Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:07:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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?
The key word is "wealthy benefactor;" it's charity because a person has decided
to do something of no advantage to himself or herself that does enormous good to
others. It's also not charity by proxy; it's charity at an individual level.
I don't think this discussion's about whether the government can be the agent of
charity, it's whether payment of taxes is a charitable act. So little of every
tax dollar goes to charitable ends that if a private charity gave the same
percentage they'd be publicly flogged, and rightly so. Roads and national
defense don't qualify as charity--public service, but not charity.
> But that's a heavily-spun definition, conjuring only the worst of government
> and only the best of charity. Once again, a strawman.
It is a cynical definition of government, but it boils down the essence of
politics: the majority of voters vote for a candidate for the purpose of
personal gain. Charity doesn't have that problem--people vote with their feet
by not giving to a charity.
What's the worst of charity--that sometimes charitable funds are misused? That
you're out whatever cash you gave to charity?
> 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.
By that reckoning, everything is a selfish, or at least self-serving, motive,
starting from "desire to exchange used carbon dioxide for clean oxygen!" If
there's no discernable non-selfish motive for any action, further discussion is
moot.
> > > 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 are using Bonetti's defense against me, ah? :)
Actually, I think I clearly identified some good aspects of taxation--roads,
public safety, education, and sanitation, to name a few--but you have yet to
identify the negative aspects of charity, and neglected some of the good aspects
of charity (shelters for victims of domestic abuse, for example).
> Otherwise, could you clarify how I've made gov't and charity mutually exclusive?
My apologies, I meant "mutually inclusive!" Quite a different meaning, and I
beg your forgiveness!
No, my intent is to show that they are separate... our duty as citizens is to
pay taxes; our duty as humans is to be charitable!
> 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
Which hits the crux of the argument--IMO, the governor's wrong, therefore the
legislation is wrong, and it is not the correct mechanism for that Biblical call
to manifest itself.
> 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.
FWIW, I sort of agree with you on your original intent. I don't think it's proper for the weight of government to be used to enforce Biblical calls. It's not the purpose of government to enforce one man's opinion on the rest. Take issue X--it's the government's role to determine if it is a crime, danger to public safety, etc., not to produce an opinion that X is moral or immoral. But it's also the intent of the First Amendment for government to not interfere with exercise of religion. A religious group should be free to say that "we believe that X is immoral" without the government uttering a peep. Also we live in a democratic republic. If the citizens of Alabama wish to decide through democratic means to be a little less separated than the rest, they're free to do so--it's the will of the people being executed--but those opposed should be free to try to change it, too.
My philosophy is that if government's role is to be small, individuals' roles
must be large. We take care of the needy because it is morally right to be
generous, not because the government says so! And we shouldn't pretend that our
share is done when we pay taxes, because it's not. We're all capable of better
than that.
Best regards,
Carl
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
