Does promoting limited government require abandoning a commitment to the poor? Ryan Messmore, whose answer is a firm “no”, argues that non-government institutions can provide personalized assistance to help individuals fix relational problems, overcome poverty and lead healthy lives:
Calls for limited government are often mistakenly equated with a disregard for people in need. This flawed line of reasoning assumes that poverty is primarily a material problem and that government bears the primary responsibility for solving it by increasing welfare and entitlement spending.
Yet at its root, poverty is usually more complex than a simple lack of material resources. In America, poverty is often the result of a relational problem, such as fatherlessness or community breakdown. Such relational breakdowns are addressed most effectively through various civil society institutions.
People have many needs that extend beyond simple material possessions—needs that cannot be met by any single institution. Families, churches, businesses, and other forms of association play crucial roles in sustaining liberty and meeting people’s needs. Public policy in general and welfare policy in particular should respect and protect these institutions of civil society.
Thus, limited government is an important piece of a framework that benefits people in need. When government is limited to the tasks it is best-equipped and authorized to perform, it allows more effective poverty-fighting institutions to thrive. Far from being incompatible with a concern for poverty, an appropriately limited government is crucial to maintaining a social order that enables people to escape poverty.
May 5th, 2011 | 2:36 pm
Have to disagree ; protection of the poor and the elderly by providing basic survival amounts is showing the commitment of a people and a nation , to a set of values that originate from the proclamation – ‘ in God we trust ‘ , which include commitment to protect the weak and the poor .
Govt. doing so would be a more dignified and orderly means than these persons having to navigate uncertain agencies !
Such indirect tithing may be what has kept this country what it is on the good side and from experiencing worse events !
May 5th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
Ryan Messmore lives in a fantasy land, apparently, where all poor people belong to churches and/or submit to the kind of help those churches think it is just to give them. His fantasy land involves churches staffed with fully-trained, licensed, and insured professionals who can provide the kind of help these people are required to get by our nation. He has obviously never stepped into any church that can barely fund a basic Crisis Pregnancy Center, let alone hire licensed nurses to staff it.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
It happens to be the case that a lot of the “non-government institutions [that] can provide personalized assistance to help individuals fix relational problems, overcome poverty and lead healthy lives” currently get considerable funding from the government.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:07 pm
“non-government institutions can provide personalised assistance to help individuals fix relational problems …Families, churches, businesses”
If I were poor, and there were no government to help, I’d don’t know whether I’d rather be left to the mercy of corporate lobbyists or the Religious Right. I’d guess I’d have to say the corporate lobbyists, because at least they might allow us to have birth control.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:11 pm
Wow, the trolls are out in force today.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:50 pm
Jeremy,
Are you saying that government is not susceptible to corporate interests or religious lobbying? Isn’t the government made of people who make laws with biases in mind? Are politicians cut from some sort of angelic cloth? You have a lot of faith.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:50 pm
Wait. I’m not a troll, but if Jeremy is a troll, his comment at least illustrates one of the most significant problems with Messmore’s plan to have private institutions take care of charity.
Any charity delivered by an institution has to be according to justice. If you’re going to help someone, you have to give him what you think he ought to have. It’s pretty simple to do this if all you’re giving is very basic health care. But what about reproductive services, family counseling, job training, etc? Many, many people will not submit to the kind of care that churches believe they ought to provide. This problem is merely exacerbated by Messmore’s observation that most poverty in this country is social poverty, not financial poverty. Financial poverty is easily solved with a material handout. Fixing social poverty involves submitting to a particular understanding of a well-lived life, something few in our country are willing to do, especially because they need rather than want to.
So the problem, as I see it, with private charity is two-fold:
1. Churches simply do not have the resources to provide the kind of comprehensive services that our governments currently provide to the financially and socially impoverished, and
2. “Private” conceptions of justice do not have any authority in our society over anyone who does not explicitly choose to submit to that authority. At one time you could assume the general population would have a broadly Christian conception of just care, and therefore the care that churches or private institutions provided would be generally acceptable to all. This is no longer true.
May 5th, 2011 | 5:08 pm
@Orthodoxdj
If I can speak for Jeremy, of course politicians aren’t cut from angelic cloth. Nevertheless, the state is the only institution understood to be open to influence by all members of society, and therefore with the right to speak and act in the name of the whole society. And the state is the only institution with the right to force you to submit to its peculiar conception of justice.
May 5th, 2011 | 6:05 pm
Are you saying, then, that the government is always right? By your understanding, then, any government is legitimate if it’s democratic. That’s scary.
May 5th, 2011 | 8:33 pm
Jon, how does government escape the problem that not everyone’s conception of “just care” is the same? All it does is substitute the government-imposed definition for the privately imposed one — there still has to be some definition. And in that case, it’s both subject to being wrong, and requiring people to subsidize a form of care that they may consider worthless and/or counter-productive — and might in fact be so.
May 5th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
Currently popular support is rightly provided to folks struck by the horrors of the Southern tornadoes and the emergency monies and systems provided by the federal government. Yet inner cities (and the rural South) subsist in desparation on the routine. In what way shouldn’t individuals spending years from families who have experienced this soul-sucking environment for generations be considered eligible for emergency help?
May 5th, 2011 | 10:28 pm
Ryan Messmore’s point is not to remove government assistance. In fact, if you read his entire paper he says:
“Government is an important piece of a larger framework that benefits people in need”
His point is that government assistance is good, but poverty is more complicated than material assistance and can only be addressed sufficiently if the solution includes organizations capable of addressing emotional, relational and spiritual needs of those in need.
May 6th, 2011 | 3:24 am
I am reminded of Lacordaire’s remark, “Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free.”
May 6th, 2011 | 7:21 am
“Govt. doing so would be a more dignified and orderly means than these persons having to navigate uncertain agencies !”
I don’t understand this statement. Does it mean that people don’t have to navigate uncertain agencies when the govt does it? I think I might disagree with that.
Maybe I’ve got it wrong, but Messmore’s points seem to be that govt is not the only group involved in providing services and the provider effort is not a zero sum game.
For example, “Thus, limited government is an important piece of a framework that benefits people in need.”
May 6th, 2011 | 7:51 am
I fully support Messmore’s ideas. I don’t think the government can solve poverty. When Christians look at poverty, they should see it not as a failure of the government, but of the church, a failure of those who have been commanded to love their neighbor, and care for the poor. The biggest barrier, though (as illustrated in part by some of the comments here), is our expectations as a culture. It will take a massive cultural shift for people to see poverty as something they bear some responsibility, personally, for addressing. Right now, even the conservative Christians who decry the federal government’s welfare checks are able to blow off any personal responsibility for being part of the solution. They can be lazy, because “the government is doing it.” If the government got out of the welfare business, the problem of poverty would presumably be harder for middle-class Christians to avoid, and maybe Then they would be motivated to act. But I would much rather see some leadership on the part of national Christian and conservative political leaders to change the culture, to work hard to befriend the poor, to come alongside them and help them establish better habits of life, to the extent that someday, the government welfare offices would be filled with “the sound of crickets,” empty and unnecessary, long before the government ran out of wherewithal to contribute to the solution. Unfortunately, I’m afraid it’s too late–the government’s wherewithal is already bankrupt.
May 6th, 2011 | 8:08 am
CFC points out the obvious which most of the commenters ignored in the article.
Government is indeed part of the puzzle, but is insufficient on it’s own and the case can be made that when it plays too big of a part it can hurt more than it helps.
The hue and cry about potential cuts in government spending remind me about the hyperbole that exited before welfare reform passed in the 1990′s. It was claimed that this reform would cause tens of thousands to starve and die in the streets, when the reality was that after reform passed, the rate of poverty in the U.S. declined.
Poverty in the U.S. is a strange looking animal. Unlike poverty in many places in the world, where starvation is a matter of immediate danger and diseases such as diarrhea are killers, in the U.S. the poor often (although not always) have cell phones and cable TV and the problem is often not starvation, but obesity due to poor nutrition. The worst pathologies of our nation’s poverty are about violence, ineffective education, substance abuse and hopelessness.
May 6th, 2011 | 9:27 am
“Churches simply do not have the resources to provide the kind of comprehensive services that our governments currently provide to the financially and socially impoverished.” Jon W
Jon, in my experience as a volunteer with a church funded non-profit, the exact opposite is true. Government simply does not have the resources to provide comprehensive services, that’s why so many people already receiving government aid appeal to us for help.
If government was as effective at providing care as some on this thread imply, why hasn’t a dent been made in poverty levels?
Why has EVERY one of the people who comes to my St. Vincent de Paul Society conference for aid found mere government care to be inadequate.
I think it likely that the people criticizing the church groups have never actually worked among the poor at all. Had you, you would know that such groups regularly provide aid across denominational boundaries. Most of the families we help aren’t even Catholic. In fact, we recently had a Muslim Afghani widow stop one of our members on their way out the door and ask (in broken English) “Why do you help us?”
Our member said, “Because Jesus told us to help each other.”
Her response the next time we came, “I want to know your Jesus.”
May 6th, 2011 | 10:48 am
Artaban,
Bingo…my experience working with church-related ministries that provide assistance to the poor (and others such as single moms and women with a crisis pregnancy) is that these ministries are able to provide services that governmental aid are completely unable to touch.
In fact, a good percentage of those assisted are able to transition off of (or greatly reduce) government aid received within a relatively short period of time. Often the nature of government aid is self-perpetuating, that is to say once someone starts receiving it, it is hard to develop a lifestyle that doesn’t require it to some degree.
May 6th, 2011 | 11:05 am
Government programs necessarily have a “one size fits all” approach, and are almost always dehumanizing, bureaucratic, and authoritarian. People who don’t believe this simply don’t know what they are talking about. As a former Democrat, I was a big believer in urban public schools until I had children and my kids went to some. You simply cannot expect government to fix broken people. Government programs can and should help, but they can never replace what people should be doing for themselves. Most people in government, and most people who work for government agencies, think they know how other people should live. There needs to be a radical shift in how these folks are trained and what they are expected to do.
May 6th, 2011 | 2:43 pm
“If government was as effective at providing care as some on this thread imply, why hasn’t a dent been made in poverty levels?”
An excellent question that never gets answered.
May 6th, 2011 | 5:37 pm
Thank you for the corrective comments ; agree , that limited Govt . with agencies that nourish the devolopment of the whole person would be far better !
May 7th, 2011 | 12:09 am
Yeah, that’s why I always go to AAA instead of to the DOT to have my license renewed
May 7th, 2011 | 10:54 am
my experiences, such as they are, suggest that applying for government help is far more humiliating and undignified than seeking help from a more human-scale source. (when I was going to school while on welfare and taking care of my baby alone, my case workers made it very clear that I was their most troublesome “client” because of all the paperwork, and asked me repeatedly why I didn’t make things easier for everyone by just staying home and cashing my checks!)
in addition, wrt Brian English, it can be demonstrated that the problems of poverty are not helped, and may be made worse by the decades of massive government intervention. this is especially the case because of the social breakdowns the article discusses, which are to an extent caused or exacerbated by government policy!
May 7th, 2011 | 7:37 pm
Government’s role should be limited to ensuring nobody dies or suffers permanent harm from preventable illness.
The reason for this is not stinginess – although it is true that we can’t afford the ever-more-generous handouts, and it is also true that we are so generous to those who make poor choices in life that we have gone beyond the point where it is actually unjust to those who do “play by the rules” (including the parts about working hard and so on).
But the reason we should strictly limit government handouts is because it has become plain that there are things which are not visible and not easy to measure, but are nonetheless valuable and fragile enough to be damaged by careless intrusion.
Things like “work ethic”, pride (in oneself, in one’s achievement, in honest effort, in overcoming obstacles, etc), incentive, self-worth – these things are what the poor “pay” so that the affluent may feel good about themselves.
Even worse: more intangible, even more difficult to measure concepts such as “access to opportunity”. A woman who is given straight handouts is going to end up in a much worse position than a woman in equally dire circumstances who manages to work her way through somehow – not only in that the welfare mom will look and feel like a loser while the working mom is confident and rightfully proud of what she has done, but also in that the working woman will have at least some access to better networks, both in terms of knowing people and in terms of being able to find and gain access to opportunities.
May 7th, 2011 | 7:38 pm
I should not have said “illness”, I should have said “illness or deprivation”.
May 7th, 2011 | 10:02 pm
R. Messmore’s logic is flawed, for he is assuming that private charities can accomodate the needs of all who seek such assistance, which is often not the case.
Even if we make the assumption that private entities all have what they need to assist others in need (an unreasonable assumption, as Jon W. pointed out), it needs to be asked why anyone would try to argue, as R. Messmore has done here, that governments should cease any and all assistance to the disadvantaged. Is it ethical to advocate for the re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich? This is basically what he is trying to argue here, and it’s disgraceful; he should be ashamed of himself.
If governments do not have a responsibility to put the interests of the majority of it’s citizens (i.e. those who earn less than $50,000 annually) first, then what on Earth are they for?
May 7th, 2011 | 10:29 pm
‘The reason for this is not stinginess – although it is true that we can’t afford the ever-more-generous handouts…’ – Blake, 7th May
In nations as rich as those we refer to as ‘the Western World’ (England, France, United States, Australia – where I now sit typing), this claim is obscenely absurd. The basic problem is not that these rich nations are not rich enough to support the disadvantaged, it’s the fact that for too long now we have had governments that have:
a) Consistently cut taxes to the bone for those who are most able to afford to pay them in the first place (i.e. the upper and middle classes).
b) Wasted billions on expensive luxury items for the military that are merely a drain on resources (ex. F-22 stealth fighters).
c) Opened up their economies to cheap competition from Third-World Asian nations, such as China where the average worker is exploited as the slave that he/she is, and all for the sake of the idiocy known as ‘free trade’.
d) Failed to close tax-law loopholes that allow rich fat-cats to get away with paying little to no tax, whilst these very same people constantly (and shamelessly) whine about how much tax they are paying.
e) Introduced the concept of ‘deregulation’, where private companies are allowed to make up their own rules about how they do business, with the inevitable and completely predictable result that, in order to make more money, they (among other unethical practices) ‘outsource’ labour to the afore-mentioned slave-labourers of China, and thus directly contribute to high levels of unemployment.
It is an absoute disgrace that, in a country that is rich and (reasonably) well-managed, there should exist people who cannot even afford to live with a roof over their heads. It’s disgusting and – dare I say it – unchristian, so don’t tell me that we ‘can’t afford it’!!
May 7th, 2011 | 10:57 pm
‘…in the U.S. the poor often (although not always) have cell phones and cable TV…’ -
Steve Billingsley, 6 May, 8:08 A.M.
This may indeed be the case in the United States (I wouldn’t know, I don’t live there), but in Australia the poor – students, pensioners, disabled, parttime workers – often (I’m serious, not joking here) consider food and clothing to be luxury items that they can’t afford, and so they are forced into rationing it by eating one day but not the next, and wearing the same clothes until they fall apart.
I was myself recently a student, having to subsist on a lousy $377 a fortnight, but even though I actually own the house I live in (so I didn’t have to worry about a mortgage or rent), and even though I never gamble, drink or smoke, I still could not manage it. With books costing on average $90 each from the campus bookstore, petrol at $1.50 a litre, power bills going through the roof, car registration costs going up, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I had to (reluctantly) abandon the idealistic idea of graduating from university, and concentrate on becoming once again a full-time empolyee.
I can remember a time when there were NO beggars in the streets of Melbourne, but if you go there now they are on every corner. It’s like visiting Bombay.
Stay away from Australia, don’t believe the tourism propaganda; it’s a Third-World, banana-republic death trap. It wasn’t always so, but it is now.
May 8th, 2011 | 12:41 am
“If government was as effective at providing care as some on this thread imply, why hasn’t a dent been made in poverty levels?”
An excellent question that never gets answered.
- Brian English
Poverty is actually getting worse precisely because governments have been surrendering their obligations to help the needy to the ‘private sector’, claiming that the problem is too difficult to solve.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that (government-initiated) programmes that offer practical help to those who need it (ex. career-training for the long-term unemployed) actually do work when they are properly funded and managed. Private organisations (like the employment agencies that I have had the misfortune of having had to deal with) don’t give a rat’s a*#& about the unemployed, only in fulfilling their contract with the government, ‘meeting targets’, and looking good.
May 8th, 2011 | 12:56 am
@Peter A: Oz has become a “Third-World, banana-republic death trap” because you folks allowed people from Third-World, banana-republic death-traps to come live there. We did the same thing here, with the same result.
Send them packing, put the culture back to pre-1960s status, and the problems go away.
May 8th, 2011 | 3:32 pm
‘ Beloved , as aliens and pilgrims in this world , do not let your sinful desires make war against your soul .’ – 1 Peter 2: 11 .
Seems there is enough recognition out there now that one reason for the econmoic malaise is what has been called population implosion .
While every nation needs just laws , to discourage greed or chaos , the JudeoChristian principles of dealing with aliens and its effects are evident from history of the Israelites in Egypt on down .
When seemingly the Hands of Providence seems to want to make room for aliens in other lands , root causes and biblical cure for same also would be multifaceted .
Yet , we have the promise that mercy has its rewards .
Hearing testimonies of persons who have experienced effects of putting into practice The Word , esp. in area of tithing , is often illuminatory .
One guy talked about how he faced lay off ; when meeting with a ‘counselor ‘ , was advised to double his tithing and we can guess what the outcome has been ; the person who advised this guy to go the counselor has this one complaint against The Church – how little we talk about need to give , how this has been one thing that helped him to have a ‘living faith .’ ( He is a major contributor to a faith channel , esp. targeting China – as much as
$25, 000 /month .)
True, our understanding of tithing is broader than in the Old Testament and we have all those holy consecrated souls who have tottaly given over their lives for The Church , thus serving as reparation for many who
are not aware of the calling and benefits of giving .
Yet, easy to see too, how reluctance in giving can be in one sense a simple gauge of our trust in Him too , telling us that we are not able to trust Him with even our passing wealth .
Many persons who have migrated to places like Australia , in my experience , are often somewhat educated and from middle or upper income families in their native lands ; the prestige of being in a foreign land serves as a major motive which soon can wear out under realities of life there , to be replaced by appreciation of Christian values of life – dignity of labor and for the person and not a caste based mentality of seeing servants as unworthy of being even Christians !
Many of these persons may even be in these lands for such mentalities on the part of their ancestors – almost like the Israelites who were sent to foreign lands in biblical times !
Often , thus priests would remind how these exiles do not take on the wordly values of the place , instead , try to reevangelise the culture , through holy lives .
Mentioning all these , inorder to help with any bitterness which does not help and to help to see , may be a broader picture !
It is worth mentioning too , how often our Lord Himself has appeared as a beggar – St.Francis of Assissi, St.Martin, St.Faustina ..
Thus , next time , faced with a beggar , on ecan atleast offer a blessing and tell our Lord , ‘dear Lord, I bring to You, this person , all moments of his life, all his ancestors , for Your mercy ‘ ; it would then leave no room for fear or hatred and we might even be interceding for some of the descendants of the Moghul kings – having heard , how in their ruthlessness , they had often arranged for their fathers to be killed, how many of them now serve as beggars on the streets of Delhi !
Such is not what we want for our children !
God bless !
May 8th, 2011 | 8:53 pm
[...] First Thoughts – Update: with some discussion here, demonstrating yet again just how pervasive assumptions regarding the “normalcy” of [...]
May 8th, 2011 | 10:47 pm
Peter A: I appreciate your honesty in admitting you know so little of the situation in the United States. I happen to be one of those people you mention who makes “less than $50,000″ a year. And yes, I’m shocked and appalled by the amount of my income I fork over in taxes each you.
You talk about licensing fees and other government imposed taxes in Australia, alluding to the fact that they’ve forced you to give up seeking a higher education and to go back to full-time employment.
I find it interesting that, by all appearances, you admit government is one of the things PUTTING people into financial difficulty, yet somehow you manage to turn around and defend the very government programs that are the cause for your taxes/fees! Time to put two and two together, Peter.
As Jesus said, “Those with eyes should see.”
Government is largely the problem, not the solution.
May 8th, 2011 | 10:49 pm
That last sentence in paragraph one should read “…in each year…”
May 8th, 2011 | 10:51 pm
Peter, I don’t know how things are in Australia, but in the USA poverty rates are high because the government keeps changing the definition of what it means to be “poor”. Compare real numbers – for instance, how many people died last year from starvation in your country?
Stop glamorizing the act of coveting your neighbor’s wealth. If he got it via criminal behavior, then press charges – otherwise, please find some other way to bring prosperity to the less fortunate, some way that does not involve stealing.
May 9th, 2011 | 11:58 am
@Orthodoxdj: By your understanding, then, any government is legitimate if it’s democratic.
Of course not. But our government is. It’s legitimate, and it’s democratic.
@Pentamom: Jon, how does government escape the problem that not everyone’s conception of “just care” is the same?
Government is the only institution that can enforce (and what is more important in our society: is understood justly to enforce) its understanding of “just care”. People may not like or agree with what the government does, but everyone (except libertarians) agrees that the government has at least some claim to the authority it wields. Somebody needs to make a decision about what just care means in our society. Because of our extreme individualism, there is no other institution that can make that decision except the government.
It used to be that people had powerful incentives to remain in non-governmental communities. Catholics (my own communion), for example, thought their eternal salvation was at stake and therefore had a very good reason for submitting to the judgment of that community as to what “just care” they ought to receive. Family ties, high emigration costs, etc, etc, provide practical and psychological incentives encouraging people to submit to non-governmental ideals of “just care”. As the individual receives more power in the society, however, those incentives fade away.
At that point, there are only two ideals of just care: my own or the government’s. My own, because I own myself. And the government’s, because they government represents everybody and the government has a gun.
May 9th, 2011 | 1:10 pm
“Somebody needs to make a decision about what just care means in our society.”
That, my friend, is begging the central question.
May 9th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
That, my friend, is begging the central question.
Are you suggesting that no one need make a decision about what just care is? Because that doesn’t make any sense. You seem to assume that just care will happen without anyone making a decision about what it is. How is that possible?
May 9th, 2011 | 3:41 pm
@CFC: [Messmore's] point is that government assistance is good, but poverty is more complicated than material assistance and can only be addressed sufficiently if the solution includes organizations capable of addressing emotional, relational and spiritual needs of those in need.
Agreed. And my point is that expecting our society to submit its members to the judgment of “private” organizations regarding what care they ought to receive while at the same time promoting the economic structures of extreme individualism (free markets, free trade, mobility of labor, cheap oil, etc.), as we conservatives are wont to do, is incoherent in the extreme.
The more individualistic people get and the more power they wield as individuals, the less likely they are to submit to someone else’s understanding of their just desserts.
Furthermore, it is only just that a man have a say as to the care he receives from his neighbors. If I’m a member of a church, then I’m a real participant in the dialogs, discussions, and arguments that determine what care I receive from its members. If I am not, then I either submit to their determination of what’s best for me (and so give up any chance I have of participating in the discussion) or I go to a place where I do have a say. The only places I as an unchurched person have a say are the market and the government. As a poor man I bring nothing to the market with which to trade. This leaves the government.
May 9th, 2011 | 4:41 pm
Agreed. And my point is that expecting our society to submit its members to the judgment of “private” organizations regarding what care they ought to receive while at the same time promoting the economic structures of extreme individualism (free markets, free trade, mobility of labor, cheap oil, etc.), as we conservatives are wont to do, is incoherent in the extreme.
Handouts are not a basic right.
There are known, identified, well-documented problems with treating handouts as a basic right.
No argument that ignores these problems can or should be taken seriously.
May 10th, 2011 | 9:00 am
@Blake: Handouts are not a basic right.
This is a statement that sounds right but carries a whole host of assumptions. The question is whether these handouts are just or not. You need to consider what this person deserves. Some people do deserve a “hand out”. A family that’s starving deserves a “hand out”, whether the father is a layabout or not. You’ll say this is an easy case, and it is: an easy case that shows your statement to be incomplete.
But take a harder case: a family doesn’t have dental insurance. They’re working as hard as they can, but they just can’t afford it. (Anyone who says this sort of thing doesn’t happen neither can nor should be taken seriously.) One of their kids has severe cavities. The other is all snaggle-toothed. Do you “hand out” root canals? Do you “hand out” braces? Is it the responsibility of the richest nation on earth to make sure the children of its citizens are cavity-free? Straight-toothed? Having severe cavities will seriously reduce their quality of life, including their ability to contribute to the common good. The snaggle teeth are slightly more difficult: you could argue that they aren’t strictly necessary, but certainly having a mouthful of crooked teeth could lead to dental problems in the future. And in a society as image-obsessed as ours is, that kid might have a significantly lesser possibility of getting jobs he might otherwise be qualified for, thus reducing is quality of life and that of his family.
Arguments can be made on all sides regarding who is responsible for what and why, but the point is – as Aristotle himself said over 2000 years ago – these are difficult and complicated questions that depend greatly on the circumstances involved. General principles, like “handouts are not a basic right”, go only so far.
May 10th, 2011 | 9:11 am
@Jon W: To say your reasoning is baffling is an understatement.
“Are you suggesting that no one need make a decision about what just care is? Because that doesn’t make any sense.”
No, what doesn’t make sense is presuming we can actually come to a consensus as a society as to what “just care” might be. Try teaching sometime, and asking a classroom of 30 to define the word “just”. You’ll get at least half-a-dozen answers.
Which is precisely why it is right and good for a multiplicity of private organizations to determine on their own just what “just care” they’re willing to render. You’ll still have the full spectrum, from more stringent to more lenient than any one government standard could deliver, and all freely chosen by members of the organizations, not imposed by a minority. What’s the problem with that?
“Furthermore, it is only just that a man have a say as to the care he receives from his neighbors.”
Good luck achieving that without resorting to tyranny. Why isn’t the inverse true (that a man have a say in the care he provides to a neighbor)?
May 11th, 2011 | 6:36 am
@Blake: Handouts are not a basic right.
This is a statement that sounds right but carries a whole host of assumptions. The question is whether these handouts are just or not.
I don’t think that is the question at all.
You should really take the time and trouble to get acquainted with the various problems associated with handouts, if you want to be serious about social justice. Most of the unintended negative consequences associated with failed liberal social problems are directly linked to these problems.
(for example: LBJ’s “Great Society”, which not only failed to eradicate poverty, but actually made the social problems much worse.)
May 11th, 2011 | 6:42 am
But take a harder case: a family doesn’t have dental insurance.
The only way to solve this problem without creating unintended consequences (i.e. new, probably even worse problems) is to figure out why it is that a family that works hard and plays by the rules can’t afford dental insurance. What’s causing that?
That is the problem – the only problem – that needs to be addressed. Focusing on the symptoms and ignoring the cause does not work.
May 11th, 2011 | 10:01 am
You should really take the time and trouble to get acquainted with the various problems associated with handouts, if you want to be serious about social justice. Most of the unintended negative consequences associated with failed liberal social problems are directly linked to these problems.
I am acquainted with them. I’ve been a conservative Republican all my life. I grew up reading National Review, and I imbibed the concept of “unintended negative consequences” with my mother’s milk.
I don’t think [justice] is the question at all.
Pardon me, but where do you get the gall to contradict Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, etc, etc, etc, and assert that justice is not the issue as regards my interaction with my neighbor?
We may get in a long discussion about what justice properly looks like in this particular situation, but have no fear, justice it is (or isn’t).
I am very well aware of unintended consequences, but sometimes the consequences of not taking action are equally or more severe. You have seriously got to be kidding me if you want to argue that public assistance people receive always has unintended consequences that delegitimize the assistance and vitiate the good it does.
In any case, I am deeply concerned with the position of so-called “conservatives” and their incoherent desire to hold on to “traditional” values and to the liberal economic and social structures that destroy those very traditional values. At least Democrats acknowledge that those liberal economic and social structures have themselves unintended consequences that necessitate some sort of intervention.
May 11th, 2011 | 10:18 am
[We must] figure out why it is that a family that works hard and plays by the rules can’t afford dental insurance. [...] That is the problem – the only problem – that needs to be addressed. Focusing on the symptoms and ignoring the cause does not work.
Agreed. We absolutely do need to figure this out. Just like we need to figure out why the old man next door can’t afford food and is starving. Nevertheless, the genesis of his hunger is definitely not the only problem we need to address. As his neighbors, we have the absolute responsibility to address his hunger.
We ought to figure out why such a virtuous family can’t afford dental insurance, but while we’re making this theoretical study, real children are growing up with crappy teeth. You argue as if our theories are the real things and the children merely theoretical. (cf. Chesterton)
May 11th, 2011 | 4:33 pm
“…real children are growing up with crappy teeth.”
Evil of evils! Woe of woes!
And herein lies the problem. JonW, as the self-appointed arbiter of what’s right and good, determines a very specific measure he wants addressed. With public funding.
So the many I see at my summer job (security at an amusement park) covered in tattoos and short on teeth can get public aid, and still spend thousands on their ink, and an average of $600 a day at the park. Meanwhile, I’ll keep working two jobs because it is MY responsibility–more than anyone else’s–to provide for myself and my family.
Doubtless a hundred other people can think of a hundred different medical conditions of equal or greater seriousness than the dental scenario.
Once we lower the bar of PUBLIC aid to something as nebulous as “quality of life” absolutely any seizure of liberty or property can be “justified”.
How are you going to provide dental care when the incentive (financial) for people to enter dentistry is eliminated? Enslave people and force them to get degrees in dentistry?
People, this is already happening. Even if we did provide “universal healthcare” we don’t have enough doctors to meet the human demand. Numbers entering medical school have declined as lawsuits increased and real wages have decreased.
Simply put, there are plenty of people who knowingly CHOOSE to shorten their lives in the pursuit of a certain lifestyle (food, drug(s), extreme sport). Are you going to deprive them of that freedom? Insulate them from their choice?
May 11th, 2011 | 6:35 pm
As his neighbors, we have the absolute responsibility to address his hunger.
No, we don’t.
His life is his responsibility.
Our responsibility is limited to not allowing any of our citizens to fall below a certain standard – in the case of hunger, nobody should be starving to death or seriously undernourished.
But there’s no reason at all why we can’t expect reciprocity from our citizens: to the extent that we need to bail them out, they owe us something.. You can’t get away from this recognition. It exists whether you recognize it or not.
Right now, people are “paying” that debt in dysfunctional ways: they ‘pay’ with their social, emotional, and/or political capital.
That’s not charity, and it’s not just.
May 12th, 2011 | 11:20 am
No, we don’t [have the responsibility to address his hunger].
His life is his responsibility.
Um, okay. But just admit that you’re working in the modern extreme individualist libertarian tradition, and not in any traditional Biblical, Christian, or even pagan moral tradition.
And if that’s where you are, just remember not to call yourself a conservative. (Or, if you are, then the thing you are conserving is one of the worst things about the 18th and 19th centuries.)
But since you feel yourself responsible for your family, it seems to me that you do believe in societies. Your family is one. Within that society, people are responsible for each other’s welfare, and if you see someone in need, then you must help him.
The question is whether our broader community is also a “society”, similar in some ways to a family, or whether it is not. I say it is; you say it isn’t. I have Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Augustine, and Aquinas (not to mention pretty much the entire pre-modern tradition) on my side; you have modern individualism.
May 12th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
“Um, okay. But just admit that you’re working in the modern extreme individualist libertarian tradition, and not in any traditional Biblical, Christian, or even pagan moral tradition.”
JonW, that is not true. Jesus said the worker was worth his wage. Paul said “those who do not work should not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) precisely because the early Church very quickly had to deal with people abusing the charity of its members.
Similarly–and in one of the most misquoted passages of the Bible–Jesus criticized the Pharisees for establishing a system where they would accept the widow’s mite (two pennies). Read in context, Jesus calls unjust the Temple system that would require of a women all she financially had.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact