Do you believe hard cases make bad law?

[RCIAGraduate]

Especially when designing social welfare programs aimed to help people who may “fall through the cracks.”

 

[GEddie]

Especially when designing social welfare programs aimed to help people who may “fall through the cracks.”

I don’t know how welfare is designed, but certainly, hard cases, in court, can result in bad law.

Consider the case of Roe v. Wade, which the country is still living with the results of,

ICXC NIKA

 

[LSK]

I am not sure I understand the question.

Can you explain it a bit better?

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I am not sure I understand the question.

Can you explain it a bit better?

For instance, developing a universal health care system due to a small number of difficult cases such as a family who had to sell their home and still be in thousands of dollars of debt because they couldn’t afford health insurance (i.e. stories mentioned on Michael Moore’s Sicko).

Or developing national education standards because a handful of communities suffer dire issues in their local public schools?

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure the health care issue is based on hard cases. Under a single payer system we could greatly reduce the cost of medical care per person, as is the case in many other single payer systems, and the overal expenses in the country as a percent of GDP, and cover everyone in the nation, while the majority of working and middle class people will end up paying less in taxes than they do to insure a family with two kids in premiums. Let’s not forget the move towards high deductible plans, amd large member cost-shares after deductibles are satisfied, and thr financiap security and stability single payer woupd bring. Plus, while the free market is the most efficient way to distribute the majority of goods, (no doubt, nationalized industry is problematic for many parts of the economy) it’s not so efficient at high risk games like health care.

Anyway, I’m sure we could debate forever, but the people pushing for single payer aren’t making that argument because of the “hard cases.”

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Thank you for your points, but I just wanted to emphasize that I want this thread to generally stay on topic (I welcome other points and even very small tangents though).

Another thread I did appeared to spiral a little out of control and while points were made, it did (or is if it’s still being posted) to become quite divisive. I know that happens in debates, I don’t want anyone being alienated (especially from the Church) from threads like these.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In thinking about the general question of hard cases and bad law, I think the question is really about balancing the good of the many against the good of the few.

Take, for example, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). It focusses on the needs of a relatively small portion of the population - the disabled. Yet it incurs cost and inconvenience for everyone else. The costs are for providing ramps in addition to stairs, elevators, dedicated parking places, etc. A disabled person who cannot participate in society because of an infrastructure designed around the able-bodied is kind of a hard case. But the question of whether the ADA is bad law depends on the details. Most people would say that it is proper to take some reasonable steps to make society accessible to all. My personal opinion is that the ADA is reasonable. But I can see how some extension of the ADA might be unreasonable, and be an example of bad law.

So I would say that hard cases sometimes make bad law more likely, but with some effort it is possible for good law to come of hard cases.

 

[jc4751]

It sounds more like social pressure and trends make bad law, hence the current gay “marriage” push.

 

[GEddie]

In thinking about the general question of hard cases and bad law, I think the question is really about balancing the good of the many against the good of the few.

Take, for example, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). It focusses on the needs of a relatively small portion of the population - the disabled. Yet it incurs cost and inconvenience for everyone else. The costs are for providing ramps in addition to stairs, elevators, dedicated parking places, etc. A disabled person who cannot participate in society because of an infrastructure designed around the able-bodied is kind of a hard case. But the question of whether the ADA is bad law depends on the details. Most people would say that it is proper to take some reasonable steps to make society accessible to all. My personal opinion is that the ADA is reasonable. But I can see how some extension of the ADA might be unreasonable, and be an example of bad law.

So I would say that hard cases sometimes make bad law more likely, but with some effort it is possible for good law to come of hard cases.

With regard to the ADA, and to the earlier example about healthcare, the thing to remember is that **everybody, **as healthy and able as they may be now, will one day be unwell and/or disabled (unless, of course, they die young.)

Therefore, it is not the hard cases per se that make for bad law, but collective thought-processes (such as the American idea of “dying on your own two feet”), that lead to questions of what good law would be.

ICXC NIKA

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Therefore, it is not the hard cases per se that make for bad law, but collective thought-processes (such as the American idea of “dying on your own two feet”), that lead to questions of what good law would be.

Would one of the collective thought-processes include a dependence or forethought that
“the government will take care of it, if “X” happens” which lead to the lack of neighborly ties and community support for those in rough patches(like people who fall between the cracks of both social welfare and private charitable systems) or even poor prudential thinking along the lines of "that will never happen to me.’ or public outcries that call for knee jerk reactions for public policy rather than long-term thinking and vision?

I guess the main point of my thread was, for those (especially government agencies) who are concerned about the infeasibility of private charity and communities reaching a small (or perhaps even significantly large) portion of disadvantaged due to various reasons (from lack of funding, the free rider problem or even social discrimination), they end up creating these grand social programs that end up creating a whole hosts of problems of their own, such as helping those who could take care of themselves.

 

[GEddie]

Would one of the collective thought-processes include a dependence or forethought that
“the government will take care of it, if “X” happens” which lead to the lack of neighborly ties and community support for those in rough patches(like people who fall between the cracks of both social welfare and private charitable systems) or even poor prudential thinking along the lines of "that will never happen to me.’ or public outcries that call for knee jerk reactions for public policy rather than long-term thinking and vision?

I guess the main point of my thread was, for those (especially government agencies) who are concerned about the infeasibility of private charity and communities reaching a small (or perhaps even significantly large) portion of disadvantaged due to various reasons (from lack of funding, the free rider problem or even social discrimination), they end up creating these grand social programs that end up creating a whole hosts of problems of their own, such as helping those who could take care of themselves.

If there must be an error, better, IMNAAHO, to err on the side of helping someone who “could (at the present moment) take care of themself” rather than on the side of dropping them through the cracks.

In the 1984 African famine, the cheesy aid song, “We are the World,” had a lyric going, “We’re saving our own lives.” While overstated in that particular situation, there is a truth there: one day if you are not dead, you will be the one in need. Therefore, societal mitigation of catastrophic outcomes is not for a few but for everybody.

The NA frontier is long gone. The frontiersman attitude of everybody dying on their feet needs to join the six-guns and stagecoaches in the historical museum.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If there must be an error, better, IMNAAHO, to err on the side of helping someone who “could (at the present moment) take care of themself” rather than on the side of dropping them through the cracks.

In the 1984 African famine, the cheesy aid song, “We are the World,” had a lyric going, “We’re saving our own lives.” While overstated in that particular situation, there is a truth there: one day if you are not dead, you will be the one in need. Therefore, societal mitigation of catastrophic outcomes is not for a few but for everybody.

The NA frontier is long gone. The frontiersman attitude of everybody dying on their feet needs to join the six-guns and stagecoaches in the historical museum.

ICXC NIKA.

Thais is exactly why we have a society of dependence today. We have a generation of people who cannot take care of themselves.

The opportunities to NOT be in need are still available. It just takes a little work and effort. But…the easy way is to depend on someone else.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The opportunities to NOT be in need are still available. It just takes a little work and effort

Yes, but what about those like Foster Youth and those who had the misfortune of being born to ill-equipped or worse abusive families. How can one expect someone to walk if they were never taught or learned property or tragically, pushed down at every step?

Disclaimer: Look Mr.Cobain, I love you, (as in an affinity towards your perspective and goodwill towards you) but there are so many children and youth who have difficulties. They are born and grown in communities without the best chances, without the opportunities they deserve. Surely, some billions to help them (as well as private charity and community outreach to reach them) isn’t too much to ask.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, but what about those like Foster Youth and those who had the misfortune of being born to ill-equipped or worse abusive families. How can one expect someone to walk if they were never taught or learned property or tragically, pushed down at every step?

As an RCIA Graduate, I am sure you will agree that nowhere in Scripture are we promised a wonderful, happy life just for being born.

Assume, for a moment, that I am unaware of the plight of Foster Youth and have never raised a Foster Child.

What would you have me do to help? Other than increase my awareness.

Disclaimer: Look Mr.Cobain (?), I love you, (as in an affinity towards your perspective and goodwill towards you) but there are so many children and youth who have difficulties. They are born and grown in communities without the best chances, without the opportunities they deserve. Surely, some billions to help them (as well as private charity and community outreach to reach them) isn’t too much to ask.

Where do you expect the “billions” to come from?