Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

I disagree.

 

On this forum and several other political forums.

 

Sure, but where would they get the money from?

 

I thought you mean "this" subject. Anyway, I can't see how that post related to this subject and you weren't replying to anyone on an off topic subject.

 

From the same sources it is currently being obtained.

 

The tax payer?

 

Overpopulation relates to nearly every, if not all, political subjects we discuss.

 

Including the subject of Can you be a liberal and a Christian at the same time?

 

Of course, for whatever they choose to allow government taxing them and spending on their behalf.

 

Oh right, you mean if the people of a state did the sensible thing and voted in a government that taxed them like 60% of their hard earned money! Sure, healthcare for all would be possible!

 

If there are two or more persons, yes.

 

Why, what would that mean?

 

People would most likely take more caution in electing their governments, as well as what they asked their government to provide, paid for by their taxes.

 

Who exactly must take individual and collective responsibility? You and I?
Of course,

But you have ignored the concept of Rights, specifically the Right to access above poverty level participation in the economy.(UN Decl. Article 25)

I understand your world view makes it very difficult for you to understand that individual Rights (eg as identified in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are a government (collective) responsibility.

Not surprisingly you see uncontrolled population growth as a threat (as you stated in a later post), which it is: but the best way to bring population growth down to sustainable levels is to eradicate poverty - which is a national and international responsibility, as well as an individual responsibility.

So can you speak to the concept of Rights?

[btw, we seem to agree about the importance of individual Responsibility; but as well as responsibility of individuals to uphold just law, nations also have responsibility to abide by international law, if we are to have a functioning international rules-based system]

 

The possibility of disagreement could then arise.

 

Sure, but the point is, 'healthcare for all' reform cannot REALISTICALLY happen without the federal government. So when you say that "there is nothing preventing a State or local government from taxing and providing Health Care in any form acceptable to their tax base" you are right, but it is obviously so unrealistic that it isn't even a serious argument. I have no idea what point you were trying to make anyway.

 

Collectivism at more local levels is resolved in a much more reasoned and rational way.
Subsidizing poverty is in no way a method of population control.

 

Interesting. What are you actually saying about population?

 

What about Massachusetts? Romneycare.
If you don't pay taxes in the U.S., there's no point needed to be made with you.

 

Oh wow. Yeah, I wasn't aware of any state based health reform! Is Massachusetts the only example?

 

More people, more differences, fewer acceptable solutions.

 

Is this a problem?

 

I couldn't say, and I wasn't aware of it until Romney ran for President since I've never lived or worked in Massachusetts.

 

How can you use Matthew 25 to mean charity through the society as a whole?

 

Depends on the problem and the solution, if one is employed.