Pope Francis: health care is a universal right, not a consumer good [CWN]

[LeafByNiggle]

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”.

Jon

An individual walking into someone else’s house to take bread to give to the poor is very different from a legitimate authority levying a fair a just tax on everyone that has a similar effect of taking “bread” from some and giving it to others. In the first case, the individual does not have that moral right. In the second case, the legitimate authority does morally have that right.

 

[JonNC]

An individual walking into someone else’s house to take bread to give to the poor is very different from a legitimate authority levying a fair a just tax on everyone that has a similar effect of taking “bread” from some and giving it to others. In the first case, the individual does not have that moral right. In the second case, the legitimate authority does morally have that right.

Actually, it’s not different. The affect on the person who owns the bread is the same. Property has been taken against their will, to benefit someone else. When someone is required to labor and give the fruits of that labor to someone else it is slavery, pure and simple. Authorities do not have a moral leg to stand on.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, it’s not different. The affect on the person who owns the bread is the same. Property has been taken against their will, to benefit someone else. When someone is required to labor and give the fruits of that labor to someone else it is slavery, pure and simple. Authorities do not have a moral leg to stand on.

Jon

How is this not an argument against all forms of taxation?

 

[JonNC]

How is this not an argument against all forms of taxation?

Taxation can legitimately be used to pay for the enumerated powers: courts, defense, etc.

A couple of other notes:

when Social Security and Medicare were set up, it is notable that they were not set up as part of the general fund. They were premium-type “contributions”. In those days there was still a sense that this was not the way government was supposed to act.​

I am in no way defending the income tax, the 16th amendment notwithstanding. I find it contrary to the American understanding of rights, including property rights.​

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Taxation can legitimately be used to pay for the enumerated powers: courts, defense, etc.

You are still confusing particulars about the US government with universal morality. They are not the same thing. Up until post 122, we seemed to be talking about universal morality (slavery, moral rights, etc.). And now you switch to US government documents. This brings in a whole new set of definitions for words like “legitimate”. There is “legitimate” in the sense of universal morality, such as when the catechism discusses what a legitimate authority may morally do. And there is “legitimate” in the sense of being in accord with US law and constitution. You cannot use one definition of “legitimate” to support a point about the other sense of the word “legitimate”, and that is exactly what you are trying to do here.

But even that doesn’t work for you because you are choosing which part of the US government to accept (enumerated powers) and which you will reject (the 16th amendment). If you are depending on these documents to give some authority to your argument, you can’t arbitrarily decide to ignore the implications of some of them. But as I said, the approach of using specifics about the US government to support statements of universal morality is fundamentally flawed.

But let’s go back to your statement:
Property has been taken against their will, to benefit someone else. When someone is required to labor and give the fruits of that labor to someone else it is slavery, pure and simple. Authorities do not have a moral leg to stand on.

and combine it with your other statement:
Taxation can legitimately be used to pay for the enumerated powers: courts, defense, etc.

Suppose I have no need of the courts. I have never sued anyone. No one has ever sued me. I have no intention of suing anybody. Yet they take my labor and build a big fancy courthouse, with marble steps and everything. Even if I did see the value in having a court, I might disagree with the expense of making the courthouse with marble steps. So according to your first statement, it is slavery, pure and simple. The authorities do not have a moral leg to stand on. Yet according to your second statement, this is a legitimate use of my taxes. Now I’m really confused!

 

[JonNC]

You are still confusing particulars about the US government with universal morality. They are not the same thing. Up until post 122, we seemed to be talking about universal morality (slavery, moral rights, etc.). And now you switch to US government documents. This brings in a whole new set of definitions for words like “legitimate”. There is “legitimate” in the sense of universal morality, such as when the catechism discusses what a legitimate authority may morally do. And there is “legitimate” in the sense of being in accord with US law and constitution. You cannot use one definition of “legitimate” to support a point about the other sense of the word “legitimate”, and that is exactly what you are trying to do here.

But even that doesn’t work for you because you are choosing which part of the US government to accept (enumerated powers) and which you will reject (the 16th amendment). If you are depending on these documents to give some authority to your argument, you can’t arbitrarily decide to ignore the implications of some of them. But as I said, the approach of using specifics about the US government to support statements of universal morality is fundamentally flawed.

But let’s go back to your statement:
Property has been taken against their will, to benefit someone else. When someone is required to labor and give the fruits of that labor to someone else it is slavery, pure and simple. Authorities do not have a moral leg to stand on.

and combine it with your other statement:
Taxation can legitimately be used to pay for the enumerated powers: courts, defense, etc.

Suppose I have no need of the courts. I have never sued anyone. No one has ever sued me. I have no intention of suing anybody. Yet they take my labor and build a big fancy courthouse, with marble steps and everything. Even if I did see the value in having a court, I might disagree with the expense of making the courthouse with marble steps. So according to your first statement, it is slavery, pure and simple. The authorities do not have a moral leg to stand on. Yet according to your second statement, this is a legitimate use of my taxes. Now I’m really confused!

Why would you be confused? The constitution lays out the federal government’s enumerated powers, including that of the courts. None of the enumerated powers are individual-specific.
The issue of health care is two-fold. First, does the constitution provide the government the power to require everyone to by a consumer product, in this case health care? The court’s response was it can tax you if you don’t.
The second is can the government require you to pay for the health care of others, including abortion drugs and other things that violate your religion free exercise? On this the issue is t quite clear, but clearly if one believes that we are obligated to pay for someone else’s health care as moral, they must also accept that buying their abortion drugs must be too.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

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!”

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant, I don’t want to do it at all. So if someone else does it, that’s great. I don’t have to, and I can still feel good.

 

[mackbrislawn]

An individual walking into someone else’s house to take bread to give to the poor is very different from a legitimate authority levying a fair a just tax on everyone that has a similar effect of taking “bread” from some and giving it to others. In the first case, the individual does not have that moral right. In the second case, the legitimate authority does morally have that right.

Agreed. The Prince does not have to go by the morals people do. The Prince does morally have the right to wage war, execute people, steal from them, imprison them. What would be immoral for a person to do, the Prince can do morally.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Agreed. The Prince does not have to go by the morals people do. The Prince does morally have the right to wage war, execute people, steal from them, imprison them. What would be immoral for a person to do, the Prince can do morally.

In this case, he can do those things legally. Morality has nothing to do with who can do those things.

All people have to live by God’s sense of morality, since He is our Creator. Each country’s laws must be crafted within the scope of that sense of morality to be justified and legitimate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why would you be confused? The constitution lays out the federal government’s enumerated powers, including that of the courts. None of the enumerated powers are individual-specific.
The issue of health care is two-fold. First, does the constitution provide the government the power to require everyone to by a consumer product, in this case health care? The court’s response was it can tax you if you don’t.
The second is can the government require you to pay for the health care of others, including abortion drugs and other things that violate your religion free exercise? On this the issue is t quite clear, but clearly if one believes that we are obligated to pay for someone else’s health care as moral, they must also accept that buying their abortion drugs must be too.

Jon

I forgot to mention, the courthouse that was built against my will and with my tax money also has a drinking fountain that can only be used by one individual at a time. So according to you, doesn’t that make me a slave, just as if my money were used to build and operate a free health clinic?

 

[JonNC]

I forgot to mention, the courthouse that was built against my will and with my tax money also has a drinking fountain that can only be used by one individual at a time. So according to you, doesn’t that make me a slave, just as if my money were used to build and operate a free health clinic?

Uh, no. Is that drinking fountain exclusive to one person 's use? Can I use the health insurance plan that has someone else’s name but I help pay the premium for ?

Is it not the role of the Church to help the least of His children? Isn’t it a violation of the “separation of church and state” if the state runs a free health clinic?

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Uh, no. Is that drinking fountain exclusive to one person 's use? Can I use the health insurance plan that has someone else’s name but I help pay the premium for ?

One person at a time, just like the free health clinic I proposed. It too is not exclusive to one person. Anyone can use it. Note: I am not referring to the current implementation of Obama care, but rather some other possible forms of universal health care. Remember, the pope was also not referring to Obama care, or even addressing the US.

Is it not the role of the Church to help the least of His children? Isn’t it a violation of the “separation of church and state” if the state runs a free health clinic?

Jon

The Church does not have an exclusive on that role.

 

[JonNC]

One person at a time, just like the free health clinic I proposed. It too is not exclusive to one person. Anyone can use it. Note: I am not referring to the current implementation of Obama care, but rather some other possible forms of universal health care. Remember, the pope was also not referring to Obama care, or even addressing the US.

Anyone can?
I am in full support of free clinics, particularly in areas where poverty indicates a need. This is something the Church should continue to do. That way, people have the opportunity to respond to Christ’s call, encouraged by the Holy Spirit. The Church’s work in this will also ensure that health care will be provided without the fear of our donations being used for procedures our faith is opposed to (well, that is until the progressives file suit against the clinic for not providing immoral, sinful procedures ).

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

In this case, he can do those things legally. Morality has nothing to do with who can do those things.

All people have to live by God’s sense of morality, since He is our Creator. Each country’s laws must be crafted within the scope of that sense of morality to be justified and legitimate.

By definition, whatever the Prince does is legal and moral. Of course, those who desire to live by God’s sense of morality may not approve of the Prince’s actions, but since he has the power all they can do is carefully preach against what he does.

However, the idea in the founding of the United States is different. There are things that by its constitution, it is illegal for its government to do. Not authorized, not a legitimate authority, not given the enumerated power to do. That point is what some of the posters in this thread are making. Their fear, to speak for them, is that the U.S. government may become the Prince.

 

[JonNC]

By definition, whatever the Prince does is legal and moral. Of course, those who desire to live by God’s sense of morality may not approve of the Prince’s actions, but since he has the power all they can do is carefully preach against what he does.

However, the idea in the founding of the United States is different. There are things that by its constitution, it is illegal for its government to do. Not authorized, not a legitimate authority, not given the enumerated power to do. That point is what some of the posters in this thread are making. Their fear, to speak for them, is that the U.S. government may become the Prince.

Like using a pen and a phone.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Like using a pen and a phone.

Jon

!