What Gov. should provide

[aball1035]

What is the general Catholic view of what government should provide? For example, general protection is obvious, but health care? schooling? food stamps? housing for poor? etc.

Also, how does one get to that conclusion?

 

[shockerfan]

What is the general Catholic view of what government should provide? For example, general protection is obvious, but health care? schooling? food stamps? housing for poor? etc.

Also, how does one get to that conclusion?

I think the Catholic view is that we should “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, so that could vary by country. The Catholic view also incorporates “subsidiarity”.

In the US we have a Constitution which spells out what the federal government is responsible for. We have elected immoral leaders who ignore what the constitution says the federal government should be providing, and ignore the principle of subsidiarity, and provide benefits primarily to enhance their ability to maintain power.

Obviously, the federal government should be responsible for a protection against foreign enemies (keeps us safe), the state and local government provide police to keep us safe from domestic enemies. So we do not need a “national police”.

The federal government should also provide a set of rules that keeps commerce fair (consumer laws, business laws), workplaces safe (building codes, etc.).

Education is also important, but is not a federal area of responsibility…it should remain as local as possible. (There should not be a federal department of Education)

Health Care is a bit tricky. I don’t think the federal government should be providing as they do NOTHING cost effectively. Obamacare is an example of where people might have had good intentions, but it has been a disaster with a lot of money being wasted. Methinks state level programs would have been more cost effective. I think food stamps or housing might also be issues better left to state government and not the federal government. Again, subsidiarity is not only “Catholic moral teaching”, but also a quite pragmatic idea as well. If we can all just remember that the federal government does NOTHING cost effectively, then we should try to limit what the federal government gets involved in.

 

[GEddie]

I think that Government should provide for those needs that the “market” cannot provide for adequately.

National defense is the primary one. If we waited to raise a mercenary army until a war began, the conqueror would be on the Mississippi before we had a defense. So that is a governmental task.

Building roads is another one, because otherwise only the largest cities would have adequate road access or maintenance .

Law courts and regulation of commerce, transportation, etc, are another one.

Taking care of the poor SHOULD be one, because that cannot make a profit, by definition, and private charity has long proven inadequate. Many will disagree.

Healthcare is a gray area. If this is left to the market or to insurers, only the rich or the already healthiest will be able to afford it.

Some things like the arts should not be meddled with by government at all, except as a customer for its big buildings.

Remember also, the USA is a federal union. This means that there is more than one level of governance that can achieve things. Only the first – defense – needs to be national level.

(By the way, we do have “federal police” and have had for generations).

ICXC NIKA.

 

[crystal_waters]

For example, general protection is obvious, but health care? schooling? food stamps? housing for poor?

Here in the UK the government provides all of the above…

 

[exnihilo]

I think that Government should provide for those needs that the “market” cannot provide for adequately.

National defense is the primary one. If we waited to raise a mercenary army until a war began, the conqueror would be on the Mississippi before we had a defense. So that is a governmental task.

Building roads is another one, because otherwise only the largest cities would have adequate road access or maintenance .

Law courts and regulation of commerce, transportation, etc, are another one.

I would challenge the claim that the market can’t provide these things. There are plenty of examples of markets providing these. Specifically regarding military I’d say the problem isn’t the market doesn’t do well raising a defensive army but raising an offensive one. But that ‘failure’ of the market is a good one.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I think that Government should provide for those needs that the “market” cannot provide for adequately.

National defense is the primary one. If we waited to raise a mercenary army until a war began, the conqueror would be on the Mississippi before we had a defense. So that is a governmental task.

Building roads is another one, because otherwise only the largest cities would have adequate road access or maintenance .

Law courts and regulation of commerce, transportation, etc, are another one.

Taking care of the poor SHOULD be one, because that cannot make a profit, by definition, and private charity has long proven inadequate. Many will disagree.

Healthcare is a gray area. If this is left to the market or to insurers, only the rich or the already healthiest will be able to afford it.

Some things like the arts should not be meddled with by government at all, except as a customer for its big buildings.

Remember also, the USA is a federal union. This means that there is more than one level of governance that can achieve things. Only the first – defense – needs to be national level.

(By the way, we do have “federal police” and have had for generations).

ICXC NIKA.

For most of the years since 1946 when employer-provided medical insurance began to ecome more common in the workplace, the market and insurers such as Blue Cross and private carriers did offer a product that was affordable. However, forces such as high technology in medicine, the fact that insurance caused people to be insulated from the true costs of medical care, and governmental regulation in the form of mandated benefits, cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured, etc. led to the unsustainable environment we have today.

 

[jediliz]

the church can provide a lot - well,except for the health care part (though CATHOLIC hospitals do more for the working poor by not turning them away)

But things like food stamps should be a temporary thing, unless one is unable to work (like the elderly poor). It should not be something that should be for 15 years…but just until someone is able to get back on their feet.

My diocese’s Catholic social services runs a home for domestic violence victims and their families and for women who are escaping forced abortion. They also help people get signed up with assistance like food stamps.

But remember, these things cost $$$$$$$$ (Which means TAXES) so I don’t want a government that is obsessed with abortion, making everyone paying for contraception and sterilization, and assisted suicide in charge of EVERYTHING.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Healthcare is a gray area. If this is left to the market or to insurers, only the rich or the already healthiest will be able to afford it.

This could be handled better by state and local governments, but even better by charity on the whole scale.

 

[GEddie]

This could be handled better by state and local governments, but even better by charity on the whole scale.

Except that charity **doesn’t **do the job.

In the European orbit, the times before governmental assistance with human need were also times of mass poverty. Sure, there was charity, like Dickens’ Monseigneur tossing a gold coin from his speeding coach, but beyond making the givers feel good momentarily, nothing was changed.

Not just human sentiment, but social stability, demand that that “old normal” not become the new one.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

For most of the years since 1946 when employer-provided medical insurance began to ecome more common in the workplace, the market and insurers such as Blue Cross and private carriers did offer a product that was affordable. However, forces such as high technology in medicine, the fact that insurance caused people to be insulated from the true costs of medical care, and governmental regulation in the form of mandated benefits, cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured, etc. led to the unsustainable environment we have today.

Comparing 1946 to now is like comparing apples and pebbles.

In 1946, if you got cancer, you died, full stop.

In 1946, if you were pulled from the water and were not breathing, full stop.

In 1946, if you suffered a severe head injury, most likely, full stop.

Those conditions can obviously still be tragic, but current medical technology means they do not have to be.

(The explosion of “near death experiences” since the late 1900s came about, at least in part, because hospital technology allowed those who previously would have died, to come back alive with memories of NDE.)

It has been argued that the market leads to the best hospital system. But what good is that if one cannot afford it, or can’t get insurance because already not perfectly healthy?

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What is the general Catholic view of what government should provide? For example, general protection is obvious, but health care? schooling? food stamps? housing for poor? etc.

Also, how does one get to that conclusion?

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military , to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens. The government, as such, has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. Therefore, if a government was established for the purpose of providing health care, schooling and welfare, these would be legitimate services provided by the government. However, if a government is not empowered (by the people) to provide such services it has no authority to do so.

 

[SWolf]

Except that charity **doesn’t **do the job.

In the European orbit, the times before governmental assistance with human need were also times of mass poverty. Sure, there was charity, like Dickens’ Monseigneur tossing a gold coin from his speeding coach, but beyond making the givers feel good momentarily, nothing was changed.

Not just human sentiment, but social stability, demand that that “old normal” not become the new one.

ICXC NIKA

Quite a skewed view of charity in the 19th century. Charitable giving was tremrndous in that time. The only difference is nations were not even close to being as wealthy back then as it is now. Most of the ‘success’ of government welfare has not been because of social proograms, but accumulation of wealth in the free market.

There was a study showing foreign aid over the last 30 years did more harm than good. I would argue one would find a similar trend in welfare state policies.

 

[shockerfan]

Here in the UK the government provides all of the above…

And the UK is quite in debt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Is it moral to dump so much debt on your children? (UK debt as a % of GDP is 90%)

 

[SuperLuigi]

=GEddie;13402346]Except that charity **doesn’t **do the job.

And the government does? How’s that War on Poverty going?

Charity does the job better than government in most cases, and if people and corporations weren’t taxed so much, they’d have more disposable income to give to charity, and they WOULD do that in many cases.

In the European orbit, the times before governmental assistance with human need were also times of mass poverty. Sure, there was charity, like Dickens’ Monseigneur tossing a gold coin from his speeding coach, but beyond making the givers feel good momentarily, nothing was changed.

Actually, that analogy is more like government assistance. The US federal government has a budget of over 2 trillion dollars, and yet it’s people on SSDI and SS who get what—$700 or so a month.

Not just human sentiment, but social stability, demand that that “old normal” not become the new one.

The new normal in America is “I’m voting for the person who gives me the most benefits”.

That’s a perfect way for the collapse of democracy and the middle class.

 

[Biggin]

Except that charity **doesn’t **do the job.

In the European orbit, the times before governmental assistance with human need were also times of mass poverty. Sure, there was charity, like Dickens’ Monseigneur tossing a gold coin from his speeding coach, but beyond making the givers feel good momentarily, nothing was changed.

Not just human sentiment, but social stability, demand that that “old normal” not become the new one.

ICXC NIKA

“IF” Charity didn’t do the “JOB”
Then how do you explain the Education System?
How about Hospitals?
Etc.
All these things were started as “Charitable” by the Catholic Church, for the most part.

So, YES, CHARITY works, till Government gets involved!

 

[mikekle]

And the government does? How’s that War on Poverty going?

Charity does the job better than government in most cases, and if people and corporations weren’t taxed so much, they’d have more disposable income to give to charity, and they WOULD do that in many cases.

Actually, that analogy is more like government assistance. The US federal government has a budget of over 2 trillion dollars, and yet it’s people on SSDI and SS who get what—$700 or so a month.

The new normal in America is “I’m voting for the person who gives me the most benefits”.

That’s a perfect way for the collapse of democracy and the middle class.

I do agree with you that many people vote only based on who will give them the most benefits, and yes, it will lead to the collapse of the US, we are well on that road right now.

But I disagree on charity, I believe a large amount of people and probably a majority of corporations ONLY donate money/charity because of the tax benefits, they make a big deal about giving the money/help, but would they do the same if there were no monetary benefits in doing so…I dont think so.

The occasions when I have given large amounts of food to a local homeless shelter, after using dollies to move all the boxes in, I was asked how much of a dollar amount to put on the donation slip, I refused to take it and told them I give for the good of giving, dont believe in getting ‘rewarded’ for it though. I do the same thing with local animal shelters I help out around here, I have never taken the donation benefits off my taxes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military , to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens. The government, as such, has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. Therefore, if a government was established for the purpose of providing health care, schooling and welfare, these would be legitimate services provided by the government. However, if a government is not empowered (by the people) to provide such services it has no authority to do so.

I noticed that you use “was established” and similar phrases in the past tense - probably a reference to the US Constitution - as if the founding documents are the only way in which the “the consent of the governed.” is established. This ignores two facts. First, the people who wrote those documents are all dead. If they gave their consent at the time the document was written, there is no reason their consent should apply to people living today. No one living today has given their consent to the Constitution. So it arguably does not represent the “consent of the governed”. Second, we have other ways of establishing the consent of the governed. We have a representative form of government where the consent of the governed is expressed in who we elect to represent us in government. That system is not perfect. It cannot ever achieve 100% agreement among all the governed about what government should do. But that is no reason to say those decisions do not represent the consent of the governed. If we elect people that, in our name, decide we should have public schools, then government providing public schools is a legitimate service of government, even though public education was not mentioned in the US Constitution.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I noticed that you use “was established” and similar phrases in the past tense - probably a reference to the US Constitution - as if the founding documents are the only way in which the “the consent of the governed.” is established. This ignores two facts. First, the people who wrote those documents are all dead. If they gave their consent at the time the document was written, there is no reason their consent should apply to people living today. No one living today has given their consent to the Constitution. So it arguably does not represent the “consent of the governed”. Second, we have other ways of establishing the consent of the governed. We have a representative form of government where the consent of the governed is expressed in who we elect to represent us in government. That system is not perfect. It cannot ever achieve 100% agreement among all the governed about what government should do. But that is no reason to say those decisions do not represent the consent of the governed. If we elect people that, in our name, decide we should have public schools, then government providing public schools is a legitimate service of government, even though public education was not mentioned in the US Constitution.

First, the people who wrote the founding documents were representatives of the people. Just as today, they represented the will and desire of those who elected them as representatives. It was “the people” who wanted a government based on freedom and liberty for themselves and their posterity. We are that posterity. We were not around to give our consent some 250 years ago…but I am mighty glad my forefathers did.

Second, You are right…legitimate “consent of the governed” exists today on our Republic form of government. Our representatives make laws that we consent to because they are who we elected to represent us. However, it is expected that all laws proposed by our representatives meet Constitutional muster.

It remains true that the federal government is NOT Constitutionally authorized to provide education. Technically the Dept of Education is not legitimate. However most states offer public education because that was the “consent of the governed”. Here in California, per the state constitution, every resident has the right to a free education up to and including college.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First, the people who wrote the founding documents were representatives of the people. Just as today, they represented the will and desire of those who elected them as representatives. It was “the people” who wanted a government based on freedom and liberty for themselves and their posterity.

Those authors of Constitution represented the will and desire of those who elected them, and those people are all dead too. There is no one around today who gave consent to the Constitution or to those who wrote it. So while the Constitution may have represented the consent of the governed back then, it does not represent the consent of those being governed today, except to the extent that the people of today allow it, which by and large they do.

But if some point or other comes up and the people of today decide that something in the Constitution needs to be changed in light of new information or new conditions, it is entirely appropriate that they should do it. If people decide that there is a role for protecting the environment at the Federal level, then they can create an Environmental Protection Agency - something the founding fathers did not envision. Most Constitutional scholars do not consider this an unconstitutional act. But even if they did, and if enough people agreed, the Constitution could be amended to make such an act constitutional. After all, that’s why the founding fathers designed in a mechanism for making such amendments.

So the question of “what should government provide” is more general than “what does the Constitution allow”. Another reason is that the question of “what should the government provide” could be asked of any nation, or of no nation in particular. The answer to such a question clearly cannot depend on what is in the US Constitution.

Remember, you were answering aball1035 who asked:
*What is the general Catholic view of what government should provide? For example, general protection is obvious, but health care? schooling? food stamps? housing for poor? etc.

Also, how does one get to that conclusion?*
This is clearly a more universal question than simply “what does the Constitution allow”. And you did begin by quoting a Catholic concept of the “consent of the governed”. But when pressed, you changed the emphasis to what is in the Constitution. What is needed is an answer that stands on its own in any country.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Those authors of Constitution represented the will and desire of those who elected them, and those people are all dead too. There is no one around today who gave consent to the Constitution or to those who wrote it. So while the Constitution may have represented the consent of the governed back then, it does not represent the consent of those being governed today, except to the extent that the people of today allow it, which by and large they do.

But if some point or other comes up and the people of today decide that something in the Constitution needs to be changed in light of new information or new conditions, it is entirely appropriate that they should do it. If people decide that there is a role for protecting the environment at the Federal level, then they can create an Environmental Protection Agency - something the founding fathers did not envision. Most Constitutional scholars do not consider this an unconstitutional act. But even if they did, and if enough people agreed, the Constitution could be amended to make such an act constitutional. After all, that’s why the founding fathers designed in a mechanism for making such amendments.

So the question of “what should government provide” is more general than “what does the Constitution allow”. Another reason is that the question of “what should the government provide” could be asked of any nation, or of no nation in particular. The answer to such a question clearly cannot depend on what is in the US Constitution.

Remember, you were answering aball1035 who asked:
*What is the general Catholic view of what government should provide? For example, general protection is obvious, but health care? schooling? food stamps? housing for poor? etc.

Also, how does one get to that conclusion?*
This is clearly a more universal question than simply “what does the Constitution allow”. And you did begin by quoting a Catholic concept of the “consent of the governed”. But when pressed, you changed the emphasis to what is in the Constitution. What is needed is an answer that stands on its own in any country.

Simply put…a government should provide whatever the governed (people) want it to provide.