It's been out for three years and yet only three comments. I find that astonishing, if for no other reason than it demonstrates a lack of interest in dissecting the intellect of this preeminent _thinker._ Lots of people will disagree with his positions and they're free to do so; but they won't be able to assault Scalia's intellect in order to prove themselves right. His intellect is unassailable.
I see the point he's making, but the Old Testament does have a lot to say about the rights of the poor and even had safety nets in place to benefit the poor. I think we can have a minimum provision for every citizen while still leaving room for people to go above and beyond with charity.
Still, that's a public policy issue and not a theological one. It's quite apparent that the people have come to some consensus about having at least a minimum provision of relief in order to promote the general welfare; but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that a fundamental precept of Christianity is calling upon the _government_ to dispense charity, therefore leaving us taxpayers free to declare before God that we did the Christian thing by delegating the dispensation of charity to the central government. Christ certainly didn't help the poor or elderly or disabled by handing them a welfare check or Medicaid at the expense of the wealthy, and he didn't goad government into doing it _for_ us. He admonished us all to give from our _hearts_ directly, personally, from our own wealth -- as a true gift and not an entitlement. Making government the middleman in that transaction isn't charity at all; all it does is relieve us of any direct responsibility to the less fortunate among us. And to the extent that government continues to tax us to pay for all that "charity," it robs even the most magnanimous among us of our ability to even _be_ charitable. We ought to be careful not to conflate public policy with a call to service to our fellow man as a demonstration of Christian virtue. Taxation and redistribution of wealth through the power of centralized government doesn't rise to that definition.
@@briane173So, to go back to the OP's point, why did the OT have the *law* to give a 'tithe' (a tenth), at the very least (many Israelites actually gave much more thru (religious) required donations, over 20% for some). Is it maybe because people always have been, and always will be, fundamentally quite selfish...?
@@briane173 That's entirely dependent on whether or not the government is Christian. If we're creating policies under the pretext of the United States being a Christian Nation as opposed to a Nation of Christians, then you have to concede your entire position.
Some conflation of socialism and welfare capitalism. For example, SNAP is redistributive but not socialist since the groceries stores are privately owned. Overall loved hearing his views.
All these conservatives like Scalia miss an important point. The recognition of property as such and the protection of property (by police) is not questioned by them. They take it for granted that there is a huge police apparatus which protects their wealth from being taken away by the poor. But if state protects property, the state should also protect minimum standards of material well-being for the poor. This is rather a question of fairness and security than a question of charity. On the other hand, socialism is not needed to fulfil this task. It is enough to have capitalism (with all its important advantages) and a social security system which works at least as good as the police.
"But if state protects property, the state should also provide minimum standards of material well-being for the poor" Could you explain your reasoning or your intuition here? I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other.
@@hans7686 The intuition is very easy to explain - I think it is quite self-evident. If a state protects properties of rich people by employing an expensive police - and in that same state the poor people have no housing or even no food or no health services, you can not call such a state state a democracy! Such a state acts solely in the interests of the rich part of the population and does not even represent the poor people and this is diametrically opposed to the idea of a democracy. Because of this important fact social security can have the status of a basic right. In fact in contemporary Germany this is the case, there is a currently valid German Supreme Court ruling which grants poor people welfare by state which includes cost for housing.
Your premise is incorrect - the police aren’t there to protect the property of the rich, but exist to enforce laws. Laws created by representative government - not democracy, per se, but within a constitutional republic. This constitutional republic represents the poor and the rich, and the middle, as well. You may rail against the state favoring the rich, at the expense of the poor, but that also leads to dichotomy - putting your finger on the scale to favor the poor, would destroy Justice. Justice, itself, alone, is altruistic. And therein lies the problem with socialism - preambling justice with some qualifier (social-, racial-, economic-…) leads to ‘x’ at the expense of ‘y’. Or, as Scalia put it, ‘what was once asked as a favor, is now demanded as an entitlement’. This entitlement is wholly economic. And, thankfully, those of us more soberly-minded understand that man is not merely an economic cog - as socialism requires - but is a much larger and more broadly member of a society.
@@arctain1 I am especially criticizing the views of conservatives like Scalia about social welfare. I am 100% sure that conservatives like Scalia will always defend the law which demands that police has to protect all kinds of private property. Even in communism (and socialism) police always protects private property (which also exists in such systems). So it is logical that if you want to have a society based on a common law which benefits ALL citizens - really also including those that are NOT materially rich - you have to provide a broad social security. This social security includes a guarantee that police can not enforce the payment of bills against materially poor people (proctection in case of private bankruptcy). So social security HAS TO BE PROVIDED by state IF you want to include every citizen into the statehood. There is no good alternative to that, but Scalia wrongly suggests such an alternative and calls that "Christian". This is what I criticize, and by the way: There is NO need to introduce socialism or communism. You can have a state-run welfare system in capitalism - in fact capitalism is incomplete without such a system!
@@hans7686 This is very easy. In capitalist societies police does very much to protect the properties of rich people and also the market standards are protected. So to have a really lawful society which also benefits people without much money, there must be a social security imposed by state (as police is also imposed by state). Such a social security also includes that police can not execute payments of debts it the debtor is really bankrupt.
It never happened that the BIG CHEESES would make sure to have a big properthink banner at the top of any of his old materials. That would never happen. It would be unmousable. AnuthhhherMousieStorie.
This is marvelous. I am surprised it has not been viewed more often.
It's been out for three years and yet only three comments. I find that astonishing, if for no other reason than it demonstrates a lack of interest in dissecting the intellect of this preeminent _thinker._ Lots of people will disagree with his positions and they're free to do so; but they won't be able to assault Scalia's intellect in order to prove themselves right. His intellect is unassailable.
@@briane173 Hardly.
Excellent. Thanks for uploading.
“He thinks the world owes him a living”
“ Donors without love and recipients without gratitude but entitlement. “
I see the point he's making, but the Old Testament does have a lot to say about the rights of the poor and even had safety nets in place to benefit the poor. I think we can have a minimum provision for every citizen while still leaving room for people to go above and beyond with charity.
Still, that's a public policy issue and not a theological one. It's quite apparent that the people have come to some consensus about having at least a minimum provision of relief in order to promote the general welfare; but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that a fundamental precept of Christianity is calling upon the _government_ to dispense charity, therefore leaving us taxpayers free to declare before God that we did the Christian thing by delegating the dispensation of charity to the central government.
Christ certainly didn't help the poor or elderly or disabled by handing them a welfare check or Medicaid at the expense of the wealthy, and he didn't goad government into doing it _for_ us. He admonished us all to give from our _hearts_ directly, personally, from our own wealth -- as a true gift and not an entitlement. Making government the middleman in that transaction isn't charity at all; all it does is relieve us of any direct responsibility to the less fortunate among us. And to the extent that government continues to tax us to pay for all that "charity," it robs even the most magnanimous among us of our ability to even _be_ charitable. We ought to be careful not to conflate public policy with a call to service to our fellow man as a demonstration of Christian virtue. Taxation and redistribution of wealth through the power of centralized government doesn't rise to that definition.
Do not conflate poor with lazy.
@@Joe-o4c4fThat's what conservatives have always done, sadly.
@@briane173So, to go back to the OP's point, why did the OT have the *law* to give a 'tithe' (a tenth), at the very least (many Israelites actually gave much more thru (religious) required donations, over 20% for some). Is it maybe because people always have been, and always will be, fundamentally quite selfish...?
@@briane173 That's entirely dependent on whether or not the government is Christian. If we're creating policies under the pretext of the United States being a Christian Nation as opposed to a Nation of Christians, then you have to concede your entire position.
Some conflation of socialism and welfare capitalism. For example, SNAP is redistributive but not socialist since the groceries stores are privately owned. Overall loved hearing his views.
Brilliant intellect. Missed.
+JMJ He was America's greatest Justice. Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace.
All these conservatives like Scalia miss an important point. The recognition of property as such and the protection of property (by police) is not questioned by them. They take it for granted that there is a huge police apparatus which protects their wealth from being taken away by the poor. But if state protects property, the state should also protect minimum standards of material well-being for the poor. This is rather a question of fairness and security than a question of charity.
On the other hand, socialism is not needed to fulfil this task.
It is enough to have capitalism (with all its important advantages) and a social security system which works at least as good as the police.
"But if state protects property, the state should also provide minimum standards of material well-being for the poor"
Could you explain your reasoning or your intuition here? I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other.
@@hans7686 The intuition is very easy to explain - I think it is quite self-evident.
If a state protects properties of rich people by employing an expensive police - and in that same state the poor people have no housing or even no food or no health services, you can not call such a state state a democracy!
Such a state acts solely in the interests of the rich part of the population and does not even represent the poor people and this is diametrically opposed to the idea of a democracy.
Because of this important fact social security can have the status of a basic right.
In fact in contemporary Germany this is the case, there is a currently valid German Supreme Court ruling which grants poor people welfare by state which includes cost for housing.
Your premise is incorrect - the police aren’t there to protect the property of the rich, but exist to enforce laws. Laws created by representative government - not democracy, per se, but within a constitutional republic. This constitutional republic represents the poor and the rich, and the middle, as well. You may rail against the state favoring the rich, at the expense of the poor, but that also leads to dichotomy - putting your finger on the scale to favor the poor, would destroy Justice. Justice, itself, alone, is altruistic.
And therein lies the problem with socialism - preambling justice with some qualifier (social-, racial-, economic-…) leads to ‘x’ at the expense of ‘y’. Or, as Scalia put it, ‘what was once asked as a favor, is now demanded as an entitlement’. This entitlement is wholly economic. And, thankfully, those of us more soberly-minded understand that man is not merely an economic cog - as socialism requires - but is a much larger and more broadly member of a society.
@@arctain1 I am especially criticizing the views of conservatives like Scalia about social welfare. I am 100% sure that conservatives like Scalia will always defend the law which demands that police has to protect all kinds of private property.
Even in communism (and socialism) police always protects private property (which also exists in such systems).
So it is logical that if you want to have a society based on a common law which benefits ALL citizens - really also including those that are NOT materially rich - you have to provide a broad social security.
This social security includes a guarantee that police can not enforce the payment of bills against materially poor people (proctection in case of private bankruptcy).
So social security HAS TO BE PROVIDED by state IF you want to include every citizen into the statehood. There is no good alternative to that, but Scalia wrongly suggests such an alternative and calls that "Christian".
This is what I criticize, and by the way: There is NO need to introduce socialism or communism. You can have a state-run welfare system in capitalism - in fact capitalism is incomplete without such a system!
@@hans7686 This is very easy. In capitalist societies police does very much to protect the properties of rich people and also the market standards are protected. So to have a really lawful society which also benefits people without much money, there must be a social security imposed by state (as police is also imposed by state).
Such a social security also includes that police can not execute payments of debts it the debtor is really bankrupt.
WITH ALL THAT'S HAPPEND !!!
SCALIA WAS MURDERED !!!
It never happened that the BIG CHEESES would make sure to have a big properthink banner at the top of any of his old materials. That would never happen. It would be unmousable. AnuthhhherMousieStorie.
Scalia was crap
I’m surprised he didn’t catch fire on walking in
Scalia was a horrible individual.
😂😂😂😂 Jada .. datchu??
What?
And you are an extremely confused person to think so!
And you must be a horribly confused person to think such a Good and decent person as Justice Scalia is a horrible person!
And you must be a horribly confused individual to think such a good and decent man as justice Scalia was a horrible person!