The Moral Universe of Individualists
Where others might simply wonder what universe Rick Santorum lives in, Steven L. Taylor has an answer: “[Santorum] frequently makes moral claims that paint the picture of a universe in which all outcomes are justly generated by the actions of individuals. In this universe, people are successful because they work hard and make good choices and people fail because they do not work hard enough and/or because of bad choices.” Sound unfair or inaccurate? After reportedly denying that people in America die because of lack of health insurance, Santorum said the following:
“People die in America because people die in America. And people make poor decisions with respect to their health and their healthcare. And they don’t go to the emergency room or they don’t go to the doctor when they need to,” he said. “And it’s not the fault of the government for not providing some sort of universal benefit.”
In saying this, Santorum envisions a universe in which the only real responsibility is individual responsibility. Social responsibility doesn’t figure into his vision, at least here in the realm of healthcare. There’s no need for it because the fulfillment of individual responsibility can alone ameliorate people’s healthcare difficulties. No one, it seems, would die in these cases if people would just pick themselves up with their own IV tubes and didn’t make poor decisions with respect to their health and their healthcare. If people die, it’s their own fault for making poor decisions; it’s never because the government—i.e., people acting collectively as a social body by way of elected officials—neglected or failed to follow through on its social responsibility. Never that.
Santorum’s a professed Catholic, but his worldview is essentially Calvinist and individualistic. It’s also demonstrably wrong. People really have died because medical goods and services were beyond their financial reach. Furthermore, given Santorum’s devotion to the unborn, it should interest him to know that not a few women require expensive hormone supplements or injections to maintain pregnancy. How many miscarriages result because such treatments are financially beyond the mother? I know of one pregnancy that would have failed had there not been a little program called Medicaid.
Anyhow, along with Taylor, I think that “one of the major issues facing our politics at the moment is sorting out this question of the balance between personal and social responsibility,” but that question can’t be properly addressed when people like Santorum are blind to one of these responsibilities.
Comments are closed.
“In saying this, Santorum envisions a universe in which the only real responsibility is individual responsibility. Social responsibility doesn’t figure into his vision, at least here in the realm of healthcare.”
Sounds like Kyle wants someone to pay his healthcare for him. I have no problem with charity, but mandating that people pay for others and that they must carry it is against the U.S Constitution and just wrong.
Another fine liberal post from Vox Nova. Obama is so proud of you.
Say rather that I want all of us to pay for our healthcare. I advocate personal and social responsibility, together, not as divorced obligations that don’t speak to each other.
The Social Responsibility is called charity. What you’re wanting is called Socialism.
What you (wrongly) call socialism, I call justice.
Nate,
1. What you call Socialism, how is it not also Christian Democracy?
2. Isn’t private insurance also paying for the health care of others? And given that the market could not support private health insurance without all of the tax preferences it receives, isn’t private insurance just another form of the evils you deplore?
Three thoughts about Nate’s moronic response. First, he demonstrates what I call the Steve Doocey form of argumentation. Trot out a talismanic buzzword, match it to a smirk and a knowing wink, and consider the matter closed. “Obama is so proud of you,” he writes, as if the word “Obama” is freighted with a meaning self-evident to the enlightened. It’s so much easier than actually thinking.
Second, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …” Now, if “Life” is an inalienable right, and government is established in order to secure rights, then government is established in order secure the right to “Life.” When “Life” is threatened by a healthcare system in which adequate insurance is unavailable or unaffordable, isn’t it the responsibility of government to provide such insurance, and thereby secure the right to “Life?”
Third, I know nothing about Nate, but given his response, I’m guessing he’s white, older, and probably middle class. If he’s over 65, I wonder whether he accepts Medicare, which is a redistributive social program packaged, like Social Security, as “insurance” to make it go down easier. Or, if he’s under 65, I wonder whether Nate’s mom and dad, or perhaps his grandmother, is on Medicare. Has he encouraged them to renounce it as a collectivist monstrosity, a violation of the US Constitution, or is he comfortable with his hypocrisy?
“…wants someone to pay his healthcare for him. I have no problem with charity, …”
I assume that here “charity” is intended to mean something we do for the sad unfortunates, something to be done for people who aren’t like me. This looks very different if healthcare is understood to be part of the social landscape, like a stable currency, safe roads, police services and so on.
The comment about “against the U.S Constitution and just wrong” is another fine illiberal concept to amuse the regulars at Vox Nova. Santormum is so proud of you.
Show me in the U.S constitution where we are born with the right to free healthcare, frank? Yes we have Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness but the right to life does not mean that your neighbors are mandated to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your own food and clothes yourself and that no one can forcibly stop you or steal from you if and when you have achieved these things.
Nate, regarding your comments of December 7, 2011 11:42 am:
Nate, your comments show no understanding of US Constitutional law, which is perhaps why Mark G termed them “moronic.” Most likely you do have understanding, but the way your comments came across, it doesn’t show.
“Show me in the U.S constitution where we are born with the right to free healthcare, frank?”
Free healthcare isn’t in the Constitution, which is exactly the point: The Constitution reserves certain powers to the States and certain powers to the Federal Government. Since healthcare is not mentioned in either category, both the Fed and the States are free to enact and enforce mandatory healthcare in any manner commensurate with due process.
“Yes we have Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness but…”
We have those things, to whatever degree, but there is no mention of them in the US Constitution. You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal weight in any US court of law, any more than the Articles of Confederation or the Magna Carta.
“…the right to life does not mean that your neighbors are mandated to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your own food and clothes yourself and that no one can forcibly stop you…”
We all have a right to due process. If, though due process, you are prohibited from engaging in specific behaviors, even if that impedes your ability to earn your own food and clothes, the Constitution only has something to say about it if laws so passed collide with the 13th and 14th amendments (possibly others in specific cases).
“…or steal from you if and when you have achieved these things.”
Since ratification of the 16th amendment, the Fed can collect income taxes from all of us. Under the Constitution, the States have always had the right to collect income taxes from you. My guess is that you think this is “stealing” or “socialism.” Fine; that’s your idiolect, but it doesn’t have any meaning or weight for the rest of us.
I think Santorum would agree with you.
How so?
Santorum is indeed motivated by Calvinism, and so, I fear, is Nate’s comment. Funny that he accuses Kyle of liberalism while it is the purest form of liberalism that he espouses – the supremacy of individual autonomy (the liberal “freedom from” instead of the Catholic “freedom for”).
Now, let’s get down to business. The Church teaches that health care is a right. The Church also teaches that the government must assume a guiding and directing role in line with the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. So it can either provide the insurance directly (single payer) or it can make sure that the private sector does it. How? By regulating the behavior of insurance companies and providing subsidies. But if there is no mandate, this will not work, as the healthiest will all drop out leaving a very expensive pool of people.
The mandate guarantees risk pooling, which is a form of solidarity with others. Remember, we are social beings, not merely autonomous individuals. We are bound together in a social order. And by the way, that notion has traditionally been regarded as conservative. So get the labels right, please!!!
In Nate’s world, we’re not only “liberals,” but also “socialists,” because we (gasp!) recognize 1) the communal and political dimensions of the human person and 2) the social obligations of justice.
Dude you are totally a liberal, like many on this blog. You hype global warming, justify abortion, and you now are saying that Socialism is the right thing to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a Occupy protestor. Why should I be forced to pay for your healthcare or anyone elses? If you are so concerned why don’t you give your money to people and help them out? Why doesn’t the Catholic church take all the money they get from fake indulgences and give it to people who need it? What else would you like to share? Should we come move in with you kyle? Should we all share wives and cars? I mean if were gonna share we should probably go all the way, right? I’m sure this utopian society you speak of would be a big hit! Oh wait, it’s already been tried. See Russia for more details.
The bizarre indulgence reference makes me think that Nate is an insincere troll. (I picked one out a few months ago here on VN. Will I be 2 for 2?)
On the assumption, Nate, that you’re the real thing and not doing satirical performance art on the web, I’ll answer your questions.
First, though, a correction. I’ve never justified abortion; it’s an unjustifiable act. Now moving on…
You ask why we don’t all share cars and homes and so forth. Why not share everything? Answer: the basic laws of economics prohibit it. Private goods, for example, which are by definition rivalrous and excludable, cannot be simultaneously or commonly or publicly used by the people in society. Another can wear my shirt, but not while I am wearing it. Other kinds of goods, however, can be used commonly or publicly. These include common goods or common pool resources (rivalrous, non-excludable) and public goods (non-rivalrous and non-excludable). Because national defense, for example, benefits society as a whole (or is supposed to), it makes more sense to fund it publicly than through, say, markets and private charity. Indeed, private funding of national defense simply wouldn’t work. You’d end up with an ineffective system that wouldn’t benefit society as a whole.
So what kind of good is healthcare? We currently treat it in two ways: both as a private good and as a common pool resource. We have private insurance companies, people who pay out of pocket, and also publicly-funded government programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Personally, I’d like to see it treated entirely as a common pool resource, but that no more makes me a socialist than anyone who favors public funding for national defense is a socialist. Now if I wanted all private goods and club good treated as common goods or public goods, you’d have grounds on which to label me a socialist. But I don’t. Some goods I’m happy to see kept private. Others I prefer to see both privately and publicly funded (e.g., individual cars and public transportation, private schools and public schools etc). Whatever this makes me, it isn’t a socialist. Learn your terms, dude.
Wait til we get an epidemic among poor folks and it spreads to rugged individualists like Santorum. He may at that point rethink the “public” good.
Far too many in America have the attitude of “I’ve got mine Jack.” Santorum and many others in elective office just reflect this selfish attitude.
Hear, hear. Santorum not only doesn’t know a conservative notion from a hole in the wall, he’s clearly never been without access to health care when he needed it.
What is interesting is that his actions with Terri Schiavo contradicts his health care claims now; he wanted the government to engage in health care back then (and I think rightfully).
That Terri Schiavo thing is such an emotional fraud. Don’t you realize that if, for instance, every hospice facility was mandated by law to hook every patient on the the brink of death up to the kind of equipment that kept the unfortunate Mrs. Schiavo “alive” for an indefinite period of time, every bed in America would soon be full with non-viable, but “living” corpses with no future on this earth even remotely possible. And it would also completely bankrupt the health care system, if we want to take cost into account.
She was young and pretty, rather than old and faded, and her affliction was therefore more tragic, but she had no more chance of recovery than did my 92 year old mother, who died several months ago.
Ugh. I admit there can be a reasonable debate about Schiavo when it comes to wrestling with the ideas of government involvement in healthcare, etc., but Rodak’s views about Schiavo’s medical condition and the treatment due to her are sorely misguided. I don’t want to threadjack, so I don’t suspect that this is the place for a debate on the issue, but I just wanted to register my dissent.
Good observation, Henry.
Mr Pro-Life is Mr Republican. When push came to shove he supported pro-abortion Arlen Spector – R over Pro-Life Casey – D. People like Rick Santorum have imbibed the gospel of Ayn Rand far more than supped from the Gospel of Jesus.
Your post is so thought provoking and a reminder to me of the need for catholicity in our Catholicism – the reminder that grace comes from God and not from our own individual efforts. If it were otherwise, what a sham of a religion we would be.
While I think Santorum (whom I do not support) is better than average for staying away from some of the worst “sound-byte-ism” that is our political landscape these days, that is also what comes home to roost. He posits that his Catholic worldview is THE Catholic worldview. All of which points us back into the direction of misguided individualism.
I am also aware of the very sad tendency of some of our brothers and sisters to paint what is not their own point of view as some evil opposite… for example, calling you a socialist. *sigh* Is this how we literally re-member the Body of Christ in the world? By that and by Catholics like Santorum proclaiming individualism? (Gingrich as well) Hard work? Good choices? God have mercy on us all.
Thanks, Fran. And good points!
Santorum also believes that states have no right to sanction a wrong. In the Terri Schiavo case, her parents were more than willing to care for her instead of letting her dehydrate and starve to death since her husband asked for her life to be cut short when an immoral judge ordered the murder of Terri Schiavo. Are you and Henry suggesting that we should just sit back and let a grave injustice and and an intrinsic evil to occur instead of making every effort possible to stop the state-sanctioned murder?
So basically anyone who believes in individual responsibility instead of either Communism or Socialism isn’t Catholic? Would you base this on your uncertain faith which you don’t even know whether is really faith or not, Kyle? Santorum is Catholic to the core. He is a traditionalist who doesn’t believe in the post-modern which questions truth. He believes in moral absolutes instead of giving justification to the unjustifiable dissenters of the Catholic Faith – Progressives.
I recognize individual responsibility, Teresa. I’ve even, on rare occasion, been known to practice it. I may be a bad Catholic, but not for advocating individual responsibility! You’ll notice in my post that I call for finding a good balance between personal (individual) and social responsibility. It’s a mistake to ignore or dismiss either. Justice demands both.
“You’ll notice in my post that I call for finding a good balance between personal (individual) and social responsibility. It’s a mistake to ignore or dismiss either.”
I just re-read your post didn’t see a reference to either in there. Could you quote from your post? I just noticed your trouncing Santorum for believing in what you call individualism – what I would call individual responsibility. I agree that there should be a good balance between social and personal responsibility. I don’t see this balance coming from progressives or non-Traditional Catholics. I only see them clamor for more government intervention and increased government spending. That is not a good balance which causes less freedom and liberty. Those you call “individualists” are the ones who are trying to strike a good balance as the pendulum has swung toward big government policies crushing individual rights and States rights. Plus, economic policies are a matter of prudential judgement according to the Church so for you to call Santorum “essentially Calvinist” is a mischaracterization at best, and fallacious.
If non-Traditional Catholics can promote socialism then Traditional Catholics can promote individualism, even though the Church has spoken out against both ;)
Although you wrongly classified Santorum’s belief as “individualism”.
“In this universe, people are successful because they work hard and make good choices and people fail because they do not work hard enough and/or because of bad choices.” Sound unfair or inaccurate?”
That is generally true most of the time. Yes, bad things happen to good people. But I bet if we could pick through the majority of peoples’ lives you would find a logical explanation as to why this or that bad thing happened to them – most likely you will see a cause and effect.
Read the last paragraph in the post.
Are you and Henry suggesting that we should just sit back and let a grave injustice and and an intrinsic evil to occur instead of making every effort possible to stop the state-sanctioned murder?
Terri Schavio was a welfare recipient in a taxpayer financed Medicaid bed. Her husband asked that the taxpayer support be ended. Teresa, why should I be forced to pay taxes for Terri Schavio?
@Nate–
To suggest that Kyle has ever “justified” abortion is just untrue. To not realize that when an uninsured individual receives emergency health care everybody else DOES pay for it is just ignorant. The rest is hateful and verging on incoherent. I suggest that you really need to rethink your motives for commenting here.
@Mark Don’t we all pay into Social Security? We pay for that. That is not given to us. Although by the time those of us who are in our thirties will be expecting to collect SS probably won’t be there thanks to the Democrats and their fixation on maintaining the status quo.
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” This means the government makes it possible for individuals to achieve happiness on their own. One example of this is the Sovereign’s civil laws. There could be assistance through charity, charitable organizations, and possibly temporary government assistance. This does not mean that the government is just supposed to hand out money left and right to whomever whenever. There is a difference between helping someone and creating government dependency. The latter is what progressives do. The former is what Catholics, like Santorum, do.
In the beginning of this country’s founding the pilgrims tried socialism and many people starved and died. Socialism failed. Then, the pilgrims instituted a free-market plan and people thrived in America. Progressivism has failed whenever it has been tried – Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and Nazism. The Big Government policies are the ones which are harming Americans.
Right to “life” means the right for every person to live. That doesn’t mean every person is given what he needs or his perceived needs by the government.
@Kyle
In the article you linked to above it states that deaths occurred due to “many other factors, including smoking,drinking, and obesity”. You don’t think that the person has a responsibility to take care of oneself? Excessive smoking, drinking and eating are bad habits. Why should the government and other taxpayers pay for these types of irresponsible behaviors?
I don’t think a person has a responsibility to take care of oneself? Where do you get that idea? I say the opposite in the final paragraph, the one about finding the right balance between personal and social responsibility.
As for why we should pay the costs resulting from another person’s bad habits? First, it’s in our personal interest to do so: we all benefit from a healthier society. Second, it’s the cost of doing business. Public funding of healthcare costs would, practically speaking, have to mean paying for those who are at fault for their poor health and those who are blameless. Third, that a person caused his or her ill health doesn’t take away my responsibility or the responsibility of society.
I saw the quote and somehow missed the word “I”. Oooops.
But you don’t outline what a “balanced” approach would be. Instead you said that you agree that there should be a balanced approach without displaying what your balanced approach would look like and you certainly don’t make a case as to the reason your perceived balance approach would be in line with Catholicism. Nor did you show how Santorum’s approach is unbalanced or contrary to Catholic teaching but instead only made assertions and judgments based on what you call your faith. Since you seem to have an aversion to individuals having responsibility for their own actions, as indicated above by your comments, I believe you have a skewed view as to what is considered “balanced”. Personal responsibility is not a communitarian effort, as you are making it out to be. Don’t you believe in consequences for one’s actions or inaction? Assistance is fine but co-dependency isn’t.
How do we know that the government assisting those in need is going to necessarily result in benefiting society in a positive or healthier way?
So what if I didn’t outline what a balance between individual and social responsibility would be? Doing so wasn’t my objective here.
I really have no idea where you’re getting this notion that I have an aversion to individual responsibility or that I conflate it with communal effort. Individuals have an obligation to meet their own needs to the extent that they have the power and means to do so. Society as a whole also has responsibility.
@Kyle
“I really have no idea where you’re getting this notion that I have an aversion to individual responsibility or that I conflate it with communal effort.”
Your words in your 3:38pm comment indicated this.
“Society as a whole also has responsibility.” But, you are putting the onus on society instead of the individual. Society has some responsibility but not to the extent which you have indicated. There lies the difference in our beliefs – where the onus of responsibility lies, with the people or government.
My 3:38 pm comment? That’s the comment just above in which I said, “I really have no idea where you’re getting this notion that I have an aversion to individual responsibility or that I conflate it with communal effort.”
To my way of thinking, the onus is not an either/or, but a both/and, a balance of responsibility between the individual and the collective.
@Teresa–
What I will just go ahead and call “socialized medicine” since I have no problem at all with being labeled a socialist, one of the benefits would be the affordability of universally available preventative medicine, so that such problems as smoking, drinking, and obesity could more often be address before becoming much more expensive health problems.
I do think that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. I am also realistic enough to realize that many people need help in order to do so.
@Rodak
The problem is that it can be shown that socialist medicine hurts the most vulnerable – the sick, elderly, and unborn because when the State is involved with doling out the money that is a major factor and the State primarily cares about reducing costs. The State or some State official does a cost-benefit analysis of whether this or that patient is worth the State’s money. Socialized medicine may make it easier for those who are generally healthy (example – an obese person who has no major health issues) to attain better health care services but it does not make life better for those with diseases such as cancer and other major medical issues.
I do agree that what was our health care system needed to be reformed. I believe that there were far better free-market approaches which could have been implemented instead of turning our health system upside down as Obamacare does. I am no fan of health insurance companies for a couple of reasons. I’d rather we go back to paying doctors with cash, before health insurance existed. Plus, hospitals are in business to make money and to help the sick, but that seems to have been put to the wayside in the billing department. For example, if patients who were on medicaid paid reasonable monthly installments over time to cover their medical bills I think that would be one way to solve the problem.
Have you heard of the Independent Payment Advisory Board? http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/28/obamacares-advisory-board-could-be-a-real-killer
There is no way to eliminate all rationing but unfortunately with the institution of Obamacare there will be a decrease in the quality of health care for everyone and an increase in rationing.
I’d rather we go back to paying doctors with cash,
Go ahead and do so.
Are you somehow under the impression that for-profit corporate health insurance vendors don’t do cost benefit analyses to determine whether or not this or that treatment for which payment is being requested is going to be worth the money? Think again. One of the major benefits of single-payer systems is that there is not need to make a profit.
Also, you might want to check such statistics as infant mortality rates to see where the U.S. ranks globally before making your assertions about the superiority of free-market vs. state financed health care systems.
I’m not sure infant mortality statistics are as helpfull as you imply.
In the USA we put a lot of effort into expensive medical care that keeps pregnancies viable. In some other countries, babies with similar problems may die before they are even born. Those countries may have a lower infant mortality rate but only because the unhealthier babies die before being born.
@Rodak
No. But it is less prevalent with health insurance companies than governments. Plus, many insurance companies will allow the procedure but will deny coverage for it – ex. being seen in the ER.
“One of the major benefits of single-payer systems is that there is not need to make a profit.”
Leaders within governments don’t get paid (profits?) or look out for their own welfare? The problem is with the amount of wait time to be seen in the single-payer system – it’s quite lengthy. Plus, they do have more rationing than us. That is why many Canadians choose to come here for their health care needs, especially when dealing with serious illnesses. Single-payer health care does not adequately take care of the needs of those who are the sickest. The U.S. does a much better job of doing this.
Look, I have no desire to see American orthodox Catholicism turned into the Republican party on its knees. That being said, I don’t see how recognizing that we are part of a larger society and have social obligations towards others especially the poor mandates a robust welfare state.
Frankly, I just don’t see how Christian orthodoxy requires big government BTW, this a theological not a political issue for me. I have never voted.
1. In the first centuries
of Christianity
the hungry were fed
at a personal sacrifice,
the naked were clothed
at a personal sacrifice,
the homeless were sheltered
at personal sacrifice.
2. And because the poor
were fed, clothed and sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
the pagans used to say
about the Christians
“See how they love each other.”
3. In our own day
the poor are no longer
fed, clothed, sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
but at the expense
of the taxpayers.
4. And because the poor
are no longer
fed, clothed and sheltered
the pagans say about the Christians
“See how they pass the buck.”
@Francisco–
Private charity never has been, and never will be, adequate to even begin to meet the need. A few fortunate poor get the help they need, while the vast majority continue to go without.
Why will private charity never be adequate?
No combination of private charity or government benevolence has ever been adequate. Is it really so impossible to imagine a society with a culture of charity and mutual support that protects the vulnerable as well or better than our current system?
Maybe if we stopped assuming that care for the poor and vulnerable was within the province of the government alone things would change.
Anyway, my larger point is that most of us have no meaningful control over government policies and supporting the politics of the welfare state can be a useful excuse for not taking personal responsibility for the poor.
@Francisco–
Btw, Jesus would have been totally unimpressed by those Christians who “helped each other.” He specifically said, on more than one occasion, that doing what is expected of you does not earn you brownie points. Everybody, he said, helps his family members. It is those who help the stranger (e.g. the Good Samaritan) which cause rejoicing in heaven.
Governments have the information collection ability to identify those in need, and the distribution systems to deliver what’s needed, and the financial resources to pay for it all, on a huge scale. Individuals and small organizations have none of those things.
And governmental provision of assistance to the poor does not prevent any other individual, or group, from contributing more. It may provide an excuse not to, but it doesn’t prevent it.
I am grateful to Nate and Teresa for their comedic contributions to this otherwise serious and important discussion. “Dude, you are totally a liberal…” is a truly Ciceronian rhetorical conceit. “In the beginning of this country’s founding, the Pilgrims tried socialism…” is historically wrong for reasons too numerous to mention. Considering that the rationale for our entire constitutional system is based on the notion of the “Social Contract”I fail to see how our founding documents preclude any preferential impetus toward the common good. Even harder to fathom of course is the notion that our Christian obligations toward our neighbors excludes the use of all of the resources and institutions of our society. There simply is no Biblical or theological prohibition to using all at our disposal to exercise the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable.
I’m coming to accept the theory that Nate and Teresa are trolls on the payroll of Move-On and Code Pink.
Move-On and Code Pink couldn’t pay me a million dollars to go trolling for them. They are on the other end of the political spectrum – actually closer to your ideology Kurt.
Now, if you had said Fox News or NRO…. I wish….
Move-on and Code Pink are liberal organizations, if you’re gonna attempt to to be witty, at least know what you’re talking about. I’m not a troll and have commented here before. I’m trying educate the liberal posters here. I’m sure Kyle means well. He’s just young and forgotten history. Socialism has never worked. Ever. I commend Teresa for coming out and helping explain this.
“Even harder to fathom of course is the notion that our Christian obligations toward our neighbors excludes the use of all of the resources and institutions of our society.”
What are you referring to when you used the word “all”?
“There simply is no Biblical or theological prohibition to using all at our disposal to exercise the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable.”
“Using all at our disposal” can include charity. Government doesn’t have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. Do you think you have a right to others money? Health care may be a “right” but persons have no right or claim to government money. The government can deny you coverage at any time. That is why treating government like some type of “Super-God” that can fix all that ails the world is a huge mistake.
What does “our” consist of? “Our” may just include a taxpaying family who needs to pay for their daughter Susie’s operation but when the government added another “health insurance tax” to pay for social safety nets, which added up over time, they couldn’t afford little Susie’s operation. Plus, they were denied medicaid coverage because of the dad’s income. Have a solution?
Do you think you have a right to others money?
No more than Terri Schavio did.
@ Kurt–
I can’t speak about Nate, but I have known Teresa for a long time. I assure you that she is both real and totally sincere.
Yes she is.
And Fox News-ready, too!
Thank you, Kyle. God Bless.
Thank you, Rodak. God Bless.
Thanks for the blessing, Teresa, and back at you. We’ve seldom agreed on politics, but you’ve always been willing to dialogue about issues. I appreciate that very much.
@Kyle
You might want to look at your 2:38pm comment. I think that would be your time while 3:38pm is my time.
Nope. Still nothing. Perhaps you can quote the comment to which you’re referring.
“As for why we should pay the costs resulting from another person’s bad habits? First, it’s in our personal interest to do so: we all benefit from a healthier society. Second, it’s the cost of doing business. Public funding of healthcare costs would, practically speaking, have to mean paying for those who are at fault for their poor health and those who are blameless. Third, that a person caused his or her ill health doesn’t take away my responsibility or the responsibility of society.”
This statement indicates that to some extent you have an aversion to individual responsibility and also conflated it with communal effort.
We may interpret your comment differently :)
“To my way of thinking, the onus is not an either/or, but a both/and, a balance of responsibility between the individual and the collective.”
Here is a little clarification from what I stated previously.
From what I gather from your statements, you think the primary onus of responsibility lies with government whereas I believe the primary onus of responsibility lies with the individual and the government or society is a secondary means for assisting in that responsibility. From your comments, you seem to think that society somehow owns a persons individual responsibility – rather irresponsibility – when that person abandons, does not or doesn’t meet their individual responsibility. But, if we do that how is the person ever going to learn a lesson so they don’t do wrong again? If individuals truly can’t meet their responsibility that is a different story and it is legitimate for the government with the help of taxpayers to assist in what is their responsibility.
Teresa, The comment of mine you inexplicably believe indicates an aversion to individual responsibility was my answer to your question about why taxpayers should pay for costs resulting from irresponsible behaviors. Of course I’m going to focus on collective responsibility in this case: your question was specifically about collective/social responsibility. What I addressed was a limited case in which individual responsibility for healthy living has regrettably not been met. Indeed, you will notice in the words of mine that you quote that I explicitly affirm my individual responsibility in addition to social responsibility.
Let me start by saying that this is a direct response to Kyle’s original post, and has nothing to do with any of the comments, which I have not yet read.
Kyle writes, “I think that “one of the major issues facing our politics at the moment is sorting out this question of the balance between personal and social responsibility,”…”
I’m glad you closed with that statement as it allows me to agree with pretty much your whole post (though I don’t know the extent to which Santorum would agree with your assessment of his position).
By the same token, I think it’s not uncommon on the other end of the spectrum to talk as though it’s always the fault of “society” or “the system” and rarely or never the fault of individuals.
I might argue though, that a society founded on the one extreme would do better than a society founded on the other. Which isn’t to say that we should adopt either extreme, but that people should take it as their default position, that their welfare, like their salvation, is ultimately their own responsibility.
As with salvation, the Church needs to be there to preach the Gospel and to support its members on the path to heaven, and to light the way, but ultimately it’s each person’s own decisions that determine where he ends up; so also society should provide assistance to those in need of it, but make clear that what people do with that assistance is ultimately up to them.
At some point you have to be able to say look, here’s this program, and here’s this educational grant, now go to it. We can’t be perpetually wringing our hands over those who don’t take advantage. After all, plenty of people in the upper classes screw up their own lives too. It should be accepted that a certain number of the poor will do the same, through no fault of society’s. They aren’t excused from culpability merely by virtue of being poor.
@Agellius–
The question is not whether being poor excuses a person from culpability. The question is does culpability disqualify one from receiving help? The question I ask is: does not another’s stark need create in me the responsibility to provide that help?
Rodak:
I’m not sure “responsibility” is the word (it may be); I would be comfortable saying that charity demands that we help anyone who needs help and whom we’re able to help. However it’s also true that sometimes the best you can do is let someone suffer the consequences of his actions. Often, hitting rock-bottom is the occasion of people turning their lives around, and I think many of them would acknowledge that it’s the only thing that could have saved them. Thus if we take away the possibility of rock-bottom, we may, in a sense, be dooming people.
Again using the salvation analogy, I think it’s hard for people to work to avoid sin at all costs, until they have experienced it’s awful consequences. While trying to guide people to heaven, we also have to warn them of the possibility of hell. But if hell is not a possibility, then such warnings will ring hollow. By the same token, in the sphere of economics people have to know that rock-bottom is possible, so that they will work like hell to avoid it. If (for example) the worst that can happen is that you live in a run-down apartment at government expense, a fair number of people may say well, that beats working.
You have proven my point in your answer Kyle, that you place much more responsibility on society than the person. Unfortunately when you do this that leads to co-dependency, and hurts the person in the long run. It also hurts society in the long run because it promotes irresponsibility, and the cycle of that continues unless addressed properly.
What? I proved nothing of the sort. You seem to have fashioned a fictitious notion of what I think and believe and now read whatever I write as if it affirms this notion of yours.
@Rodak
I have enjoyed our discussions as well. As much as we disagree on what the solution may be we probably agree on at least half of what we believe are problems with/in America. Thank you for the friendly dialogues. Thank you for your kind words. Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, Teresa–
Hopefully most people agree on more things than they disagree on. It would be pretty hard to make anything work, if that were not the case!
@Kurt
So, do you believe that Terri Schiavo should have received assistance or not? On one hand you claim to be for government assistance but on the other hand you claim that Terri Schiavo shouldn’t have been on government assistance and did not have a right to that assistance. You can’t have it both ways, Kurt. Are you suggesting that a life’s worth and the money they receive should be measured by how much the government deems their worth to be? We need to protect the most vulnerable so for you to come out against Terri Schiavo receiving assistance is IMO heartless and unethical.
You can’t have it both ways, Kurt.
EXACTLY! You can’t demand government assistance for one person but call it “socialism” when it goes to others. Oh, I know there are those who follow Stalin’s quip that “One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic.” But I am no follower of Stalin.
Of course, I never said that Terri Schiavo should not receive government assistance. I simply noted that she received government welfare from mandatory taxes, and from that you wrongly assumed (I guess by looking at things from the standpoint of your worldview) that was I suggested she should not receive it. I think that was cruel and heartless of you.
You state that “we need to protect the most vulnerable” and it is heartless “to come out against Terri Schiavo receiving [government welfare] assistance.” You are right. And that is not a truth particular to one person, but a universal truth. And there you have why Catholic Action has supported social insurance.
In Australia it’s just what we do – both sides of politics. Something to do with common wealth.
@Agellius–
Can you give us some suggestion of what you consider to have been the criteria of Jesus for means-testing the poor in order to determine who should be tossed a line and who should be allowed to drown?
Rodak writes, “Can you give us some suggestion of what you consider to have been the criteria of Jesus for means-testing the poor in order to determine who should be tossed a line and who should be allowed to drown?”
First, who is “us”? Are you part of a team? ; )
Second, as I indicated before, our eternal destiny is ultimately decided by our own decisions. Do you disagree? Is our temporal destiny essentially different in that respect?
In any event, I never said lines should not be tossed. I said that if you toss people a line and they don’t take it, there may not be anything more you can do. Again this is similar to salvation in my view. You can’t force people to be saved if they don’t want to be.
@ Agellius–
“Us” would be me, and anybody else who is reading your comments with interest. If you think that I’m being overly optimistic about that, please change the pronoun to “me” in your mind.
From what you say above, then, I take it that you would throw everybody a line–provide material assistance to all in need–and regret that some did not take advantage of the help offered? Your offer of assistance would be unconditional, and based on need, despite your prediction that only some would use the help given to find ways to permanently improve their circumstances?
If that is correct, you and I are in full agreement. I think what I describe above is analogous to what Jesus offered mankind. He offered his love and the possibility of redemption to all, knowing that many would not respond.
If, however, you feel that only the “deserving por” should be helped, I would like to know how you would identify the deserving, and what criteria, based on the morality handed down to us from the teachings of Jesus, you would use to make that identification.
I’m on Team Rodak!!! :)
Rodak:
I think we agree. Bearing in mind that I’m talking about what is demanded by charity. As far as who is “deserving”, I’m not even sure what that would mean, let alone how to identify them.
Of course this is just a general principle. Somehow I doubt we would agree on all the particulars. : )
@ Kurt–
Thank you. In that case, I can say “we” with a bit of confidence. :o)