73 replies to this topic

[Stephen]

There are some core beliefs that are held on this board that are highly misunderstood and the subject of much disagreement. So I would like to ask the question:

What are the duties that other's owe to us?

[Richie]

I am not sure what you mean. As a brother in Christ I don't demand anyone's duty towards me. I am a servant.

[R2D2]

I agree with Richie. From a Biblical perspective, your question would be better phrased "what are the duties that we owe others?"

[Netsach Yisrael]

I saw what you did there, Stephen.

[Stephen]

R2D2, on Mar 12 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

I agree with Richie. From a Biblical perspective, your question would be better phrased "what are the duties that we owe others?"

I may or may not agree with the first part as I do not wish to lead the witness (but my stance can be readily deduced).

As for the second half of your post, I would like to explore the flip side of the question, hence the phrasing. How we view other's duties to us and their compliance thereof has a bearing on how we treat them does it not. If we are not rational or scriptural about what we think the other's duties to us are, we may not treat them in a manner that we should.

Edited by Stephen, 12 March 2010 - 11:25 PM.

[R2D2]

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

R2D2, on Mar 12 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

I agree with Richie. From a Biblical perspective, your question would be better phrased "what are the duties that we owe others?"

I may or may not agree with the first part as I do not wish to lead the witness (but my stance can be readily deduced).

As for the second half of your post, I would like to explore the flip side of the question, hence the phrasing. How we view other's duties to us and their compliance thereof has a bearing on how we treat them does it not. If we are not rational or scriptural about what we think the other's duties to us are, we may not treat them in a manner that we should.

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

[Richie]

Stephen, on Mar 12 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

How we view other's duties to us and their compliance thereof has a bearing on how we treat them does it not. If we are not rational or scriptural about what we think the other's duties to us are, we may not treat them in a manner that we should.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you still but surely it shouldn't enter into the equation at all, how others treat us based on their duty towards us?

For instance, currently we are in a business relationship with our landlady, who happens to be sociopath. Legally and ethically her duty towards us does not bear any relation to how she actually treats us. I could go on an on with how much of a nutcase she is and how glad we're moving out in May but does that mean, because she is not treating us properly as her tenants, that we should treat her in a manner less than as our landlady? Should there be an eye for an eye, and we act like sociopaths towards her too? Or should we continue being polite and patient despite the stress of the whole situation?

Forgive me if I am clueless as to the intent of your question!

[Evangelion]

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

[Stephen]

R2D2, on Mar 12 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

I don't care if the person with the duty is generous or a freeloader (or for that matter, Christian or otherwise). In the case of a duty, consent is not relevant. I want to know what a reasonable expectation of what others owe is.

The question comes from the following logical construct:

If duties exist, and I have them to other people, then it follows that the other people have duties and that I am one of the other people to them. Therefore, they have duties to me.

What are those duties? I not interested in your duties or my duties, I want to know what belongs to others that it is reasonable to lay claim to. Claim can be laid either directly or indirectly through an agency.

Scriptural perspective preferred but others welcomed.

[Stephen]

Evangelion, on Mar 12 2010, 05:41 PM, said:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Pithy statements from politicians aside, do you have an answer?

[Netsach Yisrael]

R2D2, on Mar 13 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

Like Stephen said, he's not talking about the "free rider problem" at all. He's asking, "What does everyone else owe me?" Everyone is amazingly reluctant to answer that question, so I'll bite. Everyone owes me, at the very least, food and shelter.

[Evangelion]

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Mar 12 2010, 05:41 PM, said:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Pithy statements from politicians aside, do you have an answer?

Yes. The duty that others owe us is the same duty we owe them: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

[janice]

I would be thinking along the lines of honesty.
I feel that other people have to be honest in their communication otherwise I will feel absolved from some of my duties to them - e.g in simplistic terms if I ask someone if they need help, and they can communicate clearly and calmly that they do not need any help and do not wish to hear from me on the matter again, to my mind my duty to them has been discharged. It is their duty to be honest in their communication.
I think it is the one duty I demand of everyone.
From a scriptural perspective I feel it is one thing God requires. Although he provides basic life necessities to all ( rain on the just and the unjust) if you deny the need for help then help (salvation) does not appear on your doorstep.

[R2D2]

Netsach Yisrael, on Mar 13 2010, 12:06 PM, said:

R2D2, on Mar 13 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

Like Stephen said, he's not talking about the "free rider problem" at all. He's asking, "What does everyone else owe me?" Everyone is amazingly reluctant to answer that question, so I'll bite. Everyone owes me, at the very least, food and shelter.

No reluctance at all, just wasn't sure where he or you were coming from. Okay please elaborate on the statement above with scripture so that I can chew it over and give some thoughts.

[R2D2]

Evangelion, on Mar 13 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Mar 12 2010, 05:41 PM, said:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Pithy statements from politicians aside, do you have an answer?

Yes. The duty that others owe us is the same duty we owe them: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

That came to my mind too. But I didn't want to second guess.

[Stephen]

Richie, on Mar 12 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

Forgive me if I am clueless as to the intent of your question!

I hope I've cleared it up by now in one of the posts above. If not let me know.

[Stephen]

Evangelion, on Mar 12 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

Yes. The duty that others owe us is the same duty we owe them: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

How should that love be expressed so that I can lay claim to it weather or not they consent?

[Evangelion]

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Mar 12 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

Yes. The duty that others owe us is the same duty we owe them: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

How should that love be expressed

Surely it would be self evident? Eg. treating you decently, perhaps occasionally contributing to your welfare when you are in need, etc.

Quote

so that I can lay claim to it weather or not they consent?

You can lay claim to it all you want, regardless of whether or not they consent. Just be prepared for a lot of rejection. Especially from libertarians.

[Fortigurn]

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 08:49 AM, said:

I not interested in your duties or my duties, I want to know what belongs to others that it is reasonable to lay claim to. Claim can be laid either directly or indirectly through an agency.

I think that 'What do others owe me?' is a bad way to think.

[Evangelion]

Fortigurn, on Mar 13 2010, 12:09 PM, said:

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 08:49 AM, said:

I not interested in your duties or my duties, I want to know what belongs to others that it is reasonable to lay claim to. Claim can be laid either directly or indirectly through an agency.

I think that 'What do others owe me?' is a bad way to think.

That's why I quoted Kennedy. Stephen dismissed the quote, apparently missing its relevance to this discussion.

[Stephen]

Netsach Yisrael, on Mar 12 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

R2D2, on Mar 13 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

Like Stephen said, he's not talking about the "free rider problem" at all. He's asking, "What does everyone else owe me?" Everyone is amazingly reluctant to answer that question, so I'll bite. Everyone owes me, at the very least, food and shelter.

If I'm guessing correctly, you are in your mid to late 30's and have 50 or so years of life left. Leaving your wife and child aside, we owe you 3 meals a day, x 365 days per year x 50 years. At $5 per meal that is $273,750. The median family income in the US is roughly $50,000 which means you (just you) laid claim to 5.5 family years worth of income or about 7% of a family's life. As it is everybody elses's duty, consent is not required.

That is before housing.



Wow!!!!

[R2D2]

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

Netsach Yisrael, on Mar 12 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

R2D2, on Mar 13 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

Like Stephen said, he's not talking about the "free rider problem" at all. He's asking, "What does everyone else owe me?" Everyone is amazingly reluctant to answer that question, so I'll bite. Everyone owes me, at the very least, food and shelter.

If I'm guessing correctly, you are in your mid to late 30's and have 50 or so years of life left. Leaving your wife and child aside, we owe you 3 meals a day, x 365 days per year x 50 years. At $5 per meal that is $273,750. The median family income in the US is roughly $50,000 which means you (just you) laid claim to 5.5 family years worth of income or about 7% of a family's life. As it is everybody elses's duty, consent is not required.

That is before housing.



Wow!!!!

Who is this question directed to? It's not clear from your quotation tags.

But if to me, you've got a few details wrong about me I'm afraid. People that know me would be a bit worried if I had a wife.

Consent is implicitly given by mandate through the voting system. Welfare is means tested and people have to show that they are actively seeking to support themselves independently. This is what the majority of the people want and it's not practical to have individuals with libertarian beliefs opt out. We do not encourage ecclesias to be run that way for good practical reasons.

[Stephen]

Fortigurn, on Mar 12 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 08:49 AM, said:

I not interested in your duties or my duties, I want to know what belongs to others that it is reasonable to lay claim to. Claim can be laid either directly or indirectly through an agency.

I think that 'What do others owe me?' is a bad way to think.

As a logical consequence of that assertion, is it therefore reasonable to conclude that when others think "Stephen has a duty to them" that it is reasonable and just to think that they are thinking badly?

[Fortigurn]

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

As a logical consequence of that assertion, is it therefore reasonable to conclude that when others think "Stephen has a duty to them" that it is reasonable and just to think that they are thinking badly?

Yes. Even when it's corporations insisting that the government has the duty to let them make as much money as they can using whatever methods they feel necessary.

[Netsach Yisrael]

R2D2, on Mar 13 2010, 01:16 AM, said:

Netsach Yisrael, on Mar 13 2010, 12:06 PM, said:

R2D2, on Mar 13 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

So, are you asking whether the problem of the free rider in a population has an effect on whether or not we have a duty to that population? I just want to be clear on where you are coming from on this.

Like Stephen said, he's not talking about the "free rider problem" at all. He's asking, "What does everyone else owe me?" Everyone is amazingly reluctant to answer that question, so I'll bite. Everyone owes me, at the very least, food and shelter.

No reluctance at all, just wasn't sure where he or you were coming from. Okay please elaborate on the statement above with scripture so that I can chew it over and give some thoughts.

Well, God commanded you to show compassion on the poor. If I'm lacking such basic necessities of life as food and shelter, then clearly I'm poor--which means God commands you to have compassion on me, by giving me food and shelter. You owe it to me. God said so. It's my just due. Now if you're hard-hearted and don't give me what you owe me, then I'm in a bind as a Christadelphian. Obviously I have to turn the other cheek and let you defraud me by not giving me the food and shelter you owe me. But luckily, there are others out there who will pick up the slack by taking your stuff and giving it to me. Since they're just enforcing God's commandment by forcing you to have compassion on me, it's all good.

But anyway, just to be clear: you owe me.

Edited by Netsach Yisrael, 13 March 2010 - 02:23 AM.

[Netsach Yisrael]

Evangelion, on Mar 13 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

so that I can lay claim to it weather or not they consent?

You can lay claim to it all you want, regardless of whether or not they consent. Just be prepared for a lot of rejection. Especially from libertarians.

The question is whether we have our scripture straight here. God said "open your hand wide to the poor." So if I need food or shelter, God says you owe it to me. And if you refuse to give me my due, then in principle I'm entitled to come and take it--barring the fact that Christ commands us to suffer ourselves to be defrauded. So far so good? Have we at least established that this is the teaching of scripture on the matter?

[Netsach Yisrael]

Fortigurn, on Mar 13 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

Yes. Even when it's corporations insisting that the government has the duty to let them make as much money as they can using whatever methods they feel necessary.

Generally speaking, I hate corporations (and I'm guessing Stephen too). This illustrates the depth of misunderstanding going on here. We hate corporations. You think we're somehow shilling for them. You've confused us with Republicans. And by the way, we hate Republicans.

[Stephen]

Fortigurn, on Mar 12 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

Stephen, on Mar 13 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

As a logical consequence of that assertion, is it therefore reasonable to conclude that when others think "Stephen has a duty to them" that it is reasonable and just to think that they are thinking badly?

Yes.

Thank you.

[Fortigurn]

Netsach Yisrael, on Mar 13 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

Fortigurn, on Mar 13 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

Yes. Even when it's corporations insisting that the government has the duty to let them make as much money as they can using whatever methods they feel necessary.

Generally speaking, I hate corporations (and I'm guessing Stephen too). This illustrates the depth of misunderstanding going on here. We hate corporations. You think we're somehow shilling for them. You've confused us with Republicans. And by the way, we hate Republicans.

You hate corporations but you have repeatedly defended them.

[Richie]

What a stupid thread.