Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:32:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
260 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > And what, exactly, does it do for us? If charity is performed to achieve a
> > space in heaven, then it's a simple economic transaction designed to favor
> > oneself with a payoff disproportionate to the act of charity.
>
> Generosity makes us better people
But that just postpones the argument, rather than resolving it. (I continue
this point below.)
> (at least in my code of values--if it
> doesn't in yours then there's nothing but for us to agree to disagree). If
> our "generosity" is fueled only by a desire to earn a space in heaven, we are
> buying, not giving. For Christians, the belief comes first, then the desire
> to follow the teachings of that belief for their own sake, not for some
> cosmic cash-for-salvation payola.
> But public good (which includes my own) isn't charity. There's no debating
> that roads, public safety, education, accessible parking spaces for disabled
> fleebnorks to buy DVDs at Best Buy, etc. are the government's responsibility
> and indeed contribute to the public good. I'll take the meaning of charity
> as the more fortunate helping out the less fortunate (which the governor of
> Alabama is doing).
Here we may be at a crux of our disagreement. Why doesn't the public good
qualify as charity? Are there circumstances under which it might qualify? If
some wealthy benefactor gave a zillion dollars to pay for population-wide
innoculation against West Nile Virus (or any hypothetical disease) could that
act not be charitable even as it benefits the public good? And if the public
good *does* qualify as charitable work, then why can the government not be the
agent of that charity?
> But IMO most government programs are designed to purchase middle-class
> votes at the expense of the rich or the poor, while charity is designed to
> aid the needy, whether it's medically, spiritually, emotionally, or
> financially.
But that's a heavily-spun definition, conjuring only the worst of government
and only the best of charity. Once again, a strawman.
> > You appear to be suggesting that my good works should be motivated by:
> > a desire to "feel good" (which is a selfish motive)
>
> No, a desire to BE a good person, not to just feel good.
But why do you want to be a better person? If the performance of an act makes
one a better person, then the act fulfills the desire to be a better person,
which is to say that the act gives a reward to the actor.
> > To be clear--I'm not suggesting that a selfish motive is a bad motive, but
> > it's by definition not altruistic.
>
> Agreed--generosity cannot come from selfishness!
But my problem is that each of the listed motivations, including "desire to be
a better person," is fundamentally selfish, or at least self-serving. And
again, that doesn't destroy the value of the act; it simply disqualifies it as
an act of altruism.
> > Additionally, you're stacking the deck in your favor by the way you're
> > asking the question. You're identifying only the negative aspect of
> > taxation (ie, the shortage of one's own funds) while identifying only the
> > positive aspects of voluntary charitable giving (ie, the "good" feeling one
> > gets). That's a strawman argument.
>
> An oversimplification, granted, but it still supports my argument that
> government is not charity.
Of course it supports your argument, otherwise you likely wouldn't have
proposed it! 8^) Nonetheless, it's still a strawman caricature, so I don't
have any reason to refute it.
> > You're absolutely free to leave the country and move to an area that
> > doesn't collect taxes, and then you'll have that much more money to
> > donate to your favorite charitable institution. Of course, you won't have
> > access to the luxuries currently afforded you, but you're still welcome to
> > remove yourself from the tax cycle. But if you want to continue to enjoy
> > the tax-subsidized niceties of modern American life, then you should expect
> > to have to meet your share of the cost (ie, pay your taxes); otherwise,
> > you're just a squatter.
>
> Reduction ad absurdio--you're making charity and government mutually exclusive.
Forgive me, but I thought that you had made the distinction, as when you cited
government works as "public good" as opposed to "charity." Have I misunderstood
your intent in that regard?
Either way, I fear that I'm misunderstanding you at this point. If you're
objecting to "you'll have that much more money to donate to your favorite
charitable institution," then I withdraw that part of my comment as superfluous.
Otherwise, could you clarify how I've made gov't and charity mutually exclusive?
> Still, the main focus of my argument is this:
>
> -The Governor of Alabama has said that it is charitable to help the poor by
> having the rich pay more taxes.
> -Government and charity are not equivalent.
> -Therefore, accepting higher taxation is not a charitable act.
> -The governor is wrong.
Okay, I can see now what you're driving at more clearly, though I think I'd
characterize it a little bit differently:
-The Governor has interepreted the bible to indicate that it is charitable for
the wealthy to contribute to the aid of the less wealthy.
-The Governor can foster legislation to tax the wealthy
-The Governor believes that such legislation is an appropriate mechanism for
enacting his interpretation of the biblical call for the wealthy to aid the less
wealthy
For the purpose of clarity, I should mention that only introduced this article
because of the irony of its opponents, who all-too-often seek to subordinate the
Federal Government to Christian theology. Hop-Frog pointed out (correctly) that
I usually object to church/state blurring, and I certainly do. But the Governor
isn't legislating religion (which is forbidden); he's pursuing legislative goals
consistent with his reading of scripture.
He may or may not be wrong in his interpretation of scripture, but you can't
simply dismiss his argument by fiat. By his assessment, taxation can serve a
function equivalent to charity, and to that end his reasoning appears consistent
with his reading of the biblical message.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
