You make a good point: the ideologies based on “from each according to his means; to each according to his need” have been responsible for more death and destruction than the “heartless” capitalists.

I like security, clean water/food, and healthcare and we certainly can have all of that, if we can defeat the libertarians and neo-conservatives that believe all social safety nets should be dismantled and everyone that isn’t an orphan child or an aged widow that is disabled, deformed, sick, etc… pushed into the street to live with a tin cup (they have to find a way to get their own tin cup too) until their painful agonizing death AND the Marxist state atheists that are responsible for 262 million dead by democide in the 20th century and MUCH human suffering and destruction, then we might have a chance.

Geesh. We need to find a way to have a humane society without government sprawl and PC authoritarianism. So far we haven’t.

I’d like to learn more of her personal history. I suspect she confuses “the church” (i.e., an institution that can be authoritarian and controlling, sometimes asking people to do “check their minds at the door”) with true FAITH, that is supported by reason, and compels people to act in their own (ultimate) best interest.

I don’t believe that we have nearly as many “rights” as the current administration would have us believe – certainly, high-speed internet access is not a “right” as I would define it! The only rights I see enumerated are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, when we’re talking life, does that mean that I only have the right TO life (i.e., nobody should be able to improperly take my life), or does it also mean that I have the right to those basic necessities which will sustain life – i.e., food & water?

I personally think that welfare is a crock of s#!t – even though I am for the moment a recipient of such aid. The lack of oversight is appalling, making the system rife for abuse. It seems as though it is geared to reward stagnation and irresponsible behaviour by not doing enough to incentivize people to actually be productive and self-sufficient. My point is that I would argue for these systems to be changed to provide a hand UP rather than a hand OUT – provide assistance when it’s needed, for a specific period of time, and REQUIRE individuals to provide proof of progress made. Tie the amount of benefits to effort – if you are taking a class or learning a trade, you should get more help than someone who sits around swilling beer all day while watching Jerry Springer.

You also speak about coercion, and the threat of force. Does that mean that you’re against taxation as well? Does the gov’t not have the right to require some of the fruit of your labor in return for the benefits they provide to you as a U.S. citizen?

I MAY be against any and every government benefit. Trying to think of one I think is a good idea, well-executed. Still trying.

I AM against coercion. Period. It’s antithetical to “Don’t Tread On Me”. I intentionally said “…pulling a gun”, because it’s the only way gov’t can coerce you into giving them the fruit of you labor — with the threat of force. It’s a crime if I do that to my neighbor.

My principles are simple:

1) I think it’s IMMORAL for someone to claim what belongs to another solely on the basis of NEED. Need does not constitute claim.

2) I have yet to see a gov’t program that’s as or more effective than private aid. We are the most charitable nation on earth. The New Deal has been in place 75 years. The “War on Poverty”, 40 years. Have either delivered the goods? I argue “no”, and what’s more, they have been destructive. These government programs destroyed the black family. If you want to talk social justice, compare intact families, social order, incarceration rates, and illegitimate births before and after the New Deal. Despite all the hardships of the pre-Civil Rights Act era, black families were as stable as white families. Their incomes were lower, but the family structure was strong, and black-on-black murders were not the norm.

When we, as a society, perhaps acting nobly, in the interest of the “common good”, we gave an incentive to men to abandon their families and not take responsibility. Where has that unintended consequence led us?

Another unintended consequence? What’s my incentive to personally try to help people on the street, when I know they’re already getting my money anyway, through the anonymous hand of government, as a monthly check? We’ve replace the caring hand of community, and the principle of subsidiarity (a staple of Catholic social teaching for centuries) with the idea that somehow a centralized, impersonal solution is better. I haven’t seen the evidence to support that claim. I’ve seen lots of counter-evidence, showing that centralized power, removed from the individual you’re helping, + lots of other peoples’ money, leads to fraud, waste, inefficiency, and NOT helping those you claim to help.

3) people will survive. I refuse to believe that same spirit that led people to cross the ocean in pursuit of a better life, to cross the prairies in search of a better life, to take countless risks for a better future, is dead. People don’t lack for food and water in the US. (Interestingly, I have a friend in the charitable well-drilling business. Sadly, many of those wells are abandoned after a few years because no one takes responsibility for them.) And when they have (flooding, etc.) who responded more effectively — the slow-moving Federal gov’t, or the private sector and local gov’ts? Research the responses to Katrina, Haiti, Nashville, tsunami.

As someone who’s BEEN on aid before, and watched my Mom work 2 jobs to get us off of it, I know that people are strong, creative, resilient, and able to survive. After reading the reports of boys in Sudan trekking all over Africa to stay safe, I know humans have it in them to survive and to care for each other. My circle of friends have cared for me, and vice-versa. Get gov’t out of the picture, and the safety net will still be there. And the family and all the communities that rely on it will be stronger.

While I can understand and appreciate your opposition to *most* of them, I feel that there is a social justice issue at stake here that cannot be ignored. We’ve maybe gone ’round on this before, but I’ve never heard a cogent answer to that question that doesn’t involve some manner of government intervention and/or oversight.

In response, you say that such charity should be an individual response, or that of a specific community – such as a church or other charitable organization. Well and good. But what if that is insufficient to meet the need? I’m not talking about bank bailouts & mortgage crises here, but such necessities as food, water & shelter. No, I wouldn’t take a gun to my neighbor over such issues, but I’ve yet to hear you speak of a solution – only to rail against the problem.

Inflammatory language rarely changes anyone’s opinion – whether you’re Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Rusty Pritchard, if you can’t learn to present your views in a rational, reasonable, and inviting way, then you’ll only and always be preaching to the choir while the pews sit empty.

The best comment I’ve read on this came from one of the other blogs I follow:

“I can’t tell you how many students wrote in to my college’s newspaper whenever one of their pet projects was dealt a blow somewhere that what was needed was debate and then passage of the bill or conduct of the action in completely unchanged form. They were often explicit about this latter point, that the proposal critically not be changed during the debate. The debate was just kabuki theater designed to make the people proposing the radical legislation or actions *feel* like they were following mainstream American traditions. Never was it intended to actually have any chance of changing their cherished proposals into something more palatable to the electorate. It’s the same completely non-introspect naivete that I point out when the multi-culti crowd projects onto every single actor in the world, including radical milennarian takfiri terrorists, the willingness and ability to sit down somehwere and talk out their differences. However, since they never actually change their own positions I can’t actually blame so many parties for calling their bluff and not subjecting themselves to the ritual dance before not getting their way or being heard whatsoever. Like talking to a brick wall . . .”

This kind of close-minded mindset (all while presenting the appearance of open-mindedness) is what strikes me the most about the current administration. Had they actually made the White House more “transparent” some of their changes may have actually had a hope. As it is, they try to ramrod legislation down our throats, all while telling us that they know best.