Insurance for Healthcare

[darinhouston]

It just strikes me that God has given me resources not only to "distribute" but to "manage wisely."

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
The New Testament says that the government is authorized by God to enforce criminal justice, and to be paid for this service by the taxpayer base that is thus protected. This is the total sphere of governmental authority, so far as scripture informs, and it is enough.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
There are two basic approaches to engaging scripture: one takes scripture as the end of understanding, and one takes scripture as a beginning to understanding.

The New Testament is by no stretch of the imagination a comprehensive manual on governmental theory. The Roman Empire, of course, did not merely enforce criminal justice. The Romans undertook great public works projects, including roads and water systems that can still be seen today. The New Testament neither compliments nor indicts the Roman government for this.

steve wrote:
Although the New Testament does not represent the end of all Christian discussion, as a starting point, it provides the foundation for all genuinely Christian discourse.

I would not expect to see a a general analysis of the Roman governmental policy in documents written to regulate the behavior of people belonging to an alternative society, like the Kingdom of God—except where a specific criticism could serve as a lesson in contrasts. ... [Secular government] is mentioned only to make a point about Christian duty in regard to it—namely, that Christians should be law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. The distribution of community assets in the church was for the support of the poor. This is because the church did not have governmental functions (like the execution of criminal justice) on their agenda.

The early church did not concern itself with matters of governmental ethic because it expected G-d to displace the world order imminently and unilaterally. We see how right they were about that.

But if it is your stance that the New Testament does not attempt to offer much in the way of comment on proper governance of society at large, it is questionable for you to argue from its silence. It may not telegraph an endorsement of “limited government,” but rather selective engagement due to the prevailing interests of its writers.

steve wrote:
Since the Roman participants in the kingdom of God were not in a position directly to alter the spending habits of the Roman government, I would not see much reason for the Christians—who had things to discuss that more immediately related to their duties as Christians—to expend precious ink and parchment to matters unrelated to their sphere of responsibility.

Naturally, the Christian constituents of the Roman Empire had the opportunity to alter its paradigms. The constituents of every society have the opportunity to transform it, and every society receives the government it chooses for itself - howbeit by overt and/or surreptitious action, or by negligence and/or cowardice.

steve wrote:
The maintenance of roads may be said to be consistent with the government's general duty to maintain a just society, since both military and police functioning are enhanced by the presence of good highways. ... As for public education, I can see how it might be in the public interest to have educated citizens—just as it is in the public interest to have disease-free citizens (our government, however, has not shown itself effective at providing the former, and is not likely to do better with the latter). However, there were very good educational options (and a highly literate populus) prior to the introduction of mandatory state education, and, for many centuries, we have had one of the most disease-free societies in the world, without nationalized health care.

To begin with, the likely or demonstrated competence of the American government is secondary to the more basic discussion of the justice or injustice of a government levying taxes for general social welfare.

Generally speaking, that which contributes to the broad health and welfare of society is an investment toward the maintenance of a just society. A populace that is hearty, healthy, and well-trained mentally is better equipped to muster for military draft and to facilitate the pursuit of justice through perceptive testimony and thoughtful jury service. And this is just addressing the limited sphere which you have afforded to government.

steve wrote:
There are an endless number of things that could be said to be generally beneficial to a society, but which the government is neither required, authorized, nor well-qualified to provide, and which can very adequately be provided by private investment and incentives. A moral citizenry is a better guarantee of good education, public health and general prosperity (all factors in the public interest) than the expansion of programs managed and regulated by government officials—who have not demonstrated themselves to be superior to the general population in any measure other than the ability to get themselves elected (often by dubious means).

(a) The government is “required” to provide what society assigns for it to provide. Government is the agent of society.

(b) We have already established that your New Testament is not a manual for government, and I suppose that most Christians do not consider the governmental paradigms of their Old Testament to be binding. So lack of authorization from a Christian bible is hardly compelling.

(c) As for the qualification of government – it, like private agencies, has potential to be/become better or less qualified.

(d) You may sing the glories of a moral citizenry, but in our present world a great many people are like sheep, and as such governing shepherds have the potential to make a significant difference in yielding a more moral citizenry – including through forcing people to behave better than they would otherwise, thus inculcating better habits and molding a healthier sense of conventional wisdom.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
If one is fundamentally unwilling to accept the terms of participation in their society, then they have the privilege of disinvesting. This is easier in the United States than it is in other parts of the world. No one is forced to retain their American citizenship, and with few exceptions (say, terrorist suspects), no one is forced to dwell under the authority of the American government, which is the enforcing agency of American society. If one wishes, they may renounce their citizenship and attempt to emigrate to another society. Should they wish to abandon societal constraints to a radical extent, they may become stateless persons and pursue a migrant life in international waters or settle in the unclaimed portion of Antarctica. But should they wish to participate in a society, such has its costs, including making oneself available to taxation according to the paradigms of the society.

steve wrote:
Your suggestion of the simple option of renouncing citizenship, though presented as if it is an argument for the government to instate any oppressive policy it may choose, because the oppressed can simply leave, is of course no realistic option at all for any but a very few individuals, who may have the flexibility and resources to obtain alternative citizenship. If this option were a real one in the modern world, I would tend to agree with you. However, I doubt that you really see such as a realistic option, so it fails to stand as a legitimate argument for any point you are advocating.

“Realistic"? A man who has lived and has raised a family for decades without regular employment or health insurance wants to invoke “realistic” concerns?!

If someone wants terribly badly to disinvest, then they have options. Difficult, unpalatable options – but options.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I welcome your explanation of how G-d has apportioned the land on the North American continent.

steve wrote:
I have no specific opinion on this, other than my general conviction that the continual adjustment of political boundaries around the globe is an ongoing affair which has been going on since ancient times. I do not believe that any ethnic group possesses a permanent divine sanction to hold any land in perpetuity, but I think that Christians are to accept the current international geographic boundaries as they are, until something (probably beyond our power) alters them again.

The issue is germane. If the United States rightly holds its land, then its taxation is not robbing anyone who decides to dwell within its boundaries. Their residence is a matter of privilege extended by American society, and extended on certain terms, including taxation.

If the United States does not rightly hold its land, then varieties of taxation would seem to be a relatively minor concern when it comes to justice. What we should then be discussing is to whom we should reallocate the land and its governance. Then the new landholders can tax the residents as they choose.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Individual ethic should not be confused with social ethic.

steve wrote:
In one sense, I agree. There are some activities that are ethical for private citizens and are not ethical for governments to perform (like the administration of charity), and there are also activities that are ethical for governments, but not for private citizens, to perform (like executing criminals). On the other hand, all parties, whether private or governmental share one ethical obligation, and that is that they not be unjust.

I fail to see how it has been demonstrated that charity is not ethical for a government to perform.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
It is the just responsibility of a society to provide for the needs of its constituents. To do so, the society makes use of its resources, however scattered they may be amongst its constituents. And to do such with discretionary income is not robbery, any more than it is robbery for one’s body to draw unneeded blood or nutrients from one part to the benefit of another.

steve wrote
The government has no money to pay for healthcare. In fact, it is already in enormous debt for projects which it has no mandate to conduct, and for the payment of which it is robbing several generations yet unborn! What the government lacks means to provide, it is under no obligation to provide this benefit to its citizens.

Because the government is the agent of society, the question is not whether government lacks the money, but whether society lacks the money. If society has the money, then it is responsible for its choices in allocation, and its governmental agent can carry out the chosen allocation(s).

[steve]

I fail to see how it has been demonstrated that charity is not ethical for a government to perform.

The government cannot conduct "charitable" works because the government owns no resources. It must take resources from others through confiscation. One can only be charitable by giving what is one's own to give.

If the citizens are willing to give to the charity, then it is they, and not the confiscatory governmental agency, who are being charitable. But then, they can be charitable without the intervention of the government. A middle-man always reduces the net amount that reaches the end-recipients.

On the other hand, if the citizens are unwilling, then the money forced from them for "charity" is not charitable giving by any of the parties—not on the part of those who grudgingly relinquished their money, and not on the part of those who forced them to do so.

Charity, by definition, involves the voluntary surrender of one's own assets. For this reason, government cannot conduct "charity." It has no assets, other than by taxation; and taxation is not voluntary.

The government can conduct acts of relief to the poor, but these acts cannot be categorized as charitable acts.

[kaufmannphillips]

Thank you for your response, Steve.

For what it is worth, your comment would depend upon a certain sort of theory-of-ownership. A more social theory-of-ownership would not sustain your argument.

[steve]

True.

[Jason]

Emmet, from reading your responses on this thread, it strikes me that you hold an incredibly idealistic view of American government. A friend of mine is a civilian contractor for the Army Reserves and makes recruitment videos for them. He told me of an occasion where a $90,000 video camera was accidentally released from a crane and crashed to the ground. The guy who was responsible simply shrugged and said, "Good thing the government pays for all this. I'm going to ask for a couple more." He wasn't joking. He also told me of the many times they'd buy a piece of overpriced equipment for the sole reason that the government supplies their funding. In other words, they do it just because they can. It's you and I that are being charged for decisions made by recipients of government funding, most of whom seem to lack any sort of sound moral judgement.

This is a pretty minor example of what goes wrong when the government bankrolls a program and it happens in every sector. I agree with Steve that the current model of taxation is unjust. To the idealist, our government exists to inform and protect the public while maintaining the best interest of its tax-paying citizens. Unfortunately, poor moral judgement and demonstrable lack of character among its decision makers has proven that the idealist model can only work in theory, but never in practice. That said, our government does get a lot of things right. I'm just starting to wonder if it's only by accident.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Jason,

Thank you for your comment.

My comments are not so much "idealistic" as conceptual, a la social contract theory. A particular government may be an inefficient agent, or an irresponsible agent, or at times a disloyal agent, but its role is as an agent for society. It exists at the sufferance of society, and its essential rationale is to perform the expectations of society, for the advantage of society.

As for sundry practical shortcomings, these should not be terribly surprising. Government is made up of human beings, who are notoriously imperfect. But human beings in the private sector are not perfect either. And those citizens in the private sector, who are better persons than their fellow citizens in the government, might consider making a personal sacrifice and entering government in order to give society a better agency. But many would rather sit on the sidelines and carp.

[Jason]

As for sundry practical shortcomings, these should not be terribly surprising. Government is made up of human beings, who are notoriously imperfect. But human beings in the private sector are not perfect either. And those citizens in the private sector, who are better persons than their fellow citizens in the government, might consider making a personal sacrifice and entering government in order to give society a better agency. But many would rather sit on the sidelines and carp.

That's a good point. And I think some have done that very thing, but there does seem to be something unusually corrupting about holding a high office, or any position which grants power. It might be, and probably is, easier for a poor man (who has far fewer tempting pleasures of which to avail himself) than for a wealthy government official who will undoubtedly be tempted on many fronts. The attraction of politics is money and power because it offers both. While a poor man with no power might be tempted to steal in order to attain a better life for his family, that risk is often tempered with the knowledge that he's not likely to get away with it. A government official can more easily be duplicitous since taking bribes and such is almost considered the norm. So I don't judge those who refuse to take part in the system. It's quite a beast.

[darinhouston]

Thank you for your response, Steve.

For what it is worth, your comment would depend upon a certain sort of theory-of-ownership. A more social theory-of-ownership would not sustain your argument.

Your posts seem to assume a social theory that does not recognize the foundational theories of our particular country. While your comments are true in another context, at least in the US, we have a government of limited and enumerated rights. There is no government and no governmental authority or rights beyond that granted to it by the people through their representative members in the Constitution and those laws that are consistent with it.

As Steve has pointed out, the US government owns nothing that people haven't specifically given it -- it may "control" property it has unlawfully confiscated, but it doesn't "own" it. This is a big difference in a constitutional republic from other forms of government.

[kaufmannphillips]

darinhouston wrote:
Your posts seem to assume a social theory that does not recognize the foundational theories of our particular country. While your comments are true in another context, at least in the US, we have a government of limited and enumerated rights. There is no government and no governmental authority or rights beyond that granted to it by the people through their representative members in the Constitution and those laws that are consistent with it.

As Steve has pointed out, the US government owns nothing that people haven't specifically given it -- it may "control" property it has unlawfully confiscated, but it doesn't "own" it. This is a big difference in a constitutional republic from other forms of government.

Social contract theory holds for the United States as well. I may point out that the actual social contract for American society may not be the formal contract articulated in the US Constitution. The actual social contract is the operative arrangement pursued by society, regardless of ostensible claims in parchment and ink.

Beyond this, I am not terrifically qualified to enter into a discussion of constitutionality. I am an erstwhile bible professor, not a scholar of the American legal system. But I imagine that the situation in that field is much the same as it is with religious studies. There are barbershops and bowling alleys replete with cognoscenti of religion and law, who know everything but their ignorance. Such cognoscenti frequently make claims about the bible or the Constitution - while strangely, persons who have devoted decades of their lives to study of these documents find reason to disagree.