Ethics professor says Jesus would be a Dem.

[Ninja Homer]

My question is: What are your thoughts on Jesus's possible political affiliation?

Trick question... Ron Paul is Jesus.


(edit: Just a joke. Hopefully nobody takes offense.)

 

[torchbearer]

Jesus cared about people. No way he'd be a democrat or a republican, they don't give a shit about anything except the rights they trample on, the power the take, and the money they steal from all of us that actually earn a living. Or as Jesus put it, give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

You seriously think all these democrat "handouts" is teaching anyone to fish? Or how about the Current Republican "economic simulus package". Jesus would hopefully ask his dad to smite both parties like he did with sodom and gamorah.

Actually, that was Lao Tzu - "Give A Man A Fish, Feed Him For A Day. Teach A Man To Fish, Feed Him For A Lifetime"

That goes back to my previous post that expressed the theory that Jesus spent some time in the far east studying...

 

[d03boy]

Jesus had unlimited funds. He could have been democratic pretty easily.

 

[kyleAF]

More of an anarchist than anything, which means he was against swearing allegiance to any earthly authority. He explicitly commanded that it be so: "swear no allegiance".

Pilate offered him salvation from death should he have sworn allegiance to Rome, but he refused, and Pilate "washed his hands" of him, since he was considered "unclean" or outside Roman citizenship.

I think the powers that be (were) didn't like him, because his teachings were entirely anti-State. He was, in a way, an agorist, and advocated non-violence, and honest exchange and love. He was a very wise teacher, though I don't believe in his divinity (or anyone else's).

Anarchist / Libertarian / communalist / agorist. Certainly not a Statist by any definition.

 

[V4Vendetta]

Your professor is also forgetting that Democrats are pro-choice, Jesus does not support Murdering babies!!

THOU SHALT NOT MURDER!
1 of the 10 commandments!

Thus if someone is a Christian, it is a contradiction to be a democrat!

Oh yeah, and GOD says Homosexuality is a "ABOMINATION" and democrats support Gay rights.... i.e.... Adoption, marriage, ect...

Thus if someone is a Christian, it is a contradiction to be a democrat!

 

[DriftWood]

Well, I would agree that Jesus wasn't a capitalist.

As for your tangent about charity, I disagree emphatically with the entire premise. Let's say I have $20 more than I need in my pocket. It's not allocated for anything. I'm on my way home, thinking about what I could spend it on. In my travels I come across a homeless person. Hmmm... 6 pack, smokes and a paper? or surprise the heck out of her and stick it in her hand?

Who benefits either way? Am I doing good for myself because I can buy beer (which I do drink), cigarettes (which I do smoke) and media garbage (which I do consume)? Of course these businesses will benefit. Maybe they still will if the homeless lady makes the same choice I would have. However, if I were to give her the money I have put a smile on someone's face. She knows someone cares enough to notice her. I feel good knowing I brightened someone's day. Emotionally and spiritually I've made a better investment in giving the $20 away.

This is only one small scenario. Charity is never a negative if your intentions are right. And I know you said you're an atheist but the Bible tells me not to lay up my treasure here. The spiritual benefit of quiet charity far outweighs any loss of capital.

Is self-interest at the heart of libertarianism? Individualism yes, selfishness... ? Convince me.

The fact that you feel good giving money to charity.. I guess it could be seen as a trade. That both of you benifit. He gets money and you get to feel good. On the other hand, everytime you trade something for money you are encouraging some type of behaviour at expense of other. If you buy something from the farmer you encourage more farming (eventually more people will start farming).

However, when you see a helpless looking homeless person and feel sympathy for them and give them money you are in a way encouraging them to stay helpless and act in a manner to invoke sympathy. Remember you are buying yourself the feeling of saving someone. The worse condition and the more helpless they are the better you will feel for saving them . I know it sounds cold but thats the way it works. There are lots of examples of this. In Cambodia I heard stories about people hurting themselves or cutting limbs off their childeren so that the sight of them would invoke more sympathy and therfore make them better beggars). If noone gave money to beggars, there would be no beggars. They would do something more profitable, maybe they would be farmers.

Dont get me wrong I sometimes cant help but give money to beggars on the street, but i know it wont help them, it will just keep them on the streets longer. Charity discourages self reliance and productive behaviour and encourages helplessness and dependence on charity.

As for selfishnes or egoism. The words might sounds bad, but i think they actually are inherently good. If everyone is free to purusue their self-interest then everyone will get better off. Capitalism is just the method by wich society orders itself to maximize peoples interests. Everyone is focused on maximizing the interest of one person. However forgotten you get, there is always someone looking out for you (yourself). In a utopian altruistic world, everyone would look out for everyone elses interests (who in turn would not have eny own interests). I think such people would get confused and loose focus. People would not be interested in advancing the well being of society, just in making everyone equally badly/well off.

People might disagree. That the free market capitalism (based on self interest) does not make everyone better off. Like, If i just looked after my self interest why do i trade with you instead of just use force and steal from you? Well that would be counter-productive to my self interest. Trading is a win-win situation. Stealing or using force is a win-loose situation. I'd quickly find that the mutual benft strategy is a better startegy in the long run.

People have morals because it serves their own self interest. In a way altruism and egoism are two sides of the same coin. An amount of altrusim is to your own benifit. Some of this morality that serves your own interest is probably learaned the hard way while growing up (children usually abandon the "everything is mine" faze) and some of it we are probably born with (being a social animal is better for survival).

Anyway im drifting away here.. you guys probably dont agree with my reasoning but given that you are Ron Paul supporters you should agree that free market capitalism leads to the best possible society. (My point being that self interest is the driving force of capitalism)

Cheers

 

[LittleLightShining]

The fact that you feel good giving money to charity.. I guess it could be seen as a trade. That both of you benifit. He gets money and you get to feel good. On the other hand, everytime you trade something for money you are encouraging some type of behaviour at expense of other. If you buy something from the farmer you encourage more farming (eventually more people will start farming).

However, when you see a helpless looking homeless person and feel sympathy for them and give them money you are in a way encouraging them to stay helpless and act in a manner to invoke sympathy. Remember you are buying yourself the feeling of saving someone. The worse condition and the more helpless they are the better you will feel for saving them . I know it sounds cold but thats the way it works. There are lots of examples of this. In Cambodia I heard stories about people hurting themselves or cutting limbs off their childeren so that the sight of them would invoke more sympathy and therfore make them better beggars). If noone gave money to beggars, there would be no beggars. They would do something more profitable, maybe they would be farmers.

Dont get me wrong I sometimes cant help but give money to beggars on the street, but i know it wont help them, it will just keep them on the streets longer. Charity discourages self reliance and productive behaviour and encourages helplessness and dependence on charity.

I understand what you're saying, your points are valid.. From what the Bible tells me and from my own experience it is better to give than to receive. And in many ways that beggar on the street is much freer than I could ever be with my utility bills and taxes and tuition and car payment and fuel... you get the point. There is definitely a problem in places where society has deteriorated to such a point that people must beg to survive. And then there are the people who have lost everything because of their own choices. But it's not my place to judge whether or not they deserve to be where they are. If I can offer someone a little sunshine why shouldn't I? At the end of the day the merchant and the beggar still go to sleep.

As for selfishnes or egoism. The words might sounds bad, but i think they actually are inherently good. If everyone is free to purusue their self-interest then everyone will get better off. Capitalism is just the method by wich society orders itself to maximize peoples interests. Everyone is focused on maximizing the interest of one person. However forgotten you get, there is always someone looking out for you (yourself). In a utopian altruistic world, everyone would look out for everyone elses interests (who in turn would not have eny own interests). I think such people would get confused and loose focus. People would not be interested in advancing the well being of society, just in making everyone equally badly/well off.

People might disagree. That the free market capitalism (based on self interest) does not make everyone better off. Like, If i just looked after my self interest why do i trade with you instead of just use force and steal from you? Well that would be counter-productive to my self interest. Trading is a win-win situation. Stealing or using force is a win-loose situation. I'd quickly find that the mutual benft strategy is a better startegy in the long run.

People have morals because it serves their own self interest. In a way altruism and egoism are two sides of the same coin. An amount of altrusim is to your own benifit. Some of this morality that serves your own interest is probably learaned the hard way while growing up (children usually abandon the "everything is mine" faze) and some of it we are probably born with (being a social animal is better for survival).

Anyway im drifting away here.. you guys probably dont agree with my reasoning but given that you are Ron Paul supporters you should agree that free market capitalism leads to the best possible society. (My point being that self interest is the driving force of capitalism)

Cheers

It doesn't matter what kind of society you live in, individuals are always going to look out for themselves in some way. And not everyone would come to the conclusion that a mutual benefit strategy is best in the long run because not everyone cares about other people. If this was the case there would be no corruption within the government or the private sector. There would be no crime and no need for prisons.

People lose focus because they become greedy. A purely capitalist system is just as prone to breakdown as a purely socialist one. I prefer the capitalist idea when given a choice. But the problem with capitalism is that it depends on consumption. And more and more consumption until we are no longer people or citizens we are consumers.

I can tell you that lying would have served my self-interest more times than I can count, but it is against my morals to do so.

Self interest is the driving force behind all socio-economic systems. In a perfect communist or socialist society everyone does their part because they know they will get what they need in exchange for their contribution. The idea that wealth is more evenly distributed appeals to many people, especially those who labor under a capitalist system such as we have and are still struggling to afford all of the "luxuries" that have been created by capitalists. I'm not a socialist, but I can see the appeal for some people. The problem is that it doesn't work because people are greedy for wealth and power and it is far too easy to control the masses in this scenario.

 

[Theocrat]

The Answer is Obvious

I took an ethics class a few years ago. One of my classmates asked how Jesus would affiliate himself politically. Our professor said he would lean Democratic. Nothing else was said about it. If I had known of Dr. Paul and his great Libertarian teachings at the time, I would have argued his answer. As I look back on it, I realize the professor didn't quite understand coercion vs. actual charity.

My question is: What are your thoughts on Jesus's possible political affiliation?

Simply put, Jesus Christ is a theocrat.

 

[JMann]

Your professor is also forgetting that Democrats are pro-choice, Jesus does not support Murdering babies!!

THOU SHALT NOT MURDER!
1 of the 10 commandments!

Thus if someone is a Christian, it is a contradiction to be a democrat!

Oh yeah, and GOD says Homosexuality is a "ABOMINATION" and democrats support Gay rights.... i.e.... Adoption, marriage, ect...

Thus if someone is a Christian, it is a contradiction to be a democrat!

Why do you think our society should base any laws on a book that requires faith to believe anything in it? It would be no difference than a society basing a book written by David Copperfield. I mean fine if you believe that, many people do but a lot of people believed in the Sun God. Could you please youtube God saying these things because certainly if it is important to him he would of told more people than one person on top of a mountain in private.

Why are you so hateful?