Freedom and Benevolence Go Together

Comments

4 responses to “Freedom and Benevolence Go Together”

1. 

   nate

   July 13, 2007

   Mike,
   I was wondering if you can point to any examples of voluntary charity that has been able to provide health care for all or even for most (95%)?
   I understand that religious conservatives give lots to charity (and that religious progressives give lots too) but from an effectiveness point of view, has that charitable giving been able to care for all in a specific local?
   Nate

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   nate

   July 13, 2007

   One more comment, if liberals are far to guilty of confusing the actions of the state with society, are not conservatives just as guilty of pretending the actions of the state are at the behest and permission of those who are governed … that sometimes people work together through the state?
   If a lot of people got together and through democratic action created a governmental system for health care, could those people justly say: I have helped give people shelter?

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   jinny

   July 13, 2007

   Actually, I think Michael Moore, or Stossel’s interpretation of Michael Moore’s point (and Mike is quoting Stossel, not making commentary on Moore–look at his previoius paragraph formats), is more accurate to the communal mentality of ancient Near Eastern societies, of which Jesus was a part of, than modern Western thought. In that passage (Matt 25:34ff.), it’s the righteous, plural, who are addressed and asking questions. Every single “you” pronoun addressed to the righteous is plural. God built humans for community, not individuality.
   We mustn’t forget that God looks into the heart. He knows when we are sincere or indifferent. God is not a subscriber of ‘the ends justify the means.’ I think Michael Moore is doing what is in his power, with his gifts, to do what he can.

   Loading…

   Reply
4. 

   Michael W. Kruse

   July 14, 2007

   Jinny and Nate, what this conversation (and other recent conversations) suggests to me is that I should do some posts on the concepts of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty. This conversation frequently falls into a (false) choice between two options: Government or individuals. Subsidiarity sees society pretty much as a hierarchy of institutions. The most localized, customized, and attentive to individuals is the family. Then there are a host of what are called mediating institutions like churches, schools, voluntary associations, local government. Just like we see differing levels in government, (ward, city, county, congressional district, state and federal) many of these mediating institutions operate at different levels as well. Subsidiarity suggests that each problem should be addressed at the most localized level that can most effectively address the problem.
   I recently read that around the time of Christ there was a guy who started a fire fighting unit. He would show at burning houses and negotiate a price for fighting the fire on the spot. He made good money. *grin* I’m guessing the fire department on a local level is probably better than this case by case approach but neither do I think a national, or even state, fire department is a good idea. The choices are not between individualism and government but rather are to be made from a myriad of institutions.
   Jinny, I think you are right that instructions to help others are in the plural. But a society with a healthy web of markets and mediating institutions, supplemented by government only where more localized institutions can not suffice, would be an example of community taking care of the poor, etc., in the plural.
   Stossel does raise an issue that I think is regularly overlooked. Freedom is a prerequisite for stewardship and charity. Without freedom, these merely become submission to compulsory behavior. There are things the government can do best and it should do them. But the reality is that no matter how good and how legitimate a government’s role is in addressing a problem, its presence drives out stewardship and charity. It is the price we pay because in some cases the good accomplished simply isn’t as effectively available any other way. When government begins to step in where mediating institutions would be better options, it both addresses the problem less effectively and it atrophies the ability of the mediating institution to do what it does best. That is why the burden of should always be to show why the government solution over against individuals and mediating institutions.

   Loading…

   Reply