Poke holes in my Social Welfare Idea

[LeafByNiggle]

No I won’t take back my criterion!
As to equal services or providing for the COMMON good…I refuted some of your examples and agreed with others.

You claimed to have refuted the border security example, but how can you say owner of a flower shop in Illinois benefits from border patrols just as much as a rancher in Arizona? Clearly the rancher benefits more. You claimed to have refuted the airport example by saying that everyone benefits from commerce and airfreight. But not everyone benefits to the same extent, right? Is that all it takes to satisfy your criterion? That everyone benefit to some extent, even if they don’t benefit equally?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You claimed to have refuted the border security example, but how can you say owner of a flower shop in Illinois benefits from border patrols just as much as a rancher in Arizona? Clearly the rancher benefits more. You claimed to have refuted the airport example by saying that everyone benefits from commerce and airfreight. But not everyone benefits to the same extent, right? Is that all it takes to satisfy your criterion? That everyone benefit to some extent, even if they don’t benefit equally?

The border is a National Security issue. ("…provide for the common defence".)
It is a government OBLIGATION spelled out in our founding documents. It really has nothing to with equal benefits. However if enough illegal immigrants crossed the border and forcibly occupied Arizona, I am pretty sure there would be some effect on the flower shop in Illinois.

Airports…OK lets say that a small airport only benefits private pilots and the land could be better used for grazing cattle. If that is the case then federal government support of that airport is illegitimate. But if the residents of a county agree that having a general aviation airport is desirable and they AUTHORIZE their county commissioners to build and operate such an airport…then it would be a legitimate local government expense.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The border is a National Security issue. ("…provide for the common defence".)
It is a government OBLIGATION spelled out in our founding documents. It really has nothing to with equal benefits. However if enough illegal immigrants crossed the border and forcibly occupied Arizona, I am pretty sure there would be some effect on the flower shop in Illinois.

I agree that common defence is a legitimate function of government. But the criterion by which it is legitimate has nothing to do with equal benefits to all citizens. Instead it is because that function is specifically authorized by the Constitution. So we see that having something authorized trumps the equal-benefit criterion, which is the only point I was making.

Airports…OK lets say that a small airport only benefits private pilots and the land could be better used for grazing cattle. If that is the case then federal government support of that airport is illegitimate. But if the residents of a county agree that having a general aviation airport is desirable and they AUTHORIZE their county commissioners to build and operate such an airport…then it would be a legitimate local government expense.

Again we see that popular support and explicit authorization of a project (such as an airport) makes it a legitimate function, even if that project benefits some more than others. It looks like you just agreed with that statement.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I agree that common defence is a legitimate function of government. But the criterion by which it is legitimate has nothing to do with equal benefits to all citizens. Instead it is because that function is specifically authorized by the Constitution. So we see that having something authorized trumps the equal-benefit criterion, which is the only point I was making.

Again we see that popular support and explicit authorization of a project (such as an airport) makes it a legitimate function, even if that project benefits some more than others. It looks like you just agreed with that statement.

Then why are we arguing about this…

Are we arguing?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then why are we arguing about this…

Are we arguing?

We are arguing because your main objection to spending on Social Welfare programs was that they did not benefit everyone equally. But if we follow the conclusion of my previous post, if the people decide they want to authorize spending on Social Welfare programs, then those programs are therefore legitimate.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We are arguing because your main objection to spending on Social Welfare programs was that they did not benefit everyone equally. But if we follow the conclusion of my previous post, if the people decide they want to authorize spending on Social Welfare programs, then those programs are therefore legitimate.

That goes back to the “consent of the governed”.

If those who establish a government want that government to provide welfare…fine.

It is a dangerous precedent open to corruption and abuse…but if the people want their government to provide an illegitimate service…that is their choice.

As long as welfare programs require taking money from some by force and giving it to others…it is theft. That is about as illegitimate as you can get.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That goes back to the “consent of the governed”.

If those who establish a government want that government to provide welfare…fine

It is a dangerous precedent open to corruption and abuse…but if the people want their government to provide an illegitimate service…that is their choice.

Wait, I thought you just agreed that whatever the people choose to authorize and give their consent to authorize is legitimate. So on what basis can you now call any such service an “illegitimate service”?

As long as welfare programs require taking money from some by force and giving it to others…it is theft. That is about as illegitimate as you can get.

Now your objection is that money is taken by force and used for the benefit of others. But isn’t that true of all taxes? If a local municipality decides to raise money to expand the airport, and they do this by raising a tax, isn’t that also taking money by force and using it more for the benefit of others? If welfare programs are illegitimate for this reason, then funding an airport expansion would have to be illegitimate for the same reason.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Wait, I thought you just agreed that whatever the people choose to authorize and give their consent to authorize is legitimate. So on what basis can you now call any such service an “illegitimate service”?

Because it is theft.

Now your objection is that money is taken by force and used for the benefit of others. But isn’t that true of all taxes? If a local municipality decides to raise money to expand the airport, and they do this by raising a tax, isn’t that also taking money by force and using it more for the benefit of others? If welfare programs are illegitimate for this reason, then funding an airport expansion would have to be illegitimate for the same reason.

You are missing my point.

Our government does many unauthorized things. That does not make them legitimate.
Our government provides welfare in many forms from social security to corporate welfare. That does not make it legitimate.
Our government passes laws that violate our Constitution. These laws go unchallenged or are politically “strong-armed” into existence.

People can change laws and change governments. But if they authorize their government to steal…it is wrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because it is theft.

You are missing my point.

Our government does many unauthorized things. That does not make them legitimate.
Our government provides welfare in many forms from social security to corporate welfare. That does not make it legitimate.
Our government passes laws that violate our Constitution. These laws go unchallenged or are politically “strong-armed” into existence.

People can change laws and change governments. But if they authorize their government to steal…it is wrong.

You have not shown how welfare is stealing but expanding an airport is not stealing. Unless you believe expanding an airport is also stealing.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You have not shown how welfare is stealing but expanding an airport is not stealing. Unless you believe expanding an airport is also stealing.

Taking money from some by force and giving it to others is theft.
Charitable welfare is benevolence.

As much as I enjoy general aviation…a government supported airport used, exclusively by private pilots for pleasure, would definitely not be serving the common good. Therefore it would be a form of stealing since all are supporting it but few are beneficiaries.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Taking money from some by force and giving it to others is theft.
Charitable welfare is benevolence.

Of course, the Church has not taught that taxation and redistribution is theft.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Of course, the Church has not taught that taxation and redistribution is theft.

That’s right…but St Augustine thought it was.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Taking money from some by force and giving it to others is theft.
Charitable welfare is benevolence.

As much as I enjoy general aviation…a government supported airport used, exclusively by private pilots for pleasure, would definitely not be serving the common good. Therefore it would be a form of stealing since all are supporting it but few are beneficiaries.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Your objection to airport expansion seems to be based on the degree to which only some people benefit (namely private pilots). But what about an airport expansion that provides for emergency air ambulance service for a remote town in Alaska? Let’s say this town only has limited hospital services, and certain emergencies can only be handled by the hospital in a larger town 200 miles away? I think you will agree that this project does serve the common good because anyone can develop a serious medical condition that requires airlifting.

But this is similar to welfare programs. Welfare programs (when properly implemented) are a form of emergency relief that anyone might need. Conditions beyond your control could put you in dire straits. You may not need that assistance today, but it is nice to know that it is there if you should need it. So in that sense, welfare programs potentially benefit everyone, and therefore are not necessarily theft.

While the preceding referred to welfare programs in principle, I do not defend all welfare programs as they are currently practiced. Sometimes it appears that they do provide assistance to those who don’t really need it. And this needs to be corrected. But in so doing, we cannot just rule out any possible public assistance program with simplistic terms like “theft” and “illegitimate”. The most credible criticism of such implementations of programs is that they are unfair.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Your objection to airport expansion seems to be based on the degree to which only some people benefit (namely private pilots). But what about an airport expansion that provides for emergency air ambulance service for a remote town in Alaska? Let’s say this town only has limited hospital services, and certain emergencies can only be handled by the hospital in a larger town 200 miles away? I think you will agree that this project does serve the common good because anyone can develop a serious medical condition that requires airlifting.

If , in fact, it does serve the common good as you describe…then it would be a legitimate expenditure of tax payer money.

But this is similar to welfare programs. Welfare programs (when properly implemented) are a form of emergency relief that anyone might need. Conditions beyond your control could put you in dire straits. You may not need that assistance today, but it is nice to know that it is there if you should need it. So in that sense, welfare programs potentially benefit everyone, and therefore are not necessarily theft.

Yes, I see your point and would agree as long as the government were not a part of it.
“FEMA and Katrina” come to mind.

Government welfare programs potentially benefit everyone…but not in practice.

Every welfare program could end tomorrow. All it would take is a quick vote of congress and the swipe of a pen. That’s all it took to create them…what the government gives…it can take away.

While the preceding referred to welfare programs in principle, I do not defend all welfare programs as they are currently practiced. Sometimes it appears that they do provide assistance to those who don’t really need it. And this needs to be corrected. But in so doing, we cannot just rule out any possible public assistance program with simplistic terms like “theft” and “illegitimate”. The most credible criticism of such implementations of programs is that they are unfair.

“Unfair” just minimizes the problem. Lots of people can live with or ignore “unfair”. In truth we are dealing with theft as well as un-Constitutional actions.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That’s right…but St Augustine thought it was.

What exactly did St. Augustine say on the topic?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What exactly did St. Augustine say on the topic?

“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms?”

With these words, Augustine challenges the moral legitimacy of government by conquest and in the process invites consideration of the fundamental ethical question raised by the phenomenon of taxation:

What is the difference between just taxation and legal plunder? A similarity between kings and robbers, after all, is that both extract resources by force from productive members of society.

 

[stinkcat_14]

“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms?”

With these words, Augustine challenges the moral legitimacy of government by conquest and in the process invites consideration of the fundamental ethical question raised by the phenomenon of taxation:

What is the difference between just taxation and legal plunder? A similarity between kings and robbers, after all, is that both extract resources by force from productive members of society.

In this passage he is not talking explicitly about taxation and redistribution.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In this passage he is not talking explicitly about taxation and redistribution.

What do you think he is talking about?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms?”

With these words, Augustine challenges the moral legitimacy of government by conquest and in the process invites consideration of the fundamental ethical question raised by the phenomenon of taxation:

What is the difference between just taxation and legal plunder? A similarity between kings and robbers, after all, is that both extract resources by force from productive members of society.

With the words “Justice being taken away”, Augustine is qualifying the kind of kingdoms he is talking about. Namely, those kingdoms in which justice has been taken away. The comparison between kingdoms and robberies, then, only applies, in Augustine’s view, if those kingdoms have first abandoned justice. However Augustine does not, in this passage here, say anything about what constitutes injustice. And you cannot conclude that any kingdom that extracts resources under force of law is necessarily unjust, since that extraction may very well be just indeed. Therefore I agree with stickcat that Augustine in this passage is not talking about a just redistribution.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

With the words “Justice being taken away”, Augustine is qualifying the kind of kingdoms he is talking about. Namely, those kingdoms in which justice has been taken away. The comparison between kingdoms and robberies, then, only applies, in Augustine’s view, if those kingdoms have first abandoned justice. However Augustine does not, in this passage here, say anything about what constitutes injustice. And you cannot conclude that any kingdom that extracts resources under force of law is necessarily unjust, since that extraction may very well be just indeed. Therefore I agree with stickcat that Augustine in this passage is not talking about a just redistribution.

I am saddened that you both are wrong