosperous for the time. Also see this presentation about stateless law in the highlands of Guatemala, which is perhaps not the pinnacle of civilization but still demonstrates how these arrangements can be superior to what we have now, even in utilitarian terms.
And now a response to a few scenarios and analogies:
DaveL's meth scenario- In an anarchist society, the addict would have bought the meth at Walgreens, thus sparing everyone the hassle of having his garage go KABOOM. Liberty works in mysterious ways...
DingoJack's repo man analogy- Even if it were illegal, repossession could not be construed as theft since the owner surrendered the property prior to it being taken away.
“Anarchy doesn't work.”
Prove it.
What is a state? A miserable little pile of secrets. Or rather, an entity comprised of politicians and their spawn who perpetuate their power through violence and submission, so-called “separation of powers” notwithstanding. It is only an extension of society so long as most people deem it necessary.
But enough talk... Have at you!
(As an aside, I feel stupid for not previously realizing that DingoJack was a lady...)
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 26, 2009 8:32 PM
Oh. You wanted proof Anarchy doesn't work. The door's right there, and Somalia awaits. Frankly, your posts leave me wondering if your aware that there's a world past America, because of your bullshit only applies within it.
Incidentally, the concentrate dumb of your post is amplifying my headache. I'm going to make this very short and to stick to the most offensive part of your post to me.
"I am aware of this fact, believe it or not. However, even the least dickish Gilded Age railroad tycoons (such as James Hill, who made extremely not-shitty railroads) were heavy beneficiaries of state interventions such as land sold well below the market rate. I fail to see why this is an argument against leaving infrastructure to civil society."
Wow, you're jumping past the important parts there, skippy. The absolute abuse of every person who was not filthy rich, schemes designed for the express purpose of bankrupting the poor while floating the rich ever higher. Getting public intervention (By kicking back massive funds, in the hopes of making more, and they mostly did make more) doesn't negate the fact that the worst parts, and the catalyst for the abuses to begin with, was an aspect of what happens when you leave a public necessity (Transit infrastructure) in the hands of a private owner.
Posted by: Rutee | December 26, 2009 10:42 PM
Name the 3 safest, healthiest, most stable and productive anarchic collectives of people. Now, compare them to... well... just about anything else based on just about any criteria. I don't doubt that you can form a small group of people and subsistence farm in the absence of any government at all. The simple question is whether that's necessarily the best way to be. If we're willing to go along those lines, communism works just great. In fact, it might work even better than anarchy.
Most of what we enjoy as modern humans are simply not possible without getting a lot of us together and trading productively. As soon as you get a nontrivial group of people and resources together, a government invariably forms. This is not an accident.
The real question isn't what's "morally" pure (which seems to be the question you're examining--and arbitrarily inserting your absolute morals in the process). A more objective question is whether or not we're better off in the long run. There's certainly room for debate even there, but if you were to ask the average person whether they would rather continue debating over the Internet or go to a pure tax-free society in which we all make our own shoes and the most badass form of technology is a leaky butter churn, I suspect the vote would be pretty lopsided.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 26, 2009 11:16 PM
The "why don't you just leave" argument is flawed when used to argue in support of specific government policy, but hardly so in the case of the existence of governments!
And comparing "you have to follow our rules or leave" to being a slave is ... it'd be insulting, if I had any right to be insulted by trivialization of slavery. Because, you know, vital parts of slavery were things like the inability of slaves to leave.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | December 27, 2009 12:11 AM
People surrendering goods to the Repo man willingly? (Well at least it's never happened to you (or anyone you know), I guess.) In all cases I've seen, or heard of, "willingly" never entered into it. Coercive, permanent removal of goods, yes; theft, no - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 27, 2009 9:13 AM
As an obnoxious atheist, I would like to point out that a sufficiently extended outbreak of prayer and fasting by the religious right might easily be expected to have a significant and measurable impact....
Posted by: abb3w | December 27, 2009 8:58 PM