K.A.F.: Well the majority of people who are in poverty are children.... So.....
Me: I don't see Bernie or his supporters getting out their checkbooks and helping the disabled or mentally ill.
K.A.F.: Bernie supporter here. I have worked 40-50+ hours a week for almost a decade with the mentally ill and disabled populations in various social work positions. I think my occupation reflects those values and while I may not be able to pull out my checkbook, my financial contribution is foregoing a better paying career in order to work in this field.
Me: Your service to them is appreciated. However, my point stands.
K.A.F.: Only Bernie supporters care about the mentally ill? Or only Bernie supporters should pay to help the disabled? Both?
What does that imply about the attitudes of people who didn't support Bernie about the mentally ill and disabled?
Me: My point is that seldom does a supporter of government social programs ever feel personal responsibility to help those in need with their own money. They always seem to be in favor of helping people with others' money.
Government programs aren't compassionate, people are. But paying your taxes is not compassion. Directly helping people is compassion.
K.A.F.: I somewhat agree. Are you coming at this from a biblical perspective?
Me: I'm coming at this from a human perspective. Human compassion is by definition personal action as someone is moved in their heart to help. There is no compassion in transferring one's personal duty to another party.
K.A.F.: Ok. Just wondering. I am a believer and I've heard a lot of similar arguments from christians about what "charity" or "compassion" is.
I can't even say it's about compassion at all. As humans, in a society, how do we view human life? Do we have a responsibility to those who cannot care for themselves? Does every meal or doctor appointment have to come out of the compassion of an individual's heart for their belly to be full or their symptoms of debilitating mental illness to be treated and relieved? When my human heart is selfish, is that where their life stops mattering?
Me: Sorry for the long response.
Your use of "we" suggests a collective obligation, which presumes that such a collective entity has a responsibility to act. There is only one such entity I would consent to, and that is a charity.
The crucial distinction is coercion. If I choose to join up, I am acting of my own volition. The organization is acting according to my preferences. If it stops doing so, I move my participation elsewhere.
However, if the entity is government, participation in its programs is not optional. If I'm forced to part with my money so that government can spend money on its objectives, not mine.
Without consent, there is no compassion.
If your human heart becomes selfish, that is your problem, and you and you alone answer for that. Just as no one should be forced to give to government, no one should be forced at all. That choice would be sin, and is not a matter for society.
K.A.F.: "If" my human heart becomes selfish. I think it's WHEN my HUMAN heart becomes selfish.
You say their well-being and worth is a matter of how you feel. I say it's a matter of who they are and that is not dependent on how I feel.
Government is not perfect but what role can it fill if every individual has to choose and agree with every single thing? It is inherently collective. I believe part of the government's role is to protect its people, whether that's with military against foreign enemies or with food against starvation. Are the American people any less protected if there's a draft? Are children, elderly, and disabled Americans any less fed from food stamps? Both programs supported from our tax dollars.
I should mention that I'm not with Bernie on his whole platform. One example being free college. I think it's unnecessary. But I am against predatory student lending.
Me: No, I did not say "their well-being and worth is a matter of how I feel."
You don't seem to be understanding my point. Yes, of course, government by definition is a collective. But that does not justify any and every action it takes. For example, when it takes money for the military, it is not transferring wealth from one individual to another.
When government transfers wealth, it is forcing people to part with their money, and therefore has decided that someone else deserves it more than you.
No comments:
Post a Comment