Capitalism, Taxation, Altruism, Private Property and Christian Virtue

[John Dahl]

In reading through many of these postings one of the common thoughts seems to be that many of you seem to think you should have some claim to someone else's private property. I don't understand this type of thinking. What possible moral argument can be made to take private property from one person and give it to someone else? We need to be able to separate emotion from the subject of health care and apply the same principle of private property rights as we would to say providing everybody with free cell phone service.

[Chuck Wilkes]

In reading through many of these postings one of the common thoughts seems to be that many of you seem to think you should have some claim to someone else's private property. I don't understand this type of thinking. What possible moral argument can be made to take private property from one person and give it to someone else? We need to be able to separate emotion from the subject of health care and apply the same principle of private property rights as we would to say providing everybody with free cell phone service.

John:

I'm glad you brought this understanding to the table. The notion that private property rights constitute the apex of the hierarchy of rights is critical to this debate. That philosophy underlies much of the resistance to any kind of shared responsibility for health care reform (or for any other function of government), but it is often unspoken. The fact is that those who hold this belief have an unrecognized hope...they can keep all their private property (income and capital) to the exclusion of all others (by taxes or other means) until all those who need health care or any other care simply die or disappear. It will be vigorously denied by them, but it is the ultimate solution of the property rights folks. And, in a way it makes sense. Tightly holding to the notion of inviolate property rights inevitably leads to the survival of those who have and the elimination of those who do not have, regardless for the reason for both.

Chuck

[Ryan Scott]

I'd argue the private property thing is even more simple - there's someone against any possible public use of funds. If we gave people an out because they opposed paying for something through tax dollars, we wouldn't have anything. We want to think we don't need each other, but people are societal - we have to deal with each other and get along.

I don't think health care is necessarily a governmental responsibility. I do think that in our society, it's something we've neglected. We provide roads and public utilities, neither is something the government has to provide, but something we collectively think is important.

Nearly everyone believes a basic standard of universal health care is a societal good, some don't want to pay for it. The argument is whether it's worth the sacrifice or not.

As I mentioned in my post, I think we have to address cost issues before people with money will accept the value in providing health care. The wealthy are generally shrewd investors and they don't see this as a good investment until costs have a measure of control.

A focus on nutrition might be a first step in that direction.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Nearly everyone believes a basic standard of universal health care is a societal good, some don't want to pay for it. The argument is whether it's worth the sacrifice or not.

As I mentioned in my post, I think we have to address cost issues before people with money will accept the value in providing health care. The wealthy are generally shrewd investors and they don't see this as a good investment until costs have a measure of control.

A focus on nutrition might be a first step in that direction.

Ryan:

I concur with your idea that nutrition might be a good place to start. But, I'm not sure I concur that it is even remotely possible to convince property rights advocates to do anything like that. The idea that the wealthy would voluntarily purchase nutritious food for the poor is simply never going to happen; and, the idea that they might agree to a tax to do so is even more remote.

We've already seen in the comments here (by our good Christian brothers and sisters) than even those who claim Jesus as Lord are very reluctant to embrace the needs of the unfortunate as worthy of concern. Despite claims to the contrary, the bottom line is that people who have more than they absolutely need will never give up the excess to others in any volume remotely close to significantly helping them. The whole of human history teaches us that human selfishness is deep and broad and is only slightly impacted by the Gospel as we teach/preach it in evangelical circles in the West.

Chuck

[John Dahl]

Chuck:
Who are any of us to say that anybody else has more than they need? We would have to have the wisdom of God to make that determination. Everything I or anyone else has or will have comes from God, so to say it is too much puts us in an arrogant position.

As a property rights advocate I am not waiting for anyone to die or disappear. I am doing my part as God directs me to give to others. God asks us to voluntarily love and serve Him. As Christians should we advocate compelling others to serve their fellow man through confiscation of private property or should we allow them to voluntarily choose to do so out of a heart of love and service to Jesus Christ? If people choose not to then that is an indictment on us as Christians for not making disciples.

Again I ask the question what is the moral argument for taking from one individual and giving to another? Even James Madison who is considered the father of the constitution said in response to the desire of some to help a group of french refugees in 1794 that he couldn't seem to lay his hand to that article of the constitution that allowed for public benevolence.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Chuck:
Who are any of us to say that anybody else has more than they need? We would have to have the wisdom of God to make that determination. Everything I or anyone else has or will have comes from God, so to say it is too much puts us in an arrogant position.

As a property rights advocate I am not waiting for anyone to die or disappear. I am doing my part as God directs me to give to others. God asks us to voluntarily love and serve Him. As Christians should we advocate compelling others to serve their fellow man through confiscation of private property or should we allow them to voluntarily choose to do so out of a heart of love and service to Jesus Christ? If people choose not to then that is an indictment on us as Christians for not making disciples.

Again I ask the question what is the moral argument for taking from one individual and giving to another? Even James Madison who is considered the father of the constitution said in response to the desire of some to help a group of french refugees in 1794 that he couldn't seem to lay his hand to that article of the constitution that allowed for public benevolence.

First, I don't think it's arrogant in the least to assert that someone has more than they need...and that it's pretty easy to ascertain how much that is. I assume the concomitant of your argument is true? If all you have comes from God, may I assume that all the needy have (and don't have) comes from, or is withheld by, God also? It's the only logical conclusion of that argument.

Second, I have no opinion on your personal conduct and your willingness to share. I assume you are a charitable person or you wouldn't be involved with this board. So, my argument is not directed at you. However, your argument indicates that those who have means will share them out of their love for Jesus. That argument fails for two reasons. First, the great majority of people are not Christians and, second, even if all Christians shared generously it wouldn't even be close to enough to impact the needs. The only logical conclusion to this part of your argument is that the needy must be disposed of in some other way than meeting their needs.

Finally, your implication that the Constitution is the sole embodiment of moral authority in the United States is simply not true. I don't find it at all noteworthy that James Madison would not find constitutional support for helping refugees; but, he would, of course, have found constitutional support for treating slaves as chattel property subjected to the most inhumane treatment. Your example is not a good one.

A caveat (repeated): My arguments are targeted at your arguments, not at you personally. Really good people often hold really bad ideas (I'm sure I'm included in that group!). It's hard to convey this in print, so I keep repeating it.

Chuck

[John Dahl]

Chuck,

You obviously have no problem in giving up your freedom in this area of personal property, at what point would you say enough is enough. The problem with giving up our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is that the line of going too far is a subjective line based only upon the whims of elected people. If we want to give up freedoms in this area I would submit that we should go through the amendment process to change our constitution.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Chuck,

You obviously have no problem in giving up your freedom in this area of personal property, at what point would you say enough is enough. The problem with giving up our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is that the line of going too far is a subjective line based only upon the whims of elected people. If we want to give up freedoms in this area I would submit that we should go through the amendment process to change our constitution.

John:

Can you give me the specific constitutional provision to which you refer? The one prohibiting infringements on personal property. I assume that's what you refer to. I'd like to be looking at the same language you are looking at. Thanks.

Chuck

[John Dahl]

Chuck:

I am no constitutional scholar but as I read section 8 of article 1 I don't see anything that would authorize taking from one and giving to another. A lot of people I believe see the words "general welfare" and think that that means welfare as we now think of it. Most of the constitutional scholars that I have read do not hold this view.

I still take exception to your claim that you can possibly know when a person has more than they need. If that is the case what about the poor peasant in India or Bangladesh that looks upon the "poor" in the US and claims that they have more than they need? If we have the ability in the US to make that determination then it stands to reason those in the really impoverished areas also have that ability. If by comparison our "poor" have too much then I guess they don't need any public assistance. I'm sure you see the danger in that type of comparison. The apostle Paul also knew the dangers of comparative living when he listed emulations(comparative living) as a work of the flesh in the 5th chapter of Galations.

Your assertion that if all Christians gave according to how you think they should give there still would not be enough to help the poor I still misses the point that God has all the wealth. He has promised to to take care of the birds of the air, would he then not take care of His highest creation? Again we can't look at how He chooses to do that in comparison to anybody else. I can only be held responsible for what He has asked to do.

I will not believe we have to give up our personal liberties.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Chuck:

I am no constitutional scholar but as I read section 8 of article 1 I don't see anything that would authorize taking from one and giving to another. A lot of people I believe see the words "general welfare" and think that that means welfare as we now think of it. Most of the constitutional scholars that I have read do not hold this view.

I still take exception to your claim that you can possibly know when a person has more than they need. If that is the case what about the poor peasant in India or Bangladesh that looks upon the "poor" in the US and claims that they have more than they need? If we have the ability in the US to make that determination then it stands to reason those in the really impoverished areas also have that ability. If by comparison our "poor" have too much then I guess they don't need any public assistance. I'm sure you see the danger in that type of comparison. The apostle Paul also knew the dangers of comparative living when he listed emulations(comparative living) as a work of the flesh in the 5th chapter of Galations.

Your assertion that if all Christians gave according to how you think they should give there still would not be enough to help the poor I still misses the point that God has all the wealth. He has promised to to take care of the birds of the air, would he then not take care of His highest creation? Again we can't look at how He chooses to do that in comparison to anybody else. I can only be held responsible for what He has asked to do.

I will not believe we have to give up our personal liberties.

Any fair reading of Section 8, Article 1 would conclude that many of its provisions impede the use of personal property. It's very clear that there is no constitutional impediment to restrictions on the use of personal property. It is clearly left to Congress (and the political processes that elect its members) to determine where to draw the line.

Your assertion that it is God's problem to deal with his "highest creation" mis-reads Scripture and human history. The Bible is replete with commands to God's people to care for the widows, orphans, aliens, and the poor. In virtually no cases in history has God provided directly for the poor. Rather, he has depended on his children to do the providing. The logical conclusion of your approach is that each Christian should do as God requires with his/her own property and if it is insufficient to meet the need it's just God's problem. That simply cannot be correct.

Chuck