A thought on “individual charity”
Morning’s Minion pointed out the increase in the Catholic blogosphere of “private charity” language in the midst of the heath care debates. He is right that such ideas have no basis in Catholic social teaching. Charity is both a personal and ecclesial response to social injustice but is also understood to be the very foundation of just systems. To seek to “institutionalize” charity through just social systems is precisely in harmony with, and the entire point of, Catholic social thought: to create a social order in which it is easier to be good, as Peter Maurin would say. The sectarian desire to keep charity private, as if it should not transform the social order itself, is simply to lack faith in charity to transform the world. It also effectively institutionalizes the opposite of charity, creating social orders in which it is easier to be selfish.
Comments are closed.
Yes, taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would seem to negate over a century of Catholic social teaching. It goes back to my recurring point: many of these American right-wing Catholics have a soft spot for laissez-faire liberalism, especially in its modernist Reaganite incarnation.
I think it goes beyond having a “soft spot” for it. Effectively, it is the lens through which they see the world, and through which Christianity is distorted.
Here’s a perfect example, from a Catholic blogger called Jeff Miller:
“The Good Samaritan helped to provide medical care directly. He did not run back and tell the government there was a man on the road needing care. As Catholics we need to be personally involved in being a part of society in helping to provide health care instead of outsourcing our responsibility to the government.”
So should we negate a century of Catholic social teaching? After all, I don’t recall Jesus telling the farm labourers in his parables to form unions or for the Roman authorities to legislate working conditions…
I don’t want baby Trig to die.
Where are these good individualist Catholics like Jeff, who should be lining up at hospitals to voluntarily pay for the medical bills of the un- and under-insured, in light of our current crisis?
On Jeff Miller (which is weird – I have a close friend named Jeff Miller but definitely not that guy):
How is he, currently, “personally involved” in providing health care to people in his community, I wonder?
Is he seriously suggesting that Catholic churches be responsible for the health care of all of humanity?
The church’s task is to witness to other ways of doing things, absolutely. But these people act as if we should not hope and work for the transformation of the rest of the world such that it comes to embody those “other ways of doing things” themselves. The church has been caring for the poor and the sick without charge throughout its history. Why should we believe that this is not what we want also for the communities in which we find ourselves? It’s sectarian and makes no sense.
“The sectarian desire to keep charity private, as if it should not transform the social order itself, is simply to lack faith in charity to transform the world.”
This is what has always perplexed me about conservatism in general: the main argument against public welfare is that it destroys incentive; unearned money is bad for the recipient. But this would be true regardless of the source of this money. If I know that the church will subsidize my lazy, shiftless ways, then I have no incentive to work. This is an argument against charity, period, not simply Government welfare.
Good point, phosphorious.
This is what has always perplexed me about conservatism in general: the main argument against public welfare is that it destroys incentive; unearned money is bad for the recipient.
We can discern a clue to the correct interpretation of this perplexity in the fact that conservatives – excepting dissident sorts like paleos, crunchies, Red Tories, etc. – seldom, if ever, inveigh against the unearned increments that are the veritable foundations of financial capitalism, and indeed implicated in the present Great Recession. In that case, the rankest forms of usury and exploitation and crass, corporatist rent-seeking – which is to say, unearned money, all of it – are passed over with a discreet, yet somehow knowing silence, and the victims of expropriation rackets counseled to marshal some “personal responsibility” to adhere to the terms of credit and mortgage contracts devised by 180 IQ quants, and incomprehensible to most of the rest. But the usually implicit, and often-enough explicit defenses of our system of political economy, which is to a great degree predicated upon unearned wealth, and the critiques of ‘dependency’ among bit players on the economy, demonstrate that neither unearned wealth nor personal responsibility are the issues at stake for most conservatives.
What is at stake? Well, consider an historical example, that of the nineteenth century Republican party, particularly once the slavery question had been settled, at once the party of plutocracy and the ostensible defender of the common man and his “right to rise”. “Right to rise” to what, exactly? To the status of plutocrat, if he could manage it, of course! Or, if the historical example seems inapposite, consider Joe the not-a-plumber, with his bizarre fetish for keeping taxes on people earning ten times his annual income as low as conceivable, his satire of Kantian ethics (advocate policy such that the maxim of your advocacy can at once be a guide to your action and acceptable to an hypothetical rich person, yourself possibly, in your fantasies, uninterested in the common good) – what could have motivated such an incoherent episode of political posturing, if not this religious belief in the right to rise, the right to become as rich as one might without any corresponding obligation as this is understood in our society, and expressed in our institutions? Most conservatives, that is, believe in the right to become as rich as Croesus, that the system of political economy which permits this is just, and that the resultant distributions are just, the externalities be damned. The sentiment has nothing to do with questions of responsibility, or of dependency per se. It’s just about the money, and about the corresponding terror that any modification of this political economy will lead, inexorably, to socialism, the Great Terror, or something, as indicated by the responses elicited by any mention of social doctrine or distributism. “Someone will tell me what to do and won’t let me get rich.” Right now, which may be a cynical moment in my life, I’m not seeing much else.
It seems to me that, because many in the Republican party have mouthed their opposition to abortion (although done little to actually stop it), the pro-life subculture has bought every ware the GOP sells as if they, too, are gospel truth.
The Republican platform has replaced Catholic social teaching for many, many people, and instead of recognizing that fact, they attempt to bend the social teaching to match the GOP platform, and not the other way around.
My 2p.
Phosphorious:
The main difference between charity as distributed by the State as opposed to private parties is one of the ability to discriminate against those who are deemed to be undeserving; and, thus, keep the unintended consequenses of such charity in check.
Once the State establishes an entitlement program there are strict objective criteria under which that charity is distributed and if you meet those criteria then you are “entitled” to that charity despite other facts that may exist. On the other hand, the private charity giver can establish or utilize a much more subjective set of criteria by which to provide his or her charity.
The private charity giver can look at the condition of the beneficiary of his largess and make determination that but for a controllable or improvable condition (e.g., sloth, alcoholism or drug addition, etc.) that person would be able to support themself in whole or in part and make the charity partially or totally unnecessary.
awakaman – There is no “difference” at all. State and “private parties” both have the “ability to discriminate” but would merely have different criteria.
Reading these entries, I seem to have entered an Orwellian world. Carried to the logical conclusions, so long as you pay your taxes and the government does some social work, you have fulfilled your charitable obligations. Has this not been tried out in various socialist schemes? Which somehow always ends up with a comfortable running class on top?
Charity, like faith and hope and the other virtues, is a personal virtue.
The desires here expressed are to reform the world, not to help the poor. This all very clever [but unconvincing] high-school debating stuff.
Carried to the logical conclusions, so long as you pay your taxes and the government does some social work, you have fulfilled your charitable obligations.
No one has said or implied any such thing.
Charity, like faith and hope and the other virtues, is a personal virtue.
It is that, but it is only that because it is an activity of the church first. If charity is merely a “personal virtue,” why would we speak of the church’s works of charity?
The desires here expressed are to reform the world, not to help the poor.
Why the either/or stuff?
Most of our public assistance (or charity, if you prefer) was developed in a compromise with the right wing to avoid justice for the poor and workers.
I would happily give up every public charity program in exchange for true economic justice. Fair wages for workers, an effective right to join a union, safe workplaces (and the ability to go after company owners who maintain an unsafe workplace like the common murderers they are rather than the forest of laws protecting them), criminal penalties against the owners of companies that cheat consumers equal to the criminal penalties of a person who robs a company, etc.
But I’m well aware there will be snowballs in Hell before the GOP ever takes that deal.
The sectarian desire to keep charity private, as if it should not transform the social order itself, is simply to lack faith in charity to transform the world. It also effectively institutionalizes the opposite of charity, creating social orders in which it is easier to be selfish.
This is the sort of comment that makes me wonder if your anarchism is anything deeper than an intellectual pose.
Clearly, “private charity” is entirely capable of transforming the social order, and in some cases does. The existence of private charities and the work they do results in the social order being different than it would be if they did not exist. And if people relied heavily on “private” organizations of solidarity rather than state-run social programs, this would result in a changes in the social order.
However, the big difference between “private charity” and state-run programs (such as the Canadian health care funding system, which as I recall you are a fan of) is that private charities rely on people freely giving them money, while state-run programs take advantage of the implicit license for legal violence which belongs to the state in order to force everyone to contribute. If you don’t pay your taxes you can find your wages garnished, a lien on your house, or even land in jail.
If you truly support a society which is not based on the implicit right to violence of the state, I find it hard to understand why you consider socially transformative programs which are explicitly funded via money extracted via implicit threat of violence a good thing.
If Henry’s summary of anarchism a couple days ago reflected your beliefs (and it seemed like you greeted it positively) it’s hard for me to see how an anarchistic society could do other than to behave in the manner you’re now describing as “effectively institutionalizes the opposite of charity”.
DC,
Your suggestion that a parlimentary democracy taxing its citizens is an act of violence really makes it impossible to take seriously anything else in your post.
If you truly support a society which is not based on the implicit right to violence of the state, I find it hard to understand why you consider socially transformative programs which are explicitly funded via money extracted via implicit threat of violence a good thing.
Since the nation-state called the u.s.a. is a given, when this anarchist is forced to choose between this state using its coercive power merely for the protection of a classist economy or using its coercive power to generate monies to be used for the protection of its citizens’ access to a basic human right, I will choose the latter.
Your suggestion that a parlimentary democracy taxing its citizens is an act of violence really makes it impossible to take seriously anything else in your post.
Indeed. He demonstrates clearly phosphorious’ previous comment that this is an argument against charity.
Kurt,
I would happily give up every public charity program in exchange for true economic justice. Fair wages for workers, an effective right to join a union, safe workplaces (and the ability to go after company owners who maintain an unsafe workplace like the common murderers they are rather than the forest of laws protecting them), criminal penalties against the owners of companies that cheat consumers equal to the criminal penalties of a person who robs a company, etc.
Interesting. Wouldn’t you want to have some programs to help the 8-12% of the population unemployed in that scenario and their dependents?
Your suggestion that a parlimentary democracy taxing its citizens is an act of violence really makes it impossible to take seriously anything else in your post.
A agree with you that taxing is not an act of violence, even though it’s compulsory, but according to Henry’s explanation of anarchism the other day, anarchism holds that their should be no compulsion under threat of force in society. For instance, he singles out policing as an illegitimate use of force.
Now, I think that’s a totally impractical way to look at the world, and not in keeping with a Catholic understanding. I do think that the state has the right (and duty) to levy reasonable taxes in order to carry out programs that aid the common good — though clearly I have occasionally disagreements with some here as to the correct aim and scope of such programs. But I’m having trouble understanding how, as an anarchist, Michael frowns on “private charity” and lauds state charity.
If the Catholic Church had just listened to Peter Maurin and turned all of its parishes in the US into hospitals from time to time where people without health insurance could go and get free medical care, then we wouldn’t even need to be having this conversation!
Whether we like it or not the Church in this country has done a lot–but it hasn’t done enough…
Since the nation-state called the u.s.a. is a given, when this anarchist is forced to choose between this state using its coercive power merely for the protection of a classist economy or using its coercive power to generate monies to be used for the protection of its citizens’ access to a basic human right, I will choose the latter.
So if I understand this right: You support the idea of a society without coercion, but since you live in a society with coercion, you’re enthusiastic to expand the amount of coercion so long as it’s in cause you believe in?
Seriously, I completely understand why guys like Kurt and MM who have social-democrat leanings are enthusiastic about universal government funded health care. But I would think that someone with a real anarchist worldview would tend to support achieving things without compulsion rather than with, and thus would tend to prefer “private charity” (or more accurately: voluntary organizations of solidarity) rather than supporting a statist solution. Wouldn’t you prefer being “off the grid” like Dorothy Day (or the Amish) with social security and medicare?
It is about the difference between charity and solidarity. That difference in approach distinguishes the USA from Western Europe. There is a rather broad consensus among Western Europeans that there should be a social safety net. (and health insurance shouldn’t be tied to a job) The typically American response is a bit like crumbs from their table, for the ‘charity case’. There is also pride in having splendid public facilities in Europe that the US widely lacks. City hospitals are top notch, eg.
Kurt,
Interesting. Wouldn’t you want to have some programs to help the 8-12% of the population unemployed in that scenario and their dependents?
Oh, I would want that. I wrote of a trade off of what I consider competing goods. I would have a hope that workers, fully empowered, would be able to negotiate employer-based or trade-based unemployment insurance funds. If that didn’t realize itself, we would have a chance to see if private charity really did rise to the occassion. If it did, problem solved. If it did not, then I would expect a renewed public demand to restore social assitance, this time developed in a political system with more political equality among social classes.
A agree with you that taxing is not an act of violence, even though it’s compulsory, but according to Henry’s explanation of anarchism the other day…
yeah, I don’t that anarchist stuff very seriously either.
I agree with that the state has the right (and duty) to levy reasonable taxes in order to carry out programs that aid the common good(*). Like you, I have occasionally disagreements as to the correct aim and scope of such programs. But I believe the best restraint from improper taxation is to have it decided by a free people governing themselves in a parlimentary democracy.
* And I accept that the common good includes not only initiatives directed towards the poor and vulnerable but also (for instance) the protection of a large corporation’s intellectual property through the issuance of trademarks and patents.
“If you don’t pay your taxes you can find your wages garnished, a lien on your house, or even land in jail.”
My perplexity grows.. Conservatives always seem to be arguing against high taxes, but they overshoot their mark in the same way they do with charity: ALL taxation is theft, not merely high taxation, just as their arguments lead to the conclusion that ALL charity is bad.
Either of these conclusions is defensible, but it’s as if conservatives don’t see the radical nature of their claims.
” . . the pro-life subculture has bought every ware the GOP sells as if they, too, are gospel truth.
The Republican platform has replaced Catholic social teaching for many, many people, and instead of recognizing that fact, they attempt to bend the social teaching to match the GOP platform, and not the other way around.
BINGO! This corrpution has become a cancer on the prolife movement and infiltrated the highest ranks of the American church. It’s also converted countless Catholics from “prolife” to “anti-anti-abortion” lest they be associated with rightwing fanatics who use ‘Abortion’ to shield themselves from all manner of outrageous behavior. In less than 6 months time we saw the bishops’ surly reaction to Obama’s election, Archbishop Burke caught on tape dissing his brother bishops who were deemed insufficiently prolife by the likes of Randall Terry (!) Then it was time for the weeks-long Notre Dame freak show. It was hardly a coincidence that Cardinal Cordes (the Pope’s close friend and righthand man) felt the need to make the following statement last month:
“The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process. Woe to those who reduce the mission of the Church to a worldly pressure group seeking political results.”
Well isn’t that what RTL is all about? Political Results? Of course it is. They make no bones about it. Unfortunatelym the Cardinal’s statement will not be heeded by those for whom it was intended. They are far too busy spreading ‘Death Squad’ and ‘Forced Euthanasia’ distortions as they valiantly attempt to save us from the evils of ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I think that’s a totally impractical way to look at the world, and not in keeping with a Catholic understanding.
How is it not in keeping with a Catholic understanding? In the Kingdom of God, there will be no need for coercion. Similarly, anarchists believe that, ideally, coercion is not the way to hold together a society. But obviously, many have approved of coercion in the short term; hence, some anarchists have historically resorted to violence. For me, it’s a matter of degree and which social structures in the present better approximate the characteristics of the Kingdom of God. Universal access to health care, protected by the state, is a matter of the protection of basic human rights and a much much better situation that for-profit, corporate health care — which is ESSENTIALLY classist — any day.
But I’m having trouble understanding how, as an anarchist, Michael frowns on “private charity” and lauds state charity.
I don’t “frown on private charity.” Acts of charity are essential when justice is not done, which is inevitible this side of the eschaton. But justice is nevertheless the goal that we strive towards.
“State charity” is not an accurate term for what I have argued with regard to health care. Universal health care is NOT “state charity,” but a matter of justice.
So if I understand this right: You support the idea of a society without coercion, but since you live in a society with coercion, you’re enthusiastic to expand the amount of coercion so long as it’s in cause you believe in?
Universal health care is not an “extension of coercion.” Only from a classist perspective could you characterize it as such. What is coercive is life under capitalism in which millions of americans live with the burden of extreme and unnecessary health care costs, crippling debt, and/or the fear of such things.
I’ll tell you what I told Joe H. over at your blog: don’t talk to me about “real anarchism” until you have shown me that you have engaged actual anarchist ideas. As I told him, most anarchists are in favor of socialized health care, not against it, because anarchists oppose not only the state, but capitalism. Once again: ANARCHISTS OPPOSE BOTH THE STATE AND CAPITALISM. Anarchists are NOT merely libertarians or republicans.
This is a totally ridiculous post.
Charity has to be personal for it to be authentic charity. If you think that charity entails taking money from people possibly against their will to give it to other people, you’re not a Christian, you’re Robin Hood.
Universal health care in the current government is necessarily coercive. If this legislation passes, no one will have a choice with respect to whether or not their tax dollars pay to fund it. This is another way of saying their money will be taken away from them, at gunpoint if necessary. Tax-evasion is a federal crime – this happened recently in my home-state of NH.
Your claim that “Universal health care is NOT “state charity,” but a matter of justice. ” again unnecessarily opposes two things which are not contradictory. You may think universal health care is a matter of justice (I think you forget that justice is giving each what they are due), and you may also recognize that in order for it to happen, in reality, it has to be enforced by the modern political state. It’s not going to happen without coercion. You must at least recognize this…?
Michael’s point is certainly supported by Caritas in Veritate. This is what Pope Benedict says in section 7 of the encyclical:
The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family.
Zach, our current health care situation is a disgrace: millions are uninsured, many more people have junk insurance, huge numbers of people are bankrupted by medical bills, while health care executives are buying helipads for their yachts. This is just?
And could you quit with the “taxes are theft” thing? For crying out loud, current tax rates are less than half of what they were during the administration of that totalitarian monster, Ike (top marginal tax rate: 94%). Was he “stealing” money when he went along with those tax rates? What’s the issue with the rich paying their fair share, anyway?
The Republican approach to fiscal matters seems to be, cut taxes but not spending to drive up deficits, in order to hamstring the next Democrat who becomes president.
Obama’s considerably to the right of me when it comes to these questions: If it were up to me, the top marginal tax rate would be OVER 100% as it was for a breif period under FDR, and I’d use the money to repair the damage wrought to our social fabric by the gilded-age-level of wealth inequalities that have resulted (as they have always resulted) from the low marginal tax rates of the last 30 years.
It’s time to pitch the “Reagan revolution” into the garbage dump of history where it belongs. It has come close to destroying the the social fabric of this country.
Enough.
My brothers and sisters in Christ on the political right maybe have a point. There is something distinctly personal in the theological virtue of charity. Maybe someone wiser and holier than me could develop that, approaching in a postive (our duty of personal charity).
But given that, taxation and public action are totally spearate issues. The Right seems to zero in on public actions that help the poor. Well, I can list large amounts of other government, taxpayer financed actions that directly benefit others and not me — my tax dollars being a “gift” to them. I mean, I don’t drive, I don’t have kids, I don’t feel insecure from foreign attack, I’m not a veteran, I’m not a farmer, I don’t use national parks frequently, I don’t do research using the census, I don’t have money in FDIC insured banks, I don’t use the public library, and I don’t particularly benefit from zoning laws.
Why don’t my conservative friends defend my right to opt out of paying for all of those “charities?”
Michael,
“State charity” is not an accurate term for what I have argued with regard to health care. Universal health care is NOT “state charity,” but a matter of justice.
Given that Benedict XVI said in Caritas in Veritate that charity consists of giving others what is theirs in justice, I’m not clear why you think there’s a distinction here.
Universal health care is not an “extension of coercion.” Only from a classist perspective could you characterize it as such. What is coercive is life under capitalism in which millions of americans live with the burden of extreme and unnecessary health care costs, crippling debt, and/or the fear of such things.
I’ll tell you what I told Joe H. over at your blog: don’t talk to me about “real anarchism” until you have shown me that you have engaged actual anarchist ideas. As I told him, most anarchists are in favor of socialized health care, not against it, because anarchists oppose not only the state, but capitalism. Once again: ANARCHISTS OPPOSE BOTH THE STATE AND CAPITALISM. Anarchists are NOT merely libertarians or republicans.
That was certainly an interesting conversation (I found it a bit interesting to see how quickly you added Joe H. to your enemies list despite the fact the he agrees with you far more than he agrees with me on most issues) but I’m not trying to tell you what “real anarchists” think. It’s just that you’d spoken favorably of Henry’s summary of Christian Anarchist thinking, and so I thought that it’s principled stand against coercion was something you shared. Now, that is. I mean, heck, if our political beliefs only have to do with the eternal kingdom, then I’m totally against war, and capital punishment, and I suppose I could even be against medical care too, since in the hereafter we won’t be suffering from sickness anyway.
I was just confused why, as someone I thought was agreeing with Henry’s summation of anarchy as being against coercion, you think that providing for a need via coerced funds was equal to or better than doing so with voluntary funds.
I’m curious as to where Ellul would fall on that kind of question — as I recall he has a Mennonite background, and I know that several Mennonite groups have petitioned for and received exemptions from Social Security, Medicare, etc. (and of course refuse to use insurance either) because they believe it’s their Christian duty to provide for those needs out of direct solidarity.
Matt,
Obama’s considerably to the right of me when it comes to these questions: If it were up to me, the top marginal tax rate would be OVER 100% as it was for a breif period under FDR, and I’d use the money to repair the damage wrought to our social fabric by the gilded-age-level of wealth inequalities that have resulted (as they have always resulted) from the low marginal tax rates of the last 30 years.
Do you have any documentation on that 100%+ rate? I’m curious to know the circumstances. I’ve never seen reference to it when looking at historical top marginal income tax data.
Of course, the fun thing about such regulations is that they tax income, not wealth, so they have the effect of letting the rich stay rich while making sure no one else becomes rich. I’m not sure why class warriors never see it that way…
Kurt,
Where in here has a conservative asked for the right to opt out of paying for specific government programs? What’s going on at the moment is an argument on whether the state should take on new obligations at the federal level (and raise the funds to pay for them) but surely you can’t be angry at people for expressing (and arguing for) their preferences within a democratic republic, can you?
Of course, the fun thing about such regulations is that they tax income, not wealth, so they have the effect of letting the rich stay rich while making sure no one else becomes rich. I’m not sure why class warriors never see it that way…
Look at the income distribution numbers from 1935 to 1980 – there was a broad a solid middle class, and wealth disparities retreated from their pre-Depression high point.
Oh, and I’d also do an asset tax: 15% of all assets over $10 million seems about right.
“The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process.”
I find the fact that this quote is cited in a thread critical of Catholics opposed to the current versions of health care reform highly ironic.
Yes. The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process. Which means it is possible to oppose a larger role for government in righting wrongs without lacking “faith in charity to transform the world.”
One more thing: You’re damned right it is “class warfare” – only it’s been waged by the rich and powerful against everyone else. Why do they only call it class warfare when we fight back?
Charity has to be personal for it to be authentic charity.
Yes and no. I think the problem in this thread is that many of you are thinking of “charity” in the secular sense or individuals opting to give money or resources of their own personal choice and out of their excess. If we’re talking about charity as a personal virtue, then yes absolutely it has to be “personal” in order to be “authentic.” But when the Church uses the term “charity,” especially in its social teaching, it simply means love. And we are called to pursue a social order that is based in charity that the latter sense: not a social order based simply on individuals voluntarily deciding whether or not they feel like living in true solidarity with others, but a society literally founded on love and solidarity. Otherwise, again, we institutionalize selfishness and individualism, leaving charity and goodness to the few heroic individuals who fight an uphill battle against a deadly (literally deadly) system that opposes them. Again, it’s about moving more and more to a system in which it’s easier to be good.
Universal health care in the current government is necessarily coercive. If this legislation passes, no one will have a choice with respect to whether or not their tax dollars pay to fund it.
But you don’t have a problem with taxation in general. You don’t have a problem with your taxes being used to fund unjust wars. At least I’ve never heard you call it “coercion.”
This is another way of saying their money will be taken away from them, at gunpoint if necessary. Tax-evasion is a federal crime – this happened recently in my home-state of NH.
Plenty of people are involved in tax resistance and no one is breaking their doors down with guns.
Your claim that “Universal health care is NOT “state charity,” but a matter of justice. ” again unnecessarily opposes two things which are not contradictory.
Again, I think we’re talking past one another. I agree that the two are not opposed. That’s why I have been arguing that in a just social order charity will become the foundation of that society. Charity will become “institutionalized” so to speak; it will become the default rather than the default being based in individualism and selfishness, which is the kind of social order you are defending.
You may think universal health care is a matter of justice
I do think that.
(I think you forget that justice is giving each what they are due)
No, I have not forgotten about that inadequate definition of justice. Nor do I agree with it. Justice goes beyond “giving what is due.” Justice is behaving like God, participating in the love of the Three in One. Justice and charity are obscenely generous to those with your worldview.
…and you may also recognize that in order for it to happen, in reality, it has to be enforced by the modern political state. It’s not going to happen without coercion. You must at least recognize this…?
If by “in reality” you mean in the present system of nation-states, then yes I recognize that. But what I see being “enforced” is not thievery but giving all human persons in the political community that which they deserve by virtue of their being made in the image and likeness of God. The real theft that is taking place is being done by the health “care” industry which withholds life itself from the most vulnerable.
Look, again, you all need to realize that there are reasons why anarchists oppose the state. It’s not because “states” are inherently evil. It’s because nine times out of ten the state is NOT on the side of the people and does not represent their interests. It represents the interests of elites. There are times when states get things right and take the side of the people over and against the interests of elites. These are opportunities to be celebrated, not to be opposed in the name of “freedom.”
The “freedom” you are fighting for is the freedom of corporations to dominate our lives. And that kind of domination is probably the worst kind on the face of the earth right now; even worse that literal totalitarianism because under global capitalism there is no specific tyrant to behead.
Darwin – I do agree with Henry on his understanding of anarchism and coercion. Ellul was not a Mennonite.
Lizzy – I don’t understand what you mean. Can you rephrase or elaborate?
DC,
Maybe I’m having a hard time following along. Are we agreed there is not an issue of wrongful coercion but a discussion within a democratic society of how (if?)citizens receive health care?
Yes, the President’s plan presents new obligations for the federal and state governments, individuals, employers, providers and insurers. And each of those kicks in to cover a part of the costs. Now, are the duties and responsbilities appropriately balanced among those social actors? Are the right duties and obligations given to the right entities? Let’s have that discussion.
My point is: it goes both ways. In liberal circles it is popular to decry conservative attempts to conflagrate faithfullness with their political goals. But the fact is, liberals commit this same mistake with equal enthusiasm. For example, in this post, suggesting that people who do not support government intervention in charity have a lack of “faith in charity to transform the world.”
I am still thinking about it, but I am leaning towards Malcolm Muggeridge’s idea that a Christian should not support a particular political policy qua Christian.
Cardinal Cordes says: “The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process.” That seems pretty clear to me.
Republicathol — er, republican Catholics argue against “state charity” and in favor of “private charity” and then here is how they treat grassroots groups who are actually doing (as opposed to just talking about) “‘private’ charity”:
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2008/06/29557.php
Lizzy – Obviously I am not against Catholics understanding their political ideas and their faith to be in some kind of unity. The issue is the particular political ideas being promoted and whether they jive with scripture and tradition.
Cardinal Cordes’ quote is fascinating and quite humorous too. The Church is obviously a political actor, but on an official level it sadly denies that it is when it is convenient.
Republicathol — er, republican Catholics argue against “state charity” and in favor of “private charity” and then here is how they treat grassroots groups who are actually doing (as opposed to just talking about) “‘private’ charity”
Except they aren’t. Unless, of course, you can actually provide an instance of a Catholic member of the Republican party suppressing this kind of charity?
For that matter, can you point me to any links of “Christian anarchists”, or even anarchists per se, offering defenses of Obamacare?
I’d like to read them.
Christopher – Where have I said that anarchists are defending ObamaCare? Of course anarchists, including myself, are not happy with ObamaCare because it is not universal health care. It’s simply more of the same.
Ok, “Christian Anarchist” defenses of universal healthcare provided by the state. Sans Obama.
Re: taxes-
Didn’t the Church itself and Catholic kings used to tax people “under threat of violence”? Many don’t know that the main cause of the revolutionary epoch was the feudal power of the Church over land, and this is really the main reason for anticlericalism in France, Spain, Latin America, etc. It’s kind of ridiculous to then say that any sort of taxation is a moral evil.
Arturo – Not that I would argue that taxation is necessarily a moral evil, but are you seriously suggesting that the Church has never been involved in moral evils?
Ray Tapajna Chronicles predicted the global economic crisis based on several experts in the field including one who wrote on the Bewildered New World. This was more than ten years ago. We dedicated a site to the latent response of philosophy and religion to the global economic arena at http://www.therationale.com and now have dedicated a site in reviewing and exploring Pope Benedict’s encyclical response to this Bewildered New World. Hopefully it may stop the surge of the new “ism” of Globalism that has arrived on the world scene unannounced except for free traders who use Globalization and free trade as tools to foster this new “ism”. See http://tapsearch.com/pope-benedict-economic-encyclical See also our latest post at The Rationale Quest about the real problem of our times which the Pope addresses – we have entities that deny the aptitude of the mind for truth and use test tubes to search it out on a never ending basis. It evolves according to current generations and is not something that can ever be considered perfect love.
As I read through this thread, I come to the conclusion that conservative and progressive thinkers are profoundly different. We may never understand each other. Not that we should stop talking. I find it fascinating to examine an issue from a viewpoint that is completely foreign to me.
A commenter makes a point and I think, “That’s it, exactly,” and it makes perfect sense to me. And the next commenter says, “That doesn’t make any sense, please explain further.” Fascinating!
I believe that we can share common goals and desired outcomes and have totally different opinions in how to achieve it. Remember the humanity of the person with an opposing view.
Christopher:
Ok, “Christian Anarchist” defenses of universal healthcare provided by the state. Sans Obama.
Why Christian anarchists in particular? We don’t have much of a presence on the web. There are, though, some discussions on the current health care debate taking place in the forums of the website Jesus Radicals, where a lot of Christian anarchists “hang out.”
Z Magazine, which is anarchist in a broad sense, has several articles, more appearing every day, on the health care debates. Most if not all of them are in favor if the single-payer system. Check their Social Policy Watch page for daily articles.
Marcus Hill, in particular, wrote an interesting piece called “Fragments of an Anarchist Public Health: Developing Visions of a Healthy Society” in which he cites Cuba’s health care system as embodying anarchist principles to some degree. He cites grassroots health care in Chiapas, Mexico as another.
I’ll cite once again an article by Steve Millet on social welfare from an anarchist perspective. His view is similar to mine: that we can talk about what health care will look like in a stateless society but in the meantime we cannot leave health care in the hands of corporations. [Millet, Steve. "Neither State Nor Market: An Anarchist Perspective on Social Welfare." In Twenty-First Century Anarchism: Unorthodox Ideas for a New Millennium, edited by Jon Purkis and James Bowen, 24-40. London: Cassell, 1997]
Republicathol — er, republican Catholics argue against “state charity” and in favor of “private charity” and then here is how they treat grassroots groups who are actually doing (as opposed to just talking about) “‘private’ charity”:
I’m not clear why you think that the urban revitalization movement in Pittsburgh is run by Catholics, but if you want to know about Catholics actually providing free health care to the uninsured, you might find the article I wrote here a week or two ago interesting:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/08/03/catholic-health-care-our-lady-of-hope-clinic/
On the anarchism question, let me see if I am coming closer to understanding what it is that you believe, since apparently I wasn’t able to discern things correctly from Henry’s article:
Anarchists are against coercion and they are against both “the state” and “capitalism”, however this is not because they think these thing as necessarily bad, but because they think that coercion, states, and capitalism are usually the tools of the elites used to oppress everyone else. Anarchists instead support communal and consensus driven structures that care for everyone equally. Except when existing coercive structure work against the elites and help the people, in which case they’re okay with that for the moment.
It’s the coercion thing that puzzles me. Say you’re in a stateless society, and you have someone in the commune who is hoarding, or stealing from others, or you simply have a third of the community that doesn’t want to share things equally, but rather keep all their goods to themselves and only provide goods and services to those who “pay” them something they want equally in return. Does the rest of the anarchist society just shrug its shoulders and say “oh well, I guess they don’t want to play” and ignore them, or does it decide this is one of those occasions it needs to use the coercion that it normally adjures?
And if it does indeed use coercion when people don’t play along with the “consensus”, how is it actually all that different form “the state” except that it’s run by a different group of people who current feel disenfranchised but imagine they would be enfranchised in an anarchist society?
DC
What I pointed out was of course an example — Ellul; he is respected, but he is not the only example. I would point out he has an interesting discussion on violence — where he looks at things in relation to unredeemed, “natural and necessary” conditions and the Christian position which is of “freedom,” and thinks too much which is said to be of “Christian” is really of “necessary, worldly affairs.” He is very Barthian here, and imo, while I think there is some good in this (he says one can falter and fall into the “necessary” mode of old) he points out that the Christian must never confuse this as Christian, and must always be vocal in the Christian mode against even such faltering. But he also notes that, in worldly situations, people will fall into this, even Christian, and his position is that if you as a Christian do, the criticism should be based upon the powers that be — so that if one side gains power, and you worked with them until then, once they gain power, they should be your focal place, otherwise, you are an ideologue. It’s an interesting position. I would recommend his book on Violence if you are curious (especially for something which isn’t a quick summary). As for myself, I think it is clear, my position is of Tolkien… which well, is different.
Darwin – In that hypothetical case, the group/individuals who would not abide by the economic principles of the “commune” would be ignored and/or excluded from the benefits of life in that wider community. They would be free to go off by themselves and start another community based on their own ideas. I don’t know if you would call that “coercion” or not. I suppose it could be called nonviolent coercion in the sense that the goal would be to encourage them to be reincorporated into the community.
Wasn’t that about the same idea as the founding fathers had regarding the several states?
Wasn’t that about the same idea as the founding fathers had regarding the several states?
I don’t know. It’s possible. Shunning is practiced by all sorts of groups. But seeing how the founding fathers were not anarchists, I’m not sure how that is relevant.
No, they were not anarchists. But I find it interesting that an anarchist’s description of an ideal society sounds very similar to the American idea of experimentation among States under a federal system. I understand that an anarchist would not have the federal system or the State framework. But I find it interesting, nonetheless.
The idea of shunning and/or exclusion is part (or at least a tendency) of just about any human community so I’m not sure on what basis you are arguing that “the” ideal society as conceived by anarchists is “very similar” to the ideas of the founding fathers (sic).
It’s like saying that the two political approaches are “very similar” because they both involve human beings.
Michael,
Thanks for the explanation on the hypothetical. That actually makes a lot of sense to me, given the principles you’ve laid out.
I suppose the thing to be clear on (which I hadn’t caught before) is that there would not necessarily be “an anarchist society” so much as “a group of anarchists living together while most people go on having some variation on the institutions they always have”.
Or at least, as a non-anarchist (with very little sympathy for anarchist ideals as laid out in the piece) it seems to me obvious that the majority of people would (if not forced into it by some sort of coercion) choose not to live according to anarchist ideals. Obviously, anarchists would probably assume the contrary.
I’m a little confused why, given that, anarchists don’t simply set up communites, withdraw into them, and live according to consensus structures. Why bother everyone else about it in stead of going off and setting an example everyone else will want to follow? But I suppose the same can be asked of anyone with idiosyncratic political or societal ideals, so it’s not really a fair question.
Henry,
Interesting to hear you say you’d consider Tolkien’s thinking significantly different from Ellul’s. The way you were mixing Ellul’s thought with examples from Tolkien in your piece, I thought you were asserting their visions to be similar, with struck me as very off.
DC
The piece was to show Tolkien’s anarchisms — which he himself pointed out; however he said “anarchy or monarchy,” which is not Ellul. I would say Ellul is more “anarchy — democracy,” with democracy more like Chesterton. However both are interested, within the anarchy, for anarchy, in the same way. It should be clear the point of contact was in anarchy, not in the monarchy.
I suppose the thing to be clear on (which I hadn’t caught before) is that there would not necessarily be “an anarchist society” so much as “a group of anarchists living together while most people go on having some variation on the institutions they always have”.
Or at least, as a non-anarchist (with very little sympathy for anarchist ideals as laid out in the piece) it seems to me obvious that the majority of people would (if not forced into it by some sort of coercion) choose not to live according to anarchist ideals. Obviously, anarchists would probably assume the contrary.
The anarchist vision of things does not assume that everyone in the world would want to live this way. It presumes that different local communities would come to develop their own social structures and ways of doing things, and hopefully that these communities would cooperate amongst one another. That’s part of anarchism not really having a “blueprint” for the “perfect” society.
I’m a little confused why, given that, anarchists don’t simply set up communites, withdraw into them, and live according to consensus structures.
A lot of anarchists do this or have at least tried to do this.
Why bother everyone else about it in stead of going off and setting an example everyone else will want to follow?
Same reason the Church is not sectarian. We are talking about massive structures of oppression that exist in the world. Anarchists are in favor of liberation for as many people as possible, not simply in having their own little perfect club.
Michael I’ll put together a detailed response when I have the time.
FWIW, I don’t think there’s really as much disagreement between us as you would have.
Same reason the Church is not sectarian. We are talking about massive structures of oppression that exist in the world. Anarchists are in favor of liberation for as many people as possible, not simply in having their own little perfect club.
Well, assuming your viewpoint I can see why you would say that. I guess the thing is: If the vast majority of people don’t see those structures as all that oppressive — indeed, if most people like owning property and having police and earning wages and such pretty well — its got to be hard to try to talk people into disengaging and going off in an untried direction. If anarchism is capable of creating a society which would be appealing to people, even just some people, I would think it would be an important step to go off and build such a society to show people what they’re missing out on.
It doesn’t have to be your preferred end-state for there to be just a few scattered anarchist communes, but from where I sit it seems like it would be a necessary step in convincing the wider society that anarchist ideas are remotely liveable or appealing.
If the vast majority of people don’t see those structures as all that oppressive — indeed, if most people like owning property and having police and earning wages and such pretty well — its got to be hard to try to talk people into disengaging and going off in an untried direction.
Which “majority”? According to whom? The fact is, “most” human beings in this world do NOT own property. Taking a global perspective, most people in the world DO find the structures under which this world operates oppressive. It’s bizarre to see you describe anarchist ideas as “untried.” Anarchism is the original state (no pun intended) of things. From one view point, civilization itself is “the Fall.” Not to mention the fact that there are groups enacting anarchism every day.
If anarchism is capable of creating a society which would be appealing to people, even just some people, I would think it would be an important step to go off and build such a society to show people what they’re missing out on.
In fact, most people that I talk to about anarchism do find it appealing. They even grant that it is a good description of “utopia.” Christians often will grant that the Kingdom of God will be anarchistic — or rather, Christarchistic. The “problem” they have with it is that they do not think it is possible to achieve in this world, not that they disagree, at root, with anarchism properly understood.
It doesn’t have to be your preferred end-state for there to be just a few scattered anarchist communes, but from where I sit it seems like it would be a necessary step in convincing the wider society that anarchist ideas are remotely liveable or appealing.
Again, anarchism is being put into action every day.
Which “majority”? According to whom? The fact is, “most” human beings in this world do NOT own property. Taking a global perspective, most people in the world DO find the structures under which this world operates oppressive.
I’m not sure where you’re coming up with this idea. Everyone in the world has private property, though in some cases it doesn’t go beyond the clothes on their back and a scrap of something that provides shelter from the elements. (Come that that, I’d bet I spend a lot more of my time which people who grew up in places like India and China then you do.)
How accurate your last sentence there is depends on what it’s taken to mean. Most human beings in the world find the way the world works lousy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they desperately wish that they lived in communes under consensus rule and didn’t own anything. Most of them wish they had better jobs and owned more stuff so they could take better care of themselves and their families.
It’s bizarre to see you describe anarchist ideas as “untried.” Anarchism is the original state (no pun intended) of things. From one view point, civilization itself is “the Fall.”
Well, I suppose if you’re a strict creationist, but I’m not…
Any decent study of biology and anthropology will show you that both social animals and primitive societies have definite social hierarchies (even if it’s just the hierarchy of the extended family) and make use of coercion in order to assure social conformity and communal benefit.
In fact, most people that I talk to about anarchism do find it appealing. They even grant that it is a good description of “utopia.” Christians often will grant that the Kingdom of God will be anarchistic — or rather, Christarchistic. The “problem” they have with it is that they do not think it is possible to achieve in this world, not that they disagree, at root, with anarchism properly understood.
Certainly, the Kingdom of God will be without coercion or social structures in that all will be perfectly in conformance with God’s will, and thus in harmony with one another. But this is precisely why trying to create such an approach in the mortal world is doomed to spectacular failure, because we are not of one will, and because we do not perfectly understand (or care about) the needs of others.
Seriously, you don’t have to look far to discover this. You’re just starting out as a parent, so you may not have had it driven home yet, but believe me: you will find that rearing children and (if you have more) maintaining harmony between them requires coercion. The parent who never backs up an order with “Or you will have to go sit in your room” or even “Or you’ll get a spanking” is a parent who is rearing an incredibly spoiled and selfish child. Children do not naturally care very much about the needs of others, or even well understand their own proper needs, and if they’re not reared under a certain amount of authority, they never learn. The idea of “I have duties to my fellow human beings” takes time and authority to inculcate.
This is why the Church has traditionally been very comfortable with structures of authority, rather than pursuing an anarchistic approach to things. (Look at Benedict’s rule, where not only is the abbot in charge, but he can even impose punishments up to and including flogging on recalcitrant monks.) Because order in a fallen society needs to be maintained, it is not self generating because we are not naturally in conformity of will.
Darwin – I think we would need to unpack what each of us means by “private property.” I’m not opposed to people “owning stuff,” nor are most socialists or even marxists.
Well, I suppose if you’re a strict creationist, but I’m not…
Has nothing to do with creationism or theology at all.
Any decent study of biology and anthropology will show you that both social animals and primitive societies have definite social hierarchies (even if it’s just the hierarchy of the extended family) and make use of coercion in order to assure social conformity and communal benefit.
Baloney. Who defines “decent”? You?
Certainly, the Kingdom of God will be without coercion or social structures in that all will be perfectly in conformance with God’s will, and thus in harmony with one another. But this is precisely why trying to create such an approach in the mortal world is doomed to spectacular failure, because we are not of one will, and because we do not perfectly understand (or care about) the needs of others.
You take an Evangelical Protestant approach to the Kingdom of God. The Catholic approach is precisely that Christians are called to cooperate with the coming of the Kingdom into the world.
…maintaining harmony between them requires coercion
I think “coercion” is ambiguous. Of course I think some types of “coercion” are acceptable and even good: Christians encouraging other Christians to be nonviolent, not to join the military, etc. could be called a type of “coercion” if you wish. I think in parenting there are different ways of being coercive, some good and some bad.
This is why the Church has traditionally been very comfortable with structures of authority, rather than pursuing an anarchistic approach to things.
Authority and anarchism are not opposed. There are different ways of understanding and exercising authority. While the authority structures of the Church have often been modeled on those of the world (abbots flogging monks, for example), at its best the Church’s understanding of authority is very much unlike those of the world. Your claim that the Church “has traditionally been very comfortable with structures of authority” is both true and untrue. It has been quite uncomfortable with a good many structures of authority and you are not taking these into account. The Church has consistently condemned political totalitarianism. My anarchistic sensibility simply sees a lot more totalitarianism (including economic totalitarianism) in the world than most Christians do.
Christians encouraging other Christians to be nonviolent, not to join the military, etc. could be called a type of “coercion” if you wish.
I would think this is better called “persuading”, through reasoned argument. Not coercion (defined as: “use of — or threat of — force or intimidation to obtain compliance”).
Who was it who said [perhaps it was I] that anarchism proposes a state or society that would be like a body without a skeleton.