WHY CAN'T EVERYONE AFFORD A HOME? THE GOLDEN RULE IS MISSING.

No one should not be able to afford a home. What is it to be able to afford a home? What does it say when anyone can't afford a home? What is the term "afford"? What system has created this concept? Is it good or evil?

Who owns the land upon which to build or have a home? Who controls the system such that others must do as they are told (right or wrong things to do) if they are to be allowed a place to live without others gaining at their negative expense? Who decides what work is worthy enough to merit a home?

There are people saying that the homeless don't deserve a home, because they aren't earning enough or aren't working hard enough, etc. What about those who are working very hard? Why can't they "afford" a home?

The answer is the greed and selfishness of those who live higher by holding others down so those others will be forced, coerced, into servitude to those higher up (higher up by the twisted ethic of the selfish and greedy only).

This is no way to treat fellow human beings.

There are those who complain that those who want the giving and sharing economy simply want to depend upon others. Well, what human being is born into this world independent such that he or she needs nothing? No one is born that way.

Everyone is born unable to sit up or even to rollover. Everyone is born at the mercy of those who are older and have the means and ability to give that upon which each depends. When does this ever stop? It doesn't.

Everyone, even those who are older and have been given, or have taken, the said means is still dependent upon the system and upon God's nature (natural system) God provides.

The idea that anyone stands alone on his or her own is asinine. It is the height of ego for anyone to imagine that he or she fits the idea of total independence and self-reliance.

We are all family. We ought to see to it that each and every family member is cared for. We each ought to serve that cause. If we all do that, not one human being will be without the whole family's best effort concerning him or her.

Is that humanism apart from God? Of course it is not. As I said, God provides the natural system in which we all exist no matter how technological we think we are.

Sure, technology can be disconnecting from the natural system. On balance, it has caused more problems than it has solved. Why is that? It is solely on account of the selfishness of some of those who bring forth technological innovations.

Down through the centuries, communities perfected technologies that were appropriate to the natural surroundings such that they did not result in any pollution. Think about that.

All human technology must be reevaluated in light of that truth. Many humans are moving in that intelligent direction. They are extremely concerned about posterity and the environment posterity will inherit and rightly so.

All the moves to consistent environmentalism are good. Anti-war is environmental. Anti-violence, greed, selfishness, and harm are all environmental. Consider it.

We need to create an environment, to bring forth, such that everyone has the highest quality existence possible. That's the Golden Rule. Who can doubt it?

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • "No one should not be able to afford a home."

      (Under a completely free market system, everyone has the opportunity to better himself to the point where he could afford a home. Not everyone does so.)

      "What is it to be able to afford a home? What does it say when anyone can't afford a home?"

      (What does it mean—“anyone can’t afford”?)

      "What is the term "afford"? What system has created this concept? Is it good or evil?

      Who owns the land upon which to build or have a home? Who controls the system such that others must do as they are told"

      (this is very vague)

      "(right or wrong things to do) if they are to be allowed a place to live without others gaining at their negative expense? Who decides what work is worthy enough to merit a home?

      (To merit a home, one must work and save money. Therefore to accomplish this, one must have a job. Who is to ask what work?)

      "There are people saying that the homeless don't deserve a home"

      (by “home”, do you mean a place to live or a “house” owned free and clear?)

      " because they aren't earning enough or aren't working hard enough, etc. What about those who are working very hard?"

      (“Working hard” must be accompanied by “working smart.” If one is offered a chance to go to school, yet decides to drop out, then can only get a job as a dishwasher for $2.50/hr, and though he “works hard”, 80 hours/week, and still can’t afford a home, whose fault is it, his own or everyone else’s?)

      "Why can't they "afford" a home?"

      (Statist government is to blame for wrecking the economy to the point where even many relatively “rich” people cannot afford to keep their homes. And Statist governments are those that do not respect private property, eg. Collectivists, such as socialists, communists, fascists)

      "The answer is the greed and selfishness of those who live higher by holding others down"

      (this is not possible in a free market system, only in its evil twin: Statist government-sponsored mercantilism)

      "so those others will be forced, coerced, into servitude to those higher up (higher up by the twisted ethic of the selfish and greedy only)."

      (This is very vague. Who are "those who live higher by holding others down", and how are they "holding others down"?)

      "This is no way to treat fellow human beings.

      There are those who complain that those who want the giving and sharing economy simply want to depend upon others"

      (a “giving and sharing” system truly is a system of “dependency”, yet so is every other system. Free-market economics teaches an inter-dependency among willing buyers and sellers of goods and services).

      " Well, what human being is born into this world independent such that he or she needs nothing?"

      (This is the basic thought of free market economics)

      " No one is born that way.

      Everyone is born unable to sit up or even to rollover"

      (yet eventually, most people learn and become self-reliant).

      "Everyone is born at the mercy of those who are older and have the means and ability to give that upon which each depends. When does this ever stop? It doesn't. "

      (It stops when the individual learns to take care of himself. Should all humans remain dependent on others to roll them over, burp them, feed them and change their diapers forever?)

      "Everyone, even those who are older and have been given, or have taken, the said means is still dependent upon the system and upon God's nature (natural system) God provides.

      The idea that anyone stands alone on his or her own is asinine."

      (This is a given, but how is it relevant to the topic?)

      " It is the height of ego for anyone to imagine that he or she fits the idea of total independence and self-reliance."

      (There are degrees of dependence: a baby is 100% dependent for he has learned nothing. An adult should be independent from such help and able to fend for himself, though he still depends on others for the necessities of life through trade).

      "We are all family. We ought to see to it that each and every family member is cared for. We each ought to serve that cause"

      (yet before one can help others, one must first help himself).

      "If we all do that, not one human being will be without the whole family's best effort concerning him or her.

      Is that humanism apart from God? Of course it is not. As I said, God provides the natural system in which we all exist no matter how technological we think we are."

      (A system which God has given to man to do with as he sees fit).

      "Sure, technology can be disconnecting from the natural system. On balance, it has caused more problems than it has solved. "

      (Prove it. There is overwhelming evidence that it has solved more problems than it has caused.)

      "Why is that? It is solely on account of the selfishness of some of those who bring forth technological innovations.

      Down through the centuries, communities perfected technologies that were appropriate to the natural surroundings such that they did not result in any pollution."

      (Not true. Individual entrepreneurs, not communities, have invented technologies, and through them they have been made functional for society’s benefit.)

      "Think about that.

      All human technology must be reevaluated in light of that truth. Many humans are moving in that intelligent direction. They are extremely concerned about posterity and the environment posterity will inherit and rightly so.

      All the moves to consistent environmentalism are good. Anti-war is environmental. Anti-violence, greed, selfishness, and harm are all environmental. Consider it.

      We need to create an environment, to bring forth, such that everyone has the highest quality existence possible "

      (this can only be achieved through a free market process).

      "That's the Golden Rule. Who can doubt it?"

      (The Golden Rule states: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would like others to help me, therefore I must also help others, but to do so, I must become a responsible and self-reliant person. Yet, Jesus never forced anyone to give away all they had to the poor and to follow Him. It is to be done willfully. It must be a choice. In a communist system, whether one likes to refer to it as a little “c” or a large “C” (some say tom-ah-to, some say tom-ay-to, same fruit), the system is forced, and that goes against God’s Will. Private property must be respected in order to have a flourishing society. Don’t confuse capitalism with mercantilism, also known as crony-capitalism. They are not the same thing. Capitalism does not involve government interference, cronyism, favoritism, etc., but mercantilism does. In a free market society (one we’ve never had in America), the only way to become successful is to serve the greatest amount of people. Only he who understands the needs of the consumers, and can provide the highest quality of it to the greatest number of them at the lowest price possible will be successful. This is the free market, and this is true capitalism. You seem like a well-meaning person, but you don’t seem to have adequate understanding of economics. I would recommend a study in the type of economics that government frowns upon, Austrian Economics. This is true economics, which takes power away from the power-whores in government, and gives it to the people.)

      http://www.mises.org" target="_blank">www.mises.org http://www.fee.org" target="_blank">www.fee.org

    • @Friends Of Liberty -

      Hello,

      Your comment went to spam. I don't see anything in it that caused that.

      Well, I've only had a moment to overview your comment. It will have to sit here a while without a reply because I have a previous commitment on my time.

      Let me say quickly though that there is nothing new to me in your comment. You are far from the first Austrian School disciple to have come here to make the very points you've made. I dealt with each before. "Libertarian Capitalism: False Shepherds"

      Understand that this site is written with the teachings of Jesus in mind. The Austrian School has no part in that.

      In addition, the Austrian School has no monopoly on what is or isn't economics.

      Furthermore, I've read Mises. I am familiar with his concepts. Have you read the Bible and especially the Gospels?

      Hopefully you subscribed to the comments on this post so you'll be notified via email when I've had a chance to respond to each of your statements.

      Maybe I'll be able to draw you out of the darkness. We shall see.

      It's too bad you couldn't use your name rather than "Friends Of Liberty." Liberty? Maybe in the interim, you could leave another comment where you divulge your identity. You know, tell us all a little about yourself. It would help with your credibility with the other visitors to this site.

      Something else before I get back to this that I'd like to leave you with is the request that you not read a tone of voice into my writing. I'm not suggesting that you have. I'm just saying it before you might if you haven't already. I've run into commentators who just read in a tone that isn't there when I'm writing.

      I very rarely use sarcasm. I usually declare it as such when I do. I don't yell in my head when I write.

      Lastly, when I ask you a question, if you don't answer it, the conversation won't last long. Maybe you'll be the exception to the rule amongst the Austrian School debate team though. Oh sure, anyone can miss a point or accidentally skip over something. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a pattern of avoiding or changing the subject.

      Blessings nevertheless,

      Tom Usher

    • The following linked-comment was too long for DISQUS:

      http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=5785

    • The following linked-comment was too long for DISQUS:

      http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=5785