3RU7AL

As a family of one, absolutely.

A democratic republic, such as the United States

Well, it would seem that they prefer the USA to their current domestic situation.

Are you sure? I would rather live in Europe than China if I was forcibly resettled by a major superpower.

And it's not like Pakistan told them to fuck off.

Capitialism is not a government type.

They don't 'necessarily 'want to live in the 'USA.

Why are you blending government types with economic types? How about a family being a democracy?

I suppose I don't immediately see a responsibility to move them 'specifically to the United States,

Imagine if China in the future had to rescue Americans and brought them to China to resettle as "an act of mercy"

What's wrong with pakistan?

According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan want Sharia law to be the law of the land.

Because of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, people are now clamoring to bring Afghan translators and others who assisted the US military during the war back to the states. But why?

Because Jews and White people aren't the same race lol. They're more similar than other races for sure, but not the same.

can add "anarchism" to the political ideology choices?

And is this collectivism promoted by a "sense of duty" or by some perceived incentive like "you help us now and we'll help you later" ?

It could be either or both. 

Taking care of your family members, without regard for their ability to pay you back or return the favor in any way, appears to be a communist model.

Why? Why would communism allow for gifts but Capitalism wouldn't?

The proper analogy would be some goons from a local mafia visiting a store clerk and charging a "fee for protection."

Taxation which funds the UBI and UHC is codified with the threat of deadly force.

Because you're not coercing a tax out of your children in order to finance said allowance and hospital visits.

When an allowance is provided to a child it's usually a gift [communism] or an exchange for chores [capitalism].

And then there is communism - our time and energy collectively goes to maintaining and progressing the family.

Most post-feminist families are diarchies. 

I can almost visualize no capitalist family, except for that ones of rich companies(even then, the family resembles more of either oligarchy or monarchy). I don't think co-owning an entire family and equating them to currency values is a very good idea.

As to a communist family, one who shares everything. Poor families tends to be communist: They literally share everything. They live together, and though only one or both parents have jobs, everyone gets the equal thing.

am I to take it that you're assuming Capitalism is devoid of any gifts?

Wait, so are you suggesting that UBI and UHC are not "anti-capitalist" ?

No. Those are anti-capitalist. And the reason being is that in both the distribution of income and the distribution of health-related goods and services, the regulator and distributor is the State.

Not necessarily. One does not have to charge. One can still be provide gifts through Capitalism.

Are you talking about the difference between authoritarian and authoritative parenting? Is that what totalitarian and communist mean? I don't understand the question, please rephrase. 

Functional? I'd say a functional model would be Capitalist in nature. With that said however, the predominant and preeminent model would reflect totalitarianism.

Well, be nice if it could calculate a way to extend my life, I suppose.

Through science.

I don't need maximum profit.

Just a small profit, would be sufficient for me to then make my own efforts.

Actions that would profit me, such as predicting the stock market.

Actions that would prevent it from ever being able to physically 'do anything, or acquire power.

Yes, and the obligation to do others no harm (as harm to another would undermine the very framework which informs one's "obligation to oneself.") Anything that would undermine the aforestated would be coercion.

The Bible is not purely collectivist. If we consider collectivism and individualism on a spectrum, a biblical worldview would fall somewhere in between.

No such spectrum is logically justifiable. There's collectivism; there's individualism. Sustaining this notion of "spectrum" is an oft used device for those who have no intention of resolving their logically dissonant notions.

I believe the "golden-rule" is a concise expression of our "better-instincts".

I do not believe that all the Jewish teachings are logically coherent.

So you cherry-pick based on your opinion of which teachings make sense to you while rejecting those that don't.

That wasn't a clear answer. A yes or no will suffice. Did God create humans as automatons?

To this question, my answer is probably not with the given information. It could be considered negligence with dire consequences, perhaps even punishable by law, but probably not murder.

If I tasked the GPT3 with controlling a number of robots and taking care of the elderly in a retirement facility or a hospital for example, and I dialed up the creativity to say TWENTY-NINE and watched it for about a week and everything seemed to be working great, and then three months later a robot ended up causing the death of one of the residents, WHO WOULD YOU HOLD RESPONSIBLE ?

The analogy doesn't work because you are talking about a computer program, not a moral agent. 

2. Would you say that deporting a specific group of people who are claiming they are fleeing for their lives, which ultimately ends up with them being killed = murder?

They're both equally vague.

No, they're not. One has its foundation in the Old Testament. The other means whatever you want it to mean because there is no foundation to work from.

(2) I am in no way stating that a child's necessity in its parents providing it resources is akin to some evil plot.

You can argue that all governments have a responsibility to do as God instructed but they don't.

But you still haven't answered the question: Did God create humans as automatons?

Forget about god for a second.

Would you blame me if something I made catastrophically malfunctioned ?

That depends on what you made. Did you make a moral agent or an automaton? If you made an pre-programmed automaton with no moral agency that only did what you programmed it to do, then I would blame you. If you made a moral agent that willfully violated its intended purpose, and that violations caused a catastrophic malfunction, then I would blame the creation.

You know why you pick and choose ?

Can you perhaps link to some source that supports your cherry-picking ?

I've quite honestly been trying to find a coherent moral theory of the old testament ever since I was a small child (when my questions were ignored).

There are a great number of Christians who have put little thought into what the Old Testament Law means for Christians today. I will answer the question but I would first like to hear your answer to my previous question: If you are trying to use the teaching of Jesus to treat your neighbor as yourself which is drawn from the Old Testament, why do you reject the teaching of Leviticus 24:17?

Depending on how you define deportation, no.

Let's say some people show up at the border of your country and say that they are fleeing for their very lives.

You ask them to present evidence, and they only have eye-witness-testimony (which is considered solid-gold in a civil court).

You tell them they need better evidence, like corroborating testimony and or photographs or video or something.

They don't have any evidence other than their own eyes and ears.

So  you reject their application and send them back to where they came from.

AND THEN THEY ARE MUTILATED AND OR KILLED.

It almost seems like "murder" to me.

That's not a definition.

I treat my neighbor like I treat all humans, not necessarily with "love" but with fairness and respect.

I don't necessarily know the contents of your mind. But if you tell me you adhere to the golden rule, and that you seek to treat all humans with fairness and respect, that tells me that you are picking and choosing values from the Bible while rejecting others like Leviticus 24:17, “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." So to rephrase the question: If you are trying to use the teaching of Jesus to treat your neighbor as yourself which is drawn from the Old Testament, why do you reject the teaching of Leviticus 24:17?

Because one is a direct teaching of Jesus that takes the Old Testament ("the Law and the Prophets") into account. The other is a vague sentiment that can mean whatever a person wants it to mean based on their definition of "fairness."

I agree that racial [skin-tone] discrimination has existed long before our time, and the overwhelming majority of humans don't discriminate due to loci/SNP data collections. I'm just arguing that these people are inadvertently correct about different people being genetically different [wtf], sometimes to the point of being a different race.

People should only be self-described.

Instead of trying to force a category on someone, you should ASK THEM if they identify with some proposed generalized type and or label.

Forcing a category on someone (that they do not personally self-describe as) is almost always an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

If you insist that labels can be used to people who self-describe, you'll get more grifters and liars who pretend to be something they're not. For example, if you don't go to church, and you don't believe in God, and you don't know anything about the Bible, chances are you're not a Christian, even if you describe yourself as such.