Taxation in general is not slavery. There are many things that government does with my taxes that are not to my liking, and therefore my labor is being used for purposes against my will. But that does not mean I am a slave.
I don’t see how that follows. A fetus has a right to life - a right to be defended against an abortion. And one legitimate use of government is to defend that right by taxpayer supported law enforcement that prosecutes violators of that right. Of course we don’t have that in the US, but we could, and it would be legitimate if we did. So I don’t see why taxpayer funds could not be used to provide health care as a right. On what basis has anything I have said imply that health care is not a right, universal or otherwise?
Once again you make no distinction between positive and negative obligations. The fact that I have the negative obligation not to push you in front of a train certainly does not mean that I also have the positive obligation to buy your ticket. That I am forbidden to take something from you does not imply that I am obligated to give something to you.
That distinction does not apply to the argument of mine that you quoted. JonNC made the claim that if government provides health care, then health care cannot be a right. What you quoted was my response to that, illustrating that government’s role in securing the right to life can be compared to government’s role in securing the right to health care. In this case we are talking about the government, not pregnant women. Women have a negative obligation not to have an abortion. But government has a positive obligation to secure that right by means of law enforcement and prosecution efforts. These are positive obligations on the government, even though they relate to negative obligations on the part of those considering abortion.
Do you have any reason to believe that an appropriate level of encouragement in that direction is not already going on?
The pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. But in that position, he has a role to speak to all peoples of the world - not just Catholics - especially on issues of universal morality. There have been plenty of instances throughout history where popes have spoken to non-Catholics and admonished them to right behavior. So admonishing people everywhere to show more concern for those in need of health care is a good and proper thing for him to do. There is no reason for him to call for efforts solely though the Catholic Church. Why should he not encourage everyone?
You know, I think I like the idea of shunting our Christian duties off onto Caesar! It relieves me of my duties and I can still feel good since, after all, it has been established that it doesn’t matter who does it as long as it gets done.
If it is the government’s job to secure rights, then I can claim the government must provide me a firearm, as it is not just a right, but an enumerated right. A printing press is mine, as well.
You are making the mistake of treating all rights equally. They are not. The right to life is absolute, and cannot be morally taken away by government. The right to build a garage within two feet of the property line is a man-made right, and can be modified by legitimate authority.
Don’t worry. There is enough need to go around. Christians are not in any danger of having all their opportunities for good works taken away. But I object when someone claims that good works must be the sole province of Christians, like this: “Stand aside! Don’t help that victim! I must do it instead of you!”
I think the point still stands. If I do not have a positive obligation to provide any specific form of health care, how can the government claim it has a positive obligation to do so? The whole point about positive obligations, and what separates them in kind from the negative obligations, is that the negative ones are specific while the positive ones are generic. I am explicitly prohibited from intentionally harming someone, but while I am specifically told I must heal the sick, the form my help takes is entirely left to me. The government may decide that X is better than Y, but that is an entirely prudential choice, not a moral one, and I am free to support or oppose the government’s choice, and although random bishops may offer their opinions on the matter, those too are personal opinions, not moral directives.
The whole debate is over the meaning of “right to health care”. Since the term has no particular meaning there can be no agreement over what the government’s role in securing it ought to be.
Enumerated rights, too, are absolute. At least here in the United States. And they should be held that way.
there is only one right that the government is mandated to secure, and that is the right to an attorney, not because it is somehow a special right, greater or more important than the other enumerated rights, but because the consequences of a criminal trial could be the loss of rights, either personal or property.
Had the pope admonished people merely to “show more concern for those in need of health care” we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The assertion that health care is a universal right goes beyond that. It becomes a political bat, a club made of moral pretension to beat opponents into submission. That this is probably not what the pope intended is at this point irrelevant; it is the use to which his words lend themselves, not the intention, that matters now.
It does not qualify as a good work if done out of coercion. If I am required by government to provide health care for someone against my will, I cannot claim it as a good work. Those who vote to compell me also cannot claim it as a good work.
I mean “good works” in the sense that it does some good for somebody. If someone is starving, he will be glad if someone gives him a piece of bread. If it is a choice of getting that bread from a government program or not getting it at all, I think the starving person would vastly prefer getting the bread. If one is only concerned with doing good works in order to accumulate points for themselves in heaven, they are missing the real point of good works.
All the word “enumerated” means is explicitly listed - i.e. numbered. If for some reason the right to build a garage within two feet of the property line had been included in the constitution, it too would be an “enumerated” right. That does not mean it is absolute, or has any status higher than “Let’s all agree that this is how we shall structure our nation.” Of course the founders wisely did not litter the constitution with mundane building codes.
I did not claim that the government is mandated to secure health care - only that they could if they wanted to.
I agree. But if I walk into someone’s house and take bread without their consent, even if I give it someone who is starving , I am not performing a good work, at least not with “clean hands”.
I wanted to give out 2 million dokkars of my personal money. My political opponent voted to create a law that stopped me.
If we apply that criterion to the positive obligation to protect the unborn from abortion, we could say that it too is generic. Assuming we get past the point of actually subsidizing abortion (which would be a negative obligation), we are then in a position to consider what steps we could take, as a government, to protect the unborn. Should there be criminal penalties against the mothers? Against the doctors? Or both? How severe should those penalties be? The fact that the obligation to do something to protect the unborn is generic does not absolve us from doing something specific. Same thing with health care. There are various levels of care that could be provided. We may debate what the appropriate level is and what services should be included. But the fact that a debate is possible does not absolve us from doing something, in indeed there is such an obligation, which I think Pope Francis believes.