Search results

No, I don't understand your point.

I'm sorry?

I think you're confused. Abandonconflict's argument is that the corporations created the regulatory system to benefit themselves. Here you seem to be saying we need a regulatory system because corporations won't clean up after themselves without one. Let me rephrase the question I was asking...

The thesis was that corporations/the ruling class created regulatory regimes to make nice with the public. My assertion is that creating such regimes is far more expensive than the corporation itself merely tackling the problem the regulatory regimes are intended to cure. What are they gaining...

It's not about the money for the corporation?

You're equating Jesus telling people to pay the taxes demanded by civil authorities with Jesus supporting those taxes, as here: "perhaps jesus might be for taxes that feed hungry people? heal the poor?" I already said I thought Jesus would tell people to pay both the poll tax and the welfare...

My first post on this subject in the thread explicitly acknowledged twice that there are genuinely poor people in the United States. Obviously I am under no such belief. How can it be backtracking when it was one of the first things I acknowledged?

If no one is going to know the corporation is responsible it's not going to clean the pollution up on its own initiate or create a regulatory regime. The corporation will do nothing and spend no money on the matter.

You must not know that super PACs were created by a recent judicial decision while contribution limits were enacted 30+ years before they came into existence. If contribution limits + super PACs were the result of a concerted plan intended to limit average people while empowering the ruling...

Personally I would say no, Jesus wouldn't support that. You already know why: Jesus wanted altruism to be voluntary, not some kind of compulsion. But since Jesus didn't explicitly say anything on the topic we cannot possibly know for sure.

What argument am I changing? What did I reformulate? All I said in that post is that you are overstating the number of poor people by assuming that they must have lacked necessary survival resources if they were food insecure.

Maybe he would, but in those passages he didn't tell us so, so we have no way to know. What we do know with absolute certainty, based on the text, is that Jesus urged the rich to voluntarily give to the poor. That was my whole original point.

I keep telling you the individual case is irrelevant to your statement about the aggregate and yet you are totally fixated on the individual case. Telling, isn't it?

You do realize kids go hungry because people are financially irresponsible, not necessarily because they had insufficient resources to provide for survival, right? My parents had problems with drinking, drugs, and gambling. We were evicted from our house/had our electricity shut off/had an...

No no, the answer in the second case would be yes. Jesus said render the taxes commanded of you. He did not say he supported the merits of the tax. Whoops.

I can. The aggregate cannot. Since your argument was about the aggregate, my individual case is irrelevant. Whoops.

"...food insecurity is defined as any household that AT ANY POINT DURING THE YEAR..." Whoops.

What I said: "Jesus didn't advocate governments forcing their citizens to help the poor." What you said I said: "...jesus says you should pay poll taxes but shouldn't pay taxes that help the poor." Whoops.

"Being poor in this country tends to mean..." "Poor people, generally..." The discussion proceeded from there. Whoops.

So the ruling class has intentionally limited its ability to financially influence every election in order to prevent a hypothetical scenario where a lack of contribution limits enables the rise of a third party candidate? Bullshit. They stand to gain far more having unlimited financial...