I’m going to expand on a point I made in a previous post. Among other things, Ron Paul proposes the following:
Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.
Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.
But what does he mean by a tax credit (or tax deduction)? Isn’t a tax credit an offset for something you pay taxes on?
Does he mean parents currently pay a federal child tax? Does he mean parents currently pay federal taxes for tutors, books, computers? Does he mean patients currently pay federal taxes on all medical expenses?
Or does he just mean that out of the sum total that a family pays in Federal taxes, a designated amount will be credited to the family for educational expenses–even if there’s no connection between what items they are taxed on and what items are credited.
Take a family of seven (mother, father, and five underage kids). Under Paul’s proposal, that family would receive a child tax credit of $25,000 per annum. Notice that this is a fixed amount. It’s not correlated to how much the parental wage-earner(s) actually pay(s) in federal taxes. It’s not a direct dollar-for-dollar offset.
Same thing with the tax credit for all medical expenses. It’s not prorated according to how much the patient pays in Federal taxes.
Indeed, isn’t that the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction? The tax credit is the same regardless of the tax bracket.
But if they are taking more out of the system than they are paying into the system, then isn’t a “child tax credit” just a euphemism for income redistribution? Manipulating the tax code to transfer wealth?
After all, that’s coming out of somebody’s pocket. Someone is taking up the slack. Someone (else) is subsidizing that family. But not the family receiving the child tax credit. Not if the tax credit exceeds what they pay in Federal taxes. (Same thing with patients.)
What if a single mother deliberately has kids out of wedlock to collect a tax credit for each child? Isn’t Paul’s proposal a recipe for welfare queens?
What about homosexual “couples” who adopt kids or have kids via reproductive technologies. Do they get a child tax credit?
What about junkies, or chain smokers, or the super morbidly obese? Do they get tax credits and tax refunds on all their medical expenses? Isn't that a safety-net for high-risk behavior? Who is footing the bill?
".. Ron Paul proposes the following:
ReplyDeleteHelp parents better educate their children.."
If you stop there it's pretty good. The tax credit thing is always tricky. Yet, tax credits is nice. Less taxes would be nice here in Maryland, where they love to take all our money.
You make some good challenges Steve. Keep them coming, because I want Ron paul to be even more transparent out here where we can all see him better, and see his integrity, along with his weakness, better.
The title of this post made me laugh out loud! If you're going to call Ron Paul a nanny-statist then I can only imagine what choice phrases you might have up your sleeve for totalitarian buffoons like Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama! Are you now joining me as an anarchist, Steve?
ReplyDeleteTaxation is always and necessarily wealth redistribution (ie, theft). From my perspective, then, any tax cut/credit/deduction/etc. is a step in the right direction. Our goal ought not be to make the tax system "fair" but rather to abolish taxation, because it is inherently, necessarily unfair.
Ron Paul, by the way, advocates for the total abolition of the income tax. Exactly how President Paul might try to accomplish that I'm not sure, but he's looking in the right direction. Of course, the income tax isn't the only tax that should be abolished (they all should be), but hey, that's pretty incredible to hear a viable presidential candidate calling for the elimination of the IRS.
There are three places on a Rederal Tax return where advantages to the returnee can be realized.
ReplyDelete1) Page 1, where deductions to income are authorized. Certain expenses can be claimed before taxes are applied. Perhaps such expenses could be removed here.
2) On the typical IRS 1040, pg.2, there is a section, following the "deductions" and "tax owed" lines, a section for "credits."
This is the section that lowers the tax owed (from all those tables in the back of the instructions) by some dollar figure. Add these together, and put the total on the line below tax owed.
The instructions are pretty clear. the lowest you can go is ZERO tax owed. There is no "credit" here that run the figures the other way, for freebies.
3) The end section further down the page, where "payments" are shown is where the govt. sometimes gets into outright income redistribution.
The EIC is in this section. This and certain other amounts for "qualified" people is a figure that is treated as if the filer had "paid" this money to the government--and if nothing is "owed" above, the Govt. acts as if the filer "overpaid." They then cut a "refund" check.
RonPaul's proposal can't possibly be thought of as belonging to this "refund" category. First, he calls his proposal a "credit." This puts it in the (2) category, which reduces the "amount owed" once the tax has been figured on income.
This, like a deduction to income from page 1, is a way of letting people keep their own money. RP's proposal is to let parents buy a computer for their child, instead of sending the $$ to the govt. If they are already at zero owed, the "credit" can't reduce the tax owed "below zero."
The govt. doesn't get anything, or spend anything in this scenario.
There is a question as to whether deductions and credits (others exist in this category, like additional child-tax credit, which is not EIC), that some people qualify for and not others, are fundamentally fair. These sorts of reductions in the aggregate amount to "raising taxes" on those who do not receive the break. Another example would be the mortgage interest deduction, hugely popular among new homeowners (tough-luck, renters?).
The other thing to keep in mind here is that Ron Paul is probably the only candidate who is serious about making dramatic cuts to federal spending (one trillion dollars in the first year alone), so it's hardly like we're talking about a zero-sum game here.
ReplyDeleteRP's "tax credit" would also go to many Americans who don't pay Federal income tax in the first place. Isn't that a giveaway?
ReplyDeleteStatists complain that libertarians think they can change the system overnight yet when a libertarian proposes incremental changes they charge the libertarian with statism.
ReplyDeleteGiven that this statement is more at home with a populist style candidate, this sounds like an instance of Paul trying to vie for the votes of your average GOP voter that would normally go to a Gingrich or Romney, and who would think it's a good plank in his platform. It moves away from his core beliefs (get rid of the Dept of Ed, for example) and he needs to do that in order to gain votes.
ReplyDeleteSo what you're identifying sounds more like a typical GOP candidate, so you should like that Steve ;)
Steve: "RP's "tax credit" would also go to many Americans who don't pay Federal income tax in the first place. Isn't that a giveaway?"
ReplyDeleteThis statement relies on the supposition that what RP is proposing by this "credit" is actually a new "refund" like the EIC (earned income credit). Where is the evidence that this is his proposal?
Isn't it most likely that, assuming this "credit" went through, that it would function like most of the other "credits" on the Federal return? That is to say (I mean, repeat myself), that these credits cannot "reduce" anyone's taxes beyond ZERO.
The EIC is a *misnomer*. It is, in many cases, a payment in the form of a "refund" that isn't actually any money sent in. Albeit, in a significant portion of those cases, the amount to be "refunded" is deducted from the FICA taxes paid in for the year. This means that the FICA is credited to the SSNs in the SocialSecurity system, but the money is returned to the filer.
Then, there is also the "employer" portion (50%) of the FICA tax, which is a cost-of-hire that the typical employee never sees or realizes. The result of this hidden taxation and redistribution through the govt. filter is that the govt. is seen as the benefactor, even to many working poor.
Bottom line is: the proposal has been TWICE made, without the least substantiation, that RP's proposal (whatever its actual demerits) supposes that this education credit ends up being money-paid to people who haven't even paid this much in taxes. This can only be the case if RPs proposal was to make this "credit" into an actual "refund." Where is the evidence that this is what he has in mind?
In my opinion, the suggestion is simply invidious. I read this blog every single day for its rigorous Christian apologetic. I expect as much rigor and unflinching fairness in treating other topics, assuming they deserve the time of a blog-post.
Can't we have a more substantive interaction with a candidate's views than this weak attempt at finding an "inconsistency" in his views. It's not like he doesn't have a track-record or anything...
BRUCE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Bottom line is: the proposal has been TWICE made, without the least substantiation, that RP's proposal (whatever its actual demerits) supposes that this education credit ends up being money-paid to people who haven't even paid this much in taxes. This can only be the case if RPs proposal was to make this 'credit' into an actual 'refund.' Where is the evidence that this is what he has in mind."
The evidence is supplied by RP himself, when he offers this without any further conditions to parents. If you have a kid, you get $5K per kid for educational expenses. It isn't tied to how much the parent(s) pay into the system. It's a fixed amount. The only stated qualification is that you have one or more kids. That's what it says right on his official campaign website. I don't need any more substantiation than that.
"It's not like he doesn't have a track-record or anything..."
Yes, he has a record of making occasionally reasonable statements, followed by lunatic statements.
Like visiting a patient in a mental ward who sounds quite lucid for most of the conversation. You wonder why he was committed.
Then, as you leave, he pulls you aside and warns you about how the world is controlled by a global network of telepathically linked potted plants. He gestures ominously to one of the sinister plants in the corner window of the rec room.
You nod in silent agreement, then beat a hasty retreat.
I'm surprised how emotionally attached to Ron Paul some of his supporters are. Of course, not all (e.g. Don Sands seems quite level-headed and reasonable). It's as if Ron Paul were some sort of messianic figure and to point out a deficiency in the candidate tantamount to blasphemy.
ReplyDeleteSince when did we invest so much of ourselves in any politician? I have my favorites for whom I'd cast a vote, but I wouldn't say any of them are beyond criticism.
neurotransmitter said:
ReplyDelete"Judging by the reactions, I'm surprised how emotionally attached to Ron Paul some of his supporters are."
I don't think it's so much an emotional attachment as when compared to the rest of the field it's a no-brainer.
Consider:
Romney: Typical Mormon willing to say or do anything to gain power so that he can achieve some higher level Mormon heaven.
Gingrich: An egomaniac with plans to take over the world. It was kinda fun when Cain was still running because it was like watching new episodes of Pinky and the Brain. Now the Brain is just scary.
Perry: Texan. Need I say more? He's like a cartoon character of the stereotype.
Bachmann: Manifests every deficiency in Evangelical politics.
Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire.
Huntsman: Toad.
Paul, OTOH, just speaks old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma. For those of us that grew up in Reformed churches it's just preaching to the choir. It's part of our historical identity. Apparently that identity doesn't necessarily transfer for those who convert to Reformed Churches.
Even someone like DG Hart who, for all his bluster about 2k theology, turns out to be 1k after all. His ultra traditional ecclesiology is complimented with an ultra traditional politic.
STEVE:
ReplyDelete"The evidence is supplied by RP himself, when he offers this without any further conditions to parents. If you have a kid, you get $5K per kid for educational expenses. It isn't tied to how much the parent(s) pay into the system. It's a fixed amount. The only stated qualification is that you have one or more kids. That's what it says right on his official campaign website. I don't need any more substantiation than that."
Well, your response just makes me doubt you do your own taxes. You aren't familiar with the language of ordinary discourse on the subject. My replies show the opposite; but you haven't made the least effort to make any commentary adjustments to the facts that have been presented to you.
It's standard for statements regarding deductions or credits to make use of universal language. Just as in the case of interpreting Scripture, there are qualifications that apply to such statements, but they may not be revealed in the immediate context.
The text of the IRS instructions may speak "universally" of the mortgage-interest deduction, that is it is available to "everyone." However, there are at least two qualifications that may be unstated. One: a person needs a qualified mortgage. Two: he must have interest payments that meet the criteria.
Everyone may take advantage of the "foreign tax paid on investment income" tax-credit. Unless you didn't pay any foreign taxes in that category.
Every family has been accorded a "$1000" tax credit per child (no number limitations). This is already in the tax-code, and it has nothing to do with RP's suggestions. (Furthermore, this is NOT the notorious EIC-welfare-refund.) Of course, you still need children to get it.
AND (I speak from experience) since I make less money than the sum-total of all the standard deductions for my family, I DON'T GET THIS CREDIT.
But, but, but... It's Universal! Yes, it is. Except, I don't get it, because my tax liability is ZERO before it can even be applied.
What would be absurd would be expecting the 1040 instructions to spell out every conceivable condition where the general, universal availability of the credit does not apply. And they don't.
The filer does the worksheet, and it tells him at the end, "if the number on line Xx is ZERO or less, you cannot take this credit. There is no tax to reduce. Put ZERO on 1040, line XX."
These are not hard issues to come to terms with. RP's proposal is not only sane, it is consistent with his principles of giving people their own money back, and nothing more sinister than that.
Certainly RP's proposal is not a case of promoting the welfare state by increasing the grotesque example of the EIC. His whole Congressional career has been opposed to the very notion. Unless one is perversely determined to put the worst construction on his words, to suggest such is simply ignorant--both of RP, and tax-forms.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Romney: Typical Mormon willing to say or do anything to gain power so that he can achieve some higher level Mormon heaven.
"Gingrich: An egomaniac with plans to take over the world. It was kinda fun when Cain was still running because it was like watching new episodes of Pinky and the Brain. Now the Brain is just scary.
"Perry: Texan. Need I say more? He's like a cartoon character of the stereotype.
"Bachmann: Manifests every deficiency in Evangelical politics.
"Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire.
"Huntsman: Toad.
"Paul, OTOH, just speaks old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma. For those of us that grew up in Reformed churches it's just preaching to the choir. It's part of our historical identity. Apparently that identity doesn't necessarily transfer for those who convert to Reformed Churches."
1. Wow. With all due respect, your descriptions of the candidates are broadbrushed invidious caricatures rather than reasoned, dissenting argumentation.
2. This includes your description of Ron Paul which you might not consider invidious but which nevertheless isn't exactly judicious. I'm not sure Ron Paul himself would think that's what he's doing.
On a side note, last I checked, Ron Paul considers himself a Baptist.
3. What does "old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma" mean? Are you referring to the theology of men like Robert Lewis Dabney and James Henley Thornwell?
4. By the way, even if we were to agree Ron Paul "just speaks old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma" (whatever that means), it doesn't necessarily mean it's wise for the POTUS to adopt. That's something we should debate.
neurotransmitter said:
ReplyDelete"1. Wow. With all due respect, your descriptions of the candidates are broadbrushed invidious caricatures rather than reasoned, dissenting argumentation"
Well, that's remarkable considering your initial comment feigned being incredulous at the reaction to steve's invidious comments about Paul. Apparently that which is invidious is completely subjective, the emotional state caused by a reader response coupled with a strong myside bias.
I simply gave the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates
through which their policy positions can be analyzed.
"2. This includes your description of Ron Paul which you might not consider invidious but which nevertheless isn't exactly judicious. I'm not sure Ron Paul himself would think that's what he's doing.
On a side note, last I checked, Ron Paul considers himself a Baptist."
Ron Paul was raised Lutheran so I assume that Lutheran Two Kingdom theology formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs. Early Reformers like Beza built upon the Lutheran foundation and it's nexus was achieved during the formation of this country.
"3. What does "old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma" mean? Are you referring to the theology of men like Robert Lewis Dabney and James Henley Thornwell?"
That's simply what King Charles III called the American Revolution.
"4. By the way, even if we were to agree Ron Paul "just speaks old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma" (whatever that means), it doesn't necessarily mean it's wise for the POTUS to adopt. That's something we should debate."
If it isn't wise for POTUS to follow the Constitution then I suppose they shouldn't take an oath to do so.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Well, that's remarkable considering your initial comment feigned being incredulous at the reaction to steve's invidious comments about Paul. Apparently that which is invidious is completely subjective, the emotional state caused by a reader response coupled with a strong myside bias."
Unfortunately statements like this simply prove my "initial comment."
"I simply gave the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates through which their policy positions can be analyzed."
I don't have to do anything besides quote your own words. Honestly, it's a huge stretch of the imagination to see how a statement like "Huntsman: Toad" gives "the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates"!
"Ron Paul was raised Lutheran so I assume that Lutheran Two Kingdom theology formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs."
This is quite an assumption since you don't provide supporting evidence.
Also, you leave out the relevant question of how "Lutheran Two Kingdom theology" is related to "presbyterian rebellion dogma." Have the majority of Presbyterians in the past espoused Lutheran 2K theology? Is there a historical Presbyterian position on the proper relationship between the state and the church (since you brought up "historical identity")? What was Calvin's view on the state and church? What about other Presbyterian theologians down through the ages? These are the sorts of questions you should be addressing.
Moreover, even if one agrees for the sake of argument Lutheran 2K theology "formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs," and that Lutheran 2K theology is somehow relevant to "presbyterian rebellion dogma" (which you don't actually spell out and you should for your point to hold any water), how is this relevant to Ron Paul's current beliefs such as (I take it you'd want to bring up) his views on the separation of church and state, for instance? What about his other views and policies?
"That's simply what King Charles III called the American Revolution."
Unless perhaps you're hoping the Prince of Wales becomes the king and keeps his current name for his regnal name and that this somehow impacts on the American Revolution, or somehow think King Charles III of Spain is a key player in all this, it sounds like you've mistaken your history: I believe you mean King George III.
"If it isn't wise for POTUS to follow the Constitution then I suppose they shouldn't take an oath to do so."
Of course, this statement assumes Ron Paul's policies (which you vaguely and inexplicably associate with "presbyterian rebellion dogma") are consistent with following the Constitution. That may or may not be the case.
However, given your emotive behavior, your lack of logic, and your poor command of basic historical facts in your response to me, it's probably a bad idea for anyone to trust your judgment on the issue.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Paul, OTOH, just speaks old fashion presbyterian rebellion dogma. For those of us that grew up in Reformed churches it's just preaching to the choir. It's part of our historical identity. Apparently that identity doesn't necessarily transfer for those who convert to Reformed Churches."
This assumes the "historical identity" is worth "transferring" to "those who convert to Reformed Churches." But what if the "historical identity" has become an ingrown tradition? What if it reflects an insular or parochial mindset?
Or even if the tradition is sound, what if the attitude is not? What if "those of us that grew up in Reformed churches" have come to somehow believe themselves to be superior to "those who convert to Reformed Churches" by virtue of having grown up in "Reformed churches"?
BRUCE SAID:
ReplyDelete“My replies show the opposite; but you haven't made the least effort to make any commentary adjustments to the facts that have been presented to you.”
That’s because your “facts” aren’t coming from Ron Paul. I’m judging his position by what he proises on his official campaign website.
You, by contrast, are citing current tax law. Is that what Ron Paul is running on? Maintaining the status quo?
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Ron Paul was raised Lutheran so I assume that Lutheran Two Kingdom theology formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs. Early Reformers like Beza built upon the Lutheran foundation and it's nexus was achieved during the formation of this country."
At a minimum, you appear to claim the following:
(1) Ron Paul was a Lutheran and as such was informed by Lutheran 2K theology
(2) Beza built on Lutheran 2K theology
(3) Beza's construction was somehow incorporated into the formation of the USA
(4) Beza's construction upon Lutheran 2K foundations reached its nexus in the formation of the USA
(5) This nexus somehow correlates with "presbyterian rebellion dogma"
(6) Further "presbyterian rebellion dogma" significantly correlates with Ron Paul's supposed foundational background in Lutheran 2K theology
(7) All this is relevant to Ron Paul's current views and policies
But you leave each of these unsubstantiated.
neuro said:
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately statements like this simply prove my "initial comment.""
I take that non-answer as a concession to my point.
"This is quite an assumption since you don't provide supporting evidence."
Right. That's the definition of assumption. What's with you expecting a dissertation on each point? That's a little unreasonable for a combox, isn't it? Isn't it possible to make a reasonable assumption based upon a groups practices and sociology? Of course that doesn't prove it to be a fact but we're dealing with sociology not bio-chemistry.
"Also, you leave out the relevant question of how "Lutheran Two Kingdom theology" is related to "presbyterian rebellion dogma."
Actually I did when I pointed out that Reformed men like Beza built upon L2K. (BTW, your last post missed the fact that I said like Beza, implying that he was one of many, so your construction of what you think is implied in my statement is off. Try again.)
"Moreover, even if one agrees for the sake of argument Lutheran 2K theology "formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs," and that Lutheran 2K theology is somehow relevant to "presbyterian rebellion dogma" (which you don't actually spell out and you should for your point to hold any water), how is this relevant to Ron Paul's current beliefs such as (I take it you'd want to bring up) his views on the separation of church and state, for instance? What about his other views and policies?"
Again, this is a combox, and a Reformed blog, so one would hope his dialogue partner would hold some common knowledge so that every point doesn't need to be parsed to the nth degree. It's pretty common knowledge that Paul is a hardcore Constitutionalist.
I've outlined a general projection from the Reformation to the Constitution. If Paul assumes the philosophy of the Constitution the question becomes from whence did the philosophy of the constitution derive? But of course this assumes you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of the Constitution. None of this is going to give you satisfaction because you demand that sociology provide the same sort of evidence as that of natural science.
"This assumes the "historical identity" is worth "transferring" to "those who convert to Reformed Churches." But what if the "historical identity" has become an ingrown tradition? What if it reflects an insular or parochial mindset?"
That's a good question. It's analogous to the question of why should Mexicans immigrants assimilate to American culture. The PCUSA is an example of a "Reformed" church that left it's historical identity. Can we draw any conclusions from the PCUSA's departure from historic Reformed theology to it's departure from historic Reformed politics?
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"I take that non-answer as a concession to my point."
1. For one thing, your "point" was to accuse me of feigning incredulity. I'm not sure that even deserved an answer in the first place.
2. For another, I take it your "non-answer" of "Charles III" is "a concession to my point" as well?
3. Anyway if you're not satisfied with my "non-answer," maybe it'll help if you keep in mind my "non-answer" was pegged on your own answer.
"Right. That's the definition of assumption."
Speaking of concessions, thanks.
"What's with you expecting a dissertation on each point? That's a little unreasonable for a combox, isn't it?"
This is another caricature. I'm not asking you to provide a "dissertation on each point." I'm just asking you to back up your assertions.
Indeed, what's truly "unreasonable" is your emotion-laden assertions.
Or do you seriously think it's true saying stuff like "Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire" and "Huntsman: Toad" without anything further gives "the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates"?
"Isn't it possible to make a reasonable assumption based upon a groups practices and sociology?"
Yes, that'd be an improvement on your part. But you don't even do this much.
Since when does Ron Paul being raised Lutheran necessarily involve "Lutheran Two Kingdom theology form[ing] a foundation in his maturing political beliefs"? Not to mention all your other claims which I've listed above.
"Actually I did when I pointed out that Reformed men like Beza built upon L2K."
By "pointed out" you mean "asserted without argument."
"(BTW, your last post missed the fact that I said like Beza, implying that he was one of many, so your construction of what you think is implied in my statement is off. Try again.)"
Really, that's your objection to my point? Okay, go ahead and add whichever Reformers you'd like to add. You still don't connect the dots in your claims.
"Again, this is a combox, and a Reformed blog, so one would hope his dialogue partner would hold some common knowledge so that every point doesn't need to be parsed to the nth degree. It's pretty common knowledge that Paul is a hardcore Constitutionalist."
The point of my questions was hardly to have you spell all this out "to the nth degree." Rather the point of my questions was simply to ask you to make good on your own claims.
"I've outlined a general projection from the Reformation to the Constitution."
Where? It's not evident in this thread. All that's evident in this thread is a few unsubstantiated and vague claims including "Ron Paul was raised Lutheran so I assume that Lutheran Two Kingdom theology formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs. Early Reformers like Beza built upon the Lutheran foundation and it's nexus was achieved during the formation of this country."
"If Paul assumes the philosophy of the Constitution the question becomes from whence did the philosophy of the constitution derive?"
ReplyDelete1. Insofar as I can tell from your muddy statements, you originally made a dual-pronged contention.
On the one hand, that there's a line connecting some of the Reformers' thinking and our Constitution (which you don't bother to draw or connect).
On the other hand, that Ron Paul was raised in a Lutheran church and that being raised in a Lutheran church somehow meant "Lutheran Two Kingdom theology formed a foundation in his maturing political beliefs" (even though there are other people raised in Lutheran churches where this isn't necessarily the case).
And it appears you somehow connect the former with the latter to assert that Ron Paul is therefore in this alleged Reformation-Constitution heritage which in turn I'm guessing you somehow associate with "presbyterian rebellion dogma" (which again you still haven't explained).
2. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't. But again the problem is you don't bother to connect the dots. You just brush it off and say things like it's "common knowledge," "a reasonable assumption," "we're dealing with sociology not bio-chemistry," etc.
3. You should check out primary sources. Like what James Madison wrote since he's generally considered the primary author of the Constitution. Particularly The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Were they so directly and centrally influenced by the Reformers as to warrant your own claims?
Likewise check out modern historical appraisals like Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis.
Or the work of intellectual historians like Bernard Bailyn and his protege Gordon Wood.
Or a book like Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Forrest McDonald, which I seem to recall Ron Paul actually citing in the past but I could be mistaken. For starters does this work even talk about Reformers like Luther or Beza?
For that matter, does someone like Kevin Gutzman even make as much about the Reformers influencing the Constitution as you do?
4. Speaking for myself, while I would think one could make a case for some of the Reformers influencing the Founding Fathers' work on the Constitution, I don't think it's as clear-cut and direct as you seem to think it is. I would think it's more of an indirect route. Not say A to B, but more like A to B to C to D to E.
Nor do I think the influence of the Reformers on the Constitution is as central as you appear to think it is. I would think it's also diluted by other factors such as certain intellectual developments in the Enlightenment.
"But of course this assumes you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of the Constitution. None of this is going to give you satisfaction because you demand that sociology provide the same sort of evidence as that of natural science."
1. No, you're mistaken. This isn't even about me or my expectations. Let alone evidentiary standards. I don't know why you keep pushing it onto me.
2. Once again, all I'm asking for you to do is make good on your own claims and assertions based on common sense, logic, and reason. I'm not asking you to run a double or triple blind randomized controlled trial.
3. By the way, it's not merely about "sociology." You keep saying sociology but there's obviously a lot more than sociology feeding into all this.
"Can we draw any conclusions from the PCUSA's departure from historic Reformed theology to it's departure from historic Reformed politics?
That depends. What are you suggesting about "historic Reformed politics"?
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"I've outlined a general projection from the Reformation to the Constitution. If Paul assumes the philosophy of the Constitution the question becomes from whence did the philosophy of the constitution derive? But of course this assumes you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of the Constitution."
I've already mentioned above other possible influences on "the philosophy of the Constitution" such as Enlightenment thinkers.
Moreover I've listed above several primary and secondary resources with which gsnieder might consider familiarizing himself (e.g. The Federalist Papers, Founding Brothers, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution).
Now I'd add he might consider what influence the ancient Greeks had in "the philosophy of the Constitution" as well. For starters, check out Paul Rahe's books, papers, and articles.
At this point, I don't "assume" gsnieder has "a basic understanding of the philosophy of the Constitution." Hence the suggested material.
neuro-
ReplyDeleteI believe what were seeing is a neo-social gospel movement in the "conservative" American mind. It's a weird amalgamation of conservative Romanists and conservative Evangelicals.
The creation of an all controlling empire will solve humanities problems. The motif of "a shining city on a hill" is placed in service to promote empire building. Reagan's use of the historic term was against communistic totalitarianism and for liberty. The way the term is used now is to promote unbridled expansionism at the expense of liberty.
Rick Santorum is a traditional Romanist. The implications of traditional Romanism is a hierarchical,centralized authority dictating to the lower magistrates. Sure, they blather on about subsidiarity, but the end game is an "ordered society" cast in the image of the ruling elite.
Michelle Bachmann is the other side of this coin. She, too, wants to cure social ills. If elected, she'll use the power of the office to cure fags and save Israel so Christ can return and rule for a 1000 years in Jerusalem.
Most of these types of conservatives, even if they happen to believe in one side of the coin or the other, realize that neither of these candidates is electable so they opt for a candidate who is only minimally less progressive than the current President, a Romney or Gingrich, such that the difference between the old social gospellers and neo-social gospellers is barely perceptible.
Just as the Church is not the means for which the gospel is applied to the irreducible individual so the State is not the means by which the irreducible individual receives his liberties. Liberties are already a given.
This idea of inalienable liberties is an anethema to technocrats who believe their elite driven criteria will produce the most pragmatic happiness. And, if only, they could co-opt the rest of the world into their technocratic program the cost of liberty and her accompanying fruits would be a reasonable price to pay in their minds.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"The creation of an all controlling empire will solve humanities problems."
This is the propagandist straw man that libertarian/Ron Paul supporters impute to anyone who doesn't share their "noninteventionism." If you don't agree with Ron Paul, then you must be a "neocon." You must believe in the American Empire. But that's nonsense. It's a substitute for rational discourse.
For instance, you could be a foreign policy hawk, but oppose the Iraq war. Robert Novak and William F. Buckley are two examples. Kissinger also had serious reservations about the Iraq war.
Likewise, you could support regime-change in Iraq, but oppose our nation-building schemes in Iraq and Afghanistan. For instance, you might prefer the old cold war strategy of toppling a hostile regime and then installing a puppet regime to take its place.
In addition, if you support military intervention in certain hotspots around the world, that's hardly the same thing as Empire America. It's quite selective, and temporary.
"Michelle Bachmann is the other side of this coin. She, too, wants to cure social ills. If elected, she'll use the power of the office to cure fags and save Israel so Christ can return and rule for a 1000 years in Jerusalem."
Until recently, Bachmann was Lutheran. Traditionally, Lutherans are amils, not dispensationalists.
"Rick Santorum is a traditional Romanist."
Yes, Santorum is Roman Catholic. However, Calvinism has a doctrine of common grace. Conservative Catholics can make good civil servants. Look at Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.
We're not considering Santorum in isolation. It's how he stacks up compared with the other candidates on the stage.
In addition, even if Ron Paul had better theology than Santorum, it doesn't matter because Ron Paul's libertarian ideology is essentially secular. Ron Paul's theology is fairly irrelevant because he doesn't allow his theology to have much input on public policy.
neuro said:
ReplyDelete"This is the propagandist straw man that libertarian/Ron Paul supporters impute to anyone who doesn't share their "noninteventionism." If you don't agree with Ron Paul, then you must be a "neocon."
For instance, you could be a foreign policy hawk... Robert Novak and William F. Buckley are two examples"
I find it interesting how you use the old liberal tactic of trying to redefine a term to soften the connotation. So instead of a "neocon" they're merely a "foreign policy hawk", whatever that means. Would Novak even deny he's a neocon? No, he aligns himself with the movement.
It's not merely that neocons dream of "spreading democracy" that defines the movement but it's also coupled with a strong emphasis in social engineering. They're liberal wolves in conservative sheep clothing. Next you'll try to tell me that Bill Kristol is just a misunderstood tea party patriot!
And what's the defining characteristic that Santorum, Novak, and Buckley share? Why, they're all 3 Romanists! Little vicars of Christ directing the unwashed masses. Engineering the perfect social order like the good technocrats they are.
Sure, there may be differences amongst the technocrats as to the best tactics in accomplishing the social order. Maybe there is a nation of the unwashed that isn't ready for democracy so let's install a benevolent dictator instead. Oh glory! To think of the great success stories we've had with the likes of the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet in Chile, to name but a few. Hail, Hail, the NeoCons!
"In addition, even if Ron Paul had better theology than Santorum, it doesn't matter because Ron Paul's libertarian ideology is essentially secular."
You miss the point. It's not the theology per se but the implications from the theology that drives the public policy. So as I pointed out in the other thread, the implication of Reformed theology is liberty based polity. Romanism is a hierarchical religion and so politicians from that religion tend to favor an hierarchical system in secular society. That's not always the case as there are libertarian Romanists. They place greater weight on Natural Law for secular society.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"I find it interesting how you use the old liberal tactic of trying to redefine a term to soften the connotation. So instead of a 'neocon' they're merely a 'foreign policy hawk', whatever that means."
i) Since you haven't bothered to define "neocon," you can hardly accuse Patrick of "redefining" it.
ii) The term "hawk" has been around forever. It's hardly a neologism.
"Would Novak even deny he's a neocon? No, he aligns himself with the movement."
A neocon who opposed the Iraq war. So what's the difference between a neocon and a non-neocon?
"It's not merely that neocons dream of 'spreading democracy' that defines the movement but it's also coupled with a strong emphasis in social engineering. They're liberal wolves in conservative sheep clothing."
So if hawks (allegedly) support social engineering, that makes them neocons, but if doves support social engineering, that makes then neocons, too. Is Chomsky a neocon?
"And what's the defining characteristic that Santorum, Novak, and Buckley share? Why, they're all 3 Romanists!"
One of whom supported the Iraq war, two of whom opposed it. Like conspiracy theorists generally, your theory is driving the evidence rather than the evidence driving your theory.
"Little vicars of Christ directing the unwashed masses. Engineering the perfect social order like the good technocrats they are."
Even conservative Catholics feel free to disregard papal positions on war or capital punishment. They dismiss these as "prudential" questions. So it's simplistic to assume that Catholics, even conservative Catholics, take their marching orders from the pope.
Consider the war on terror. The Vatican opposed it while many conservative Catholic pundits supported it.
"To think of the great success stories we've had with the likes of the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet in Chile, to name but a few. Hail, Hail, the NeoCons!"
Actually, the containment policy was successful in inhibiting the expansionist ambitious of the Soviet Union.
"So as I pointed out in the other thread, the implication of Reformed theology is liberty based polity."
Really? Was Calvin's Geneva libertarian? Was Samuel Rutherford libertarian? Was Abraham Kuyper libertarian? Were the New England theocracies libertarian?