I have a challenge for you Liberals. I know you loathe challenges, so much so that you have even refused to allow scorekeeping in some organized youth sports. But try to get over your fear of challenges to accept my challenge. I have a single rule for you to follow by letter and spirit:

You shall not covet your countryman’s house. You shall not covet your countryman’s ability to have a domestic staff, his car or bank account, or anything that belongs to your countryman.

Now the challenge. After reading and fully understanding the single rule, and obeying that rule, put in writing your economic and social agenda for getting the US out of its financial and social morass.

There. That’s the challenge. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to accept the challenge?

I expect Liberals to have three responses to the challenge.
1) Ignore it completely, as many before have done.
2) Complain about how unfair the rule is.
3) Ignore the rule completely while putting forth an agenda that violates the rule with practically every step.

Prove me wrong, oh great and wise Liberals. I challenge you.
_______________________
I issued this same challenge on my own blog site, and a Liberal troll who previously trolled my blog site promptly got himself banned. It had a lot to do with his flippant espousal of Barack Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers’ (at least former) belief that 25 percent of the US population would need exterminated.

But I did have an interesting conversation with someone espousing an interesting world-view (Spock eyebrow, which I do quite well). In the end, though, he repeatedly violated the single rule that I had put in place. Is it possible for Liberals to follow my single rule and still posit a Liberal economic and social agenda? I suggest not. It is an impossibility, however; I challenge any Liberal to prove me wrong.

Most readers of Caffeinated Thoughts, and I suspect all authors on Caffeinated Thoughts will instantly see my single rule for what it is. For those who do not see it, it’s in my sidebar on my blog site.

4 comments
  1. I think I might have an answer for you, but I don’t think you’ll agree, given that you seem somewhat convinced of the mutual exclusivity of your premise and an answer.  On that note, I find it interesting that you seem to assume the following:

    1)  An answer is only valid if it meets your criteria, which seem to be biblical (leading me to wonder if you would consider other biblical references–even contradictory ones–valid).
    2)  U.S. economic policy should be biblically based.
    3)  Taxation is an act of coveting.

    Having said all of that, you have a few options.  Here are two (with similar outcomes despite different rationales).

    Option 1:
    a)  Commit to long-term reductions in continuous federal spending (in absolute or inflation-adjusted terms, or relative to revenue or tax base) and increase federal tax revenues (e.g., by reducing tax-based subsidies, returning high-end marginal income rates to a rate still far below those under Reagan)–but see the next point on counter-cyclical implementation
    b)  Conform to counter-cyclical government spending (as proposed in Genesis 41, especially verses 33-36), such that our government spends in times of need and saves in times of plenty.

    Option 2:
    a)  Jesus explicitly addressed the morality of the payment of taxes (Matthew 22:17-21), directing his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.  By condoning the payment of taxes by Jews, Jesus taught that taxation is not an act of coveting, but a civil duty.  (In fact, whether you think the value of US currency is derived from the US government or from God, Christ’s words unambiguously describe the payment of taxes as a moral OBLIGATION.  Calling them covetous is a perversion of Christ’s own words.)  All citizens enter into a social contract (whether actively or tacitly) by choosing to live within a society.  In our (US) social contract, our legislative system has produced a graduated system of taxation–as in every other advanced economy.
    b)  Continue to employ economic policies according to our best understanding of the influences of monetary, fiscal, and financial policies.  At the moment, that means a graduated system of taxation, counter-cyclical spending, and federal spending and regulation in economic areas with a documented propensity for market failure (e.g., air and water quality).

    It’s also worth noting that there is substantial historical evidence on the harms of flat taxes and strangled governments.  If governments were really so detrimental to human achievement, our species probably wouldn’t keep inventing them.  In the words of Barney Frank, “‘Government’ is name we give the things we choose to do together,” (like it or not).

    1. Since you cross-posted your comment onto my site, allow me to cross-post my response to your comment.
      ________________
      “You seem to assume the following:”
      1) true, although your parenthetical relies on an absolutely false premise.
      2) false
      3) false

      Regarding [3)], taxation should be based solely on fulfilling the
      Constitutionally-provided responsibilities of the Government, not on
      some Liberal-designed social engineering, which is absolutely without
      question outside the purview of the US Constitution. As it stands now,
      the Liberal agenda is wholly outside the US Constitution.

      But thanks for proving my point number 2. And thanks for showing
      that you believe Government Mandates can replace the Jesus-motivated
      personal decision with the Satan-mandated “everyone is required to”
      social agenda that the Liberals adhere to. You cannot, within any sort
      of Biblical parameters, push for the agenda you espouse without lying
      and violating all manner of Jewish and Christian doctrine. It is
      impossible for you to do so.

      Of course, you will demand your context-free and
      literarily-dishonorable agenda be allowed to stand, despite their wholly
      dishonest pretexts and premises.

      1. Neither of your responses addresses the content of my replies.  Instead, they seem flippant, off-topic, and unreasonably ad hominem.

        Incidentally, if you want to make ad hominem attacks in a discussion about social and economic policies, you’ll have to find a better target.  I have a Ph.D. in the field and work for an international financial institution that coordinates global economic and monetary policies.  What are your credientials (other than an obviously poor grasp of details of economics, biblical scripture, and the U.S. Constitution)?

        In short, I tried to reply in good faith and have a discussion that might give me a better understanding for your position and rationale (despite the tone with which you posted your question), but now you just seem like a waste of time to me.

    2. Let me be clear.

      If you want to commit to my prediction 2 or 3, you have already failed the challenge.  In fact if you want to object to the challenge in any way, you have already failed the challenge.

      Sure, you can object, as all honest Liberals will, but you cannot take the challenge and pretend to honestly follow the one and only very simple rule, and at the same time whine and cry that the challenge was too tough for you.  While Caffeinated Thoughts is very much a Christian Conservative blogsite, I have absolutely zero patience for people who want to whine that they can’t repurpose the Constitution to fit their anti-Christian Socialist agenda.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

“Pro-Choice” Irrationality Points to the Only Question that Matters in the Abortion Debate

Danny Burk shared a story about an encounter he had while doing…

Insomnia

It’s 3:45am.  I should be asleep.  I tried to be asleep.  I…

Video: Canadian Journalist Says MSM Lying About Muslim Riots

Canadian Journalist, Brian Lilley, says the mainstream media are misplacing the blame on a movie and lying about the true reason behind the Muslim riots.

Duty – Honor – Country

Today marks Veterans Day.  Originally known as Armistice Day when Germany signed…