I thought you were arguing in this thread that we shouldn't subsidise poor choices. Now you seem to be arguing that we should, but the government does not count as part of the "we" who help. But if that's true, then it makes irrelevant the whole debate about subsidising poor choices. I thought the point of that debate was to provide reasons not to help a single mom. Now you're saying it's to provide reasons not to demand that the government help her. What has that to do with whether or not to subsidise poor choices?
This plays into my question here where I am confused about what "capitalism" really is. Is capitalism only saying "the government shouldn't do it" or is it also saying "nobody should do it: we should leave it up to the free market [or "God" you once said] to reward and punish and we should not interfere"???
Ah, ok, yet this helps me clarify my own thoughts. In the subsidising poor choices I am thinking about the government giving people money who have made poor choices. When we think of cigarette smokers they do not get the same treatment as single mothers (or any number of other poor life choices). They do not get praised, they do not get screen time, they are shunned and stigmatized. We place added taxes on them and charge them more for health insurance. If we are so compassionate why do we do such things to this population that statistically speaking is also the poorest. We do this partially for their own good and partially for the good of everyone else. We want them to decide to quit smoking for their health and we don't want anyone else to begin smoking. We are clearly not subsidizing this behavior in any way that you spin it. We recognize that when you tax a certain behavior you will get less of it. But then what are we doing with social safety net? Aren't we incentivizing poor behavior? What if we decided to give free healthcare for all the smokers because they "need" it? Wouldn't you agree that it is incentivizing smoking? In the same way, government benefits are subsidizing poor choices when they "pick up the slack" at taxpayer expense. However, I think it is perfectly right and good and deeply meaningful if people were to pool their resources voluntarily to help out a smoker who wants a lung transplant and can't afford it. It is infinitely more meaningful when people do this voluntarily.
Capitalism simply says that people cannot take what is yours. No theft. It does not weigh in on any other virtue, probably because that is the only one that is really mathematically specific and doesn't rely on people's intentions and nuance. If you freely give, that is no violation of capitalism. It does not speak to that specifically. However, people will speak to that. If you give and are reciprocating and consider others, you will certainly be much more successful. Capitalism doesn't actually specify this. It is left up to the individuals to figure out. It doesn't say what you should and shouldn't do beyond theft. This is why we do need some amount of other guidance. For example, we have decided selling humans is not a tolerable way to make a living and despite capitalism's silence on it, we will not stand for that no matter if there is demand for it. We, after all, make the rules.
Coercion is usually not the Christian way. Unless you're a pacifist, you agree that sometimes we must coerce people not to harm others. Unless you're an anarchist, you agree that we must coerce people to pay for the benefits they receive from the police, roads, law courts etc. I asked what you thought about this on this thread. I eagerly await your opinion on pacifism and anarchism, but if you agree, then the question is: can we extend this same principle to argue that citizens have a mutual responsibility for each other's welfare?
Yes, I've been thinking about this. There is the non-aggression principle that I guess I've absorbed and thought was "true". Something like aggression is never the right way. And then we pass a new law. But the law will be enforced by police backed by the state. So every new law is an aggression against whoever is transgressing the law. So every new law is in violation of the non-aggression principle. The same with wars. America is incessantly meddling across the globe at precipitous taxpayer expense. It is not at all clear that this is benefiting the taxpayer meaningfully. In any case, we are perfectly willing to suspend the non-aggression principle for new laws and new wars. So it is not true that we think things should be done peacefully. Some things shouldn't be done peacefully, apparently. But in both of these cases it is the government that we allow to be the aggressor.
In that thread I was really kicking myself for talking too much. I should have left it at "where is the line? How much can the government take from people before it is theft?" But I went and added "who get's to decide?" so you didn't address the real concern. Certainly the politicians in the "people's" republic of North Korea insist that the people are in agreement with the present rule. And maybe many of them are. But surely we can recognize that at some level of authoritarianism it is no longer a good thing. Or maybe, as long as the dictator is "good" and "benevolent" we will agree with more and more authoritarian rule because they agree with our sensibilities. Which is where propaganda enters the scene. If you can convince everyone that you are good and benevolent then you can act in authoritarian ways and garner praise.
To the question: I do think citizens have a mutual responsibility for each other's welfare as far as Christianity is concerned. I think this must be voluntarily taken up by the citizens not coercively extracted from them by well meaning politicians. If it is done at the point of a gun it is not care, nor compassion, nor responsibility. The coercion removes the good that it might have contained just as a woman's consent changes the action from love to rape. We would react with shock and horror if we coercively forced women to "provide" for men who "needed" it. In the proper context the action is right and good, if it is coerced, it is deeply wrong.
A nation is a collection of people whose lives are interwoven and who have chosen to embark on society together. They can jointly decide to take responsibility for each other, and to pool their resources to provide support for anyone whose life falls apart.
It is interesting that it is always the cities that talk about government enforcing this idea. The countryside practices this idea, at least in America, but I suspect this is somewhat universal. I guess people in cities don't care for one another. Maybe this should be done on a citywide basis and see how it fairs. I suspect it would fair poorly.
widely seen as the exemplar of a state whose members share only political values, is arguably also the least social democratic of Western states.
Well, we started with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." because we had no welfare and no restrictions on business. Come make something of yourself. It was free, but also dangerous. It turns out you cannot say "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" while you also give them free food and healthcare etc. It only works if there is nothing else you offer but their freedom. But I digress. That is the spirit in which America was founded. The nation was a nation bound together not by any national origin or ethnicity but by pride of being part of America and standing for freedom of the individual and freedom from overreach and tyranny from the government. This is why the current state of affairs is so troubling to Americans. We are supposed to be the land of freedom. Where you can come take refuge from your oppressive country. But compassion and the idea of provision for everyone is ruining everything. It is not supposed to be provision, it is supposed to be freedom. We have forgotten.
