'Jim Wallis Loves His Enemies' (With a Little Help From His Friends)

Drip Irrigation System...

Here might be some other type of information people may be involved on! dont stop, ...

I would say this about the Social Justice comments to everyone, God is the only One who has the authority and the power to claim what True Justice is. We do not make good judges, no one has the understanding, knowledge and wisdom to define what true justice is. When we try to justify our ideas, we loose the whole of the truth. God is the Truth, no you or me.

Yes!

Deck...

[

And as I have written before, that flies in the face of econoic science. Education is a result of increasing wealth, not a cause. And contacts are not necessary, but if they were it would be a sign that the state had intervened in the economy and stopped the process of job creation, as it has in France, for example.

Which is why I don't consider economics a hard science. It's a known fact that, in this country, the more education you have the more money you make. (Now, to be sure, certain high-earning occupations require a college education and even a graduate-level degree.

No one is exploited in a free market.

Not true, especially when labor outstrips the available job openings.

That's usually because the crime rate is so high.

Again, suspect -- in general, retail stores (and I've worked in them) have high rates of theft regardless of where they're located. It's just that the stores in poorer neighborhoods don't have enough paying customers to keep them open.

Glenn Beck is no different than the "progressives" who assert that anyone who opposes state redistribution of wealth hates the poor and wants them to starve...

There is little difference between this unenlightened statement and libertarian tea baggers calling Obama a socialist, a communist or a Nazi.

Does the libertarian fringe hate the poor and wish them to starve?
No, they're just indifferent to the suffering of the poor and would rather not even think about it.

"state redistribution of wealth" is just another bogus buzz phrase coined by the libertarian fringe to justify their indifference to the poor.
They hide behind the rhetoric of long dead intellectuals.

Another bogus buzz phrase coined by the right helped Bush take the presidency. But after Katrina, "compassionate conservativism" became an oxymoron.

"state redistribution of wealth" ????? ?
When we practice Christian charity,
is this "church redistribution of wealth"?

Does Austrian economics find anything wrong with church redistribution of wealth?

It's not accurate to say (all) libertarians are "just indifferent to the suffering of the poor." It it's just that according to libertarianism an individual's freedom is more important than social equality. And freedom is narrowly understood by libertarians as the right to "life, liberty and property."

In the current capitalist economy, social equality requires some redistribution of material wealth, a process that libertarians are largely against. For example, many libertarians hold that taxation amounts to forced labor.

Libertarian ideologues -- with freedom is their ultimate concern-- have a hard time seeing past their infatuation with individual liberty.

In short, libertarians tend to be against (even in a democracy) state welfare. Libertarians believe that private charities can do a better job at addressing poverty than any form of government intervention. (I have no idea how libertarians would address persistent social inequalities among women, racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities embedded in our social structures.)

So libertarians only appear to be "indifferent to the suffering of the poor" to those of us that have a more expansive perspective regarding freedom and human rights.

Well, Jeff, I'd have too many to count. Men who have one family and ditch them to start a second family. Women who escape abusive relationships with Mr. pseudo-macho man. My own younger cousin has had four children from three different men. The last two out of wedlock. (Her two sisters are a medical doctor and a nurse). My field brings me into constant contact with such families.

And the irony--Glenn could call Jim and simply ask him what he thinks. But that's likely too boring

Yes, it is. It's done voluntarily. That's the difference.

Ha. You had a comment removed. Go back home.

In my view, sexual immorality does not cause poverty, it exacerbates it. If all sexual immorality in this country ended tomorrow, poverty would still exist, it would simply manifest it's soul-destroying power in a different way. Abstinence-training is important, as it can help keep people away from spiritually-damaging relationships as well as help them avoid STDs, but it only helps break the cycle of poverty if it combined with access to good-quality education.

Economics is not physics, but it is as hard a science as biology or medicine. And it's the only science for commerce that we have. It's still a science whether you like it or not.

I reserve the right to disagree, primarily because much of what you've mentioned on this blog flies in the face of not only reality but the Scriptures.

Wages are prices and the Church determined centuries ago that the only just price is determined in a free market and any price determined in a free market is just.

Then explain slavery.

BlueDeacon: "retail stores (and I've worked in them) have high rates of theft regardless of where they're located."

That's simply not true.

Oh, but it is. Why else do you think many stores have all these security devices on their items? (And it happens in the 'burbs, too.)

I hope this backfires on Beck like healthcare reform will also hopefully do to the rabid Teabaggers--outting the hate that has propelled them and inducing the conscience of good people duped by charlatans like Beck.

????????????

Thank you for clarifying. Your frustration with your cousin's sexual immorality has resulted in a defensive reaction to protect yourself through moral superiority cloaked in religious language. You seem to be saying that if only we all would adopt your religious views, fewer of us would wind up like your undeserving cousin. Unfortunately you wind up condemning the poor to protect yourself. I hope and pray that you can find a more redemptive way to deal with those you love and work with. I believe that the person of Jesus is that way, as He said in John 14

1st Question From Glen:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?"

Is bearing false witness an example of loving your neighbor, or your enemy? Wallis has been around long enough to know that Beck objected to state redistribution of wealth, which Wallis and most progressives admit is a part of "social justice." Beck does not and never has objected to charity. But Wallis pretends that Beck objects to charity, which is bearing false witness against his neighbor.

Mihs: "So libertarians only appear to be "indifferent to the suffering of the poor" to those of us that have a more expansive perspective regarding freedom and human rights."

Thanks for an honest depiction of libertarians! That is so rare.

I would only add that with freer markets, the poor would have better jobs instead of state hand outs. One of the big differences between progressives and libertarians is the type of help for the poor the each prefers. Libertarians want to give the poor better paying jobs; progressives want to redistribute wealth.

I rarely see progressives talking about jobs. I'm curious as to how progressives think jobs are created. Can anyone help me with this?

And as you point out, libertarians and progressives have very different concepts of justice. It may be unfair, but I get the impression that progressives preferred China before its recent implementation of free market reforms and consequent growth in wealth. It seems to me that progressives prefer equality with poverty to inequality with increased wealth overall. As history has proven, equality with wealth is impossible.

Pastor Jeff: "Could you quote that sentiment...."

They are too numerous. But for one, look at justintime's post below.

To some degree that's true. However, sexual immorality is in some sense the added fuel to the fire of poverty. If someone is already poor, adding a couple of illegitimate children to the mix surely makes things that much worse!

BlueDeacon: "the poor can't get better jobs because (as I've said before) they have neither the education nor the contacts"

And as I have written before, that flies in the face of econoic science. Education is a result of increasing wealth, not a cause. And contacts are not necessary, but if they were it would be a sign that the state had intervened in the economy and stopped the process of job creation, as it has in France, for example.

BlueDeacon: "Most people, men especially, do want to work but also to be paid for their labor without being exploited."

No one is exploited in a free market. If exploitation occurs, it's because a corporation has bribed a politician to pass a law giving the corp the power to exploit.

BlueDeacon: "In addition, economic and social resources were removed from poorer areas decades ago (which is why they're poor);"

Don't know what you refer to.

BlueDeacon: "Notice that there are fewer grocery stores in poorer neighborhoods?)"

That's usually because the crime rate is so high. Tulsa is going through an interesting experiment. A minority section of town has not had a grocery store for over 30 years. The city paid an hispanic grocery store owner to put a grocery store in the neglected area of town. It is already in danger of closing because of high rates of theft, and it is only 6 months old.

Ngchen: "Now, IMHO both are important in order to have a stable and productive society."

I agree. Most libertarians see the need for redistribution, at those who are Christian. We just want it to be voluntary. Progressives see that as totally insufficient.

I could be wrong, but I think we could arrive at a reasonable compromise if we could limit state redistribution to just the poor. Most of SS and Medicare go to the middle class, not the poor. Both should be means tested and go just to the poor. Combined with reductions in military spending, that would reduce state spending and allow for lower taxes on businesses to spur job creation. I think as a practical matter many libertarians would accept the compromise. Of course, some libertarian purists would never give in.

But one of the toughest issues to address is corporate control of Congress and regultory agencies through "regulatory capture." Reducing this problem requires less regulation of industry.