By Nathaniel Torrey
In a segment entitled, “On Faith, the Economy, and the Election” on Odyssey Networks, president of the Ethics & Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Dr. Richard Land commented on the role of government and what this election means for people of faith. “I think that this election, more than most elections in our history, is about big issues,” said Dr. Lang. “It’s not going to be an election about whether you like Romney or you like Obama. The big issue is the role of the federal government in American peoples’ lives on a daily and weekly basis for the next generation.”
Dr. Land asked Christians who would vote for larger government in order to help the poor to “reexamine what the Bible says about human nature.” He continued, “If human nature is what the Bible says it is, socialism and radical redistribution of income will never work. People are not going to work according to their ability and receive according to their need. It’s contrary to what the Bible says human nature is.”
Limited government follows from human nature. Since man is a fallen creature and therefore “There is no one righteous; not one” (Romans 3:10), he cannot live out the old Marxist motto, “From each according to his ability and each according to his need.” Therefore, the further expansion of government to help the poor will simply not work. One of the better meditations on the role of government and human nature can be found in James Madison’s Federalist Paper 51. It is worth quoting at length. Madison argued that human nature requires a limited government replete with checks and balances to curb its tendencies to tyranny. He writes:
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Ultimately, Dr. Land said the state of most Americans is “the equivalent of being born on third base and we didn’t hit a triple. We are of all people in the history of the world most blessed.”
There are Eastern orthodox converts a lot less hostile, Frederica Mathewes-Green Green is a convert and basically a nice person who is also pro-life and while not agreeing with conservatives on all issues does not demean them. The lady I think helps eastern orthodox with getting more converts better than Frank who is basically anti-Protestant or Roman Catholic.
Frank was use by the eastern orthodox to hit both Catholics and Protestants who are there western arrivals in Christianity. Frank is a lot more negative toward both since his book about his son joining the military.
Obama is not the anit-christ but his childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis. was once a communist. Mr Davis was one a member of the communist party at one time preferred Stalin to Truman. Stalin is a type of anti-christ.
Well, the laws on giving the land back to a group or a family didn’t work, Isreal or ancient Judea had a land aristrocracy, so government involvement couldn’t not prevent this from happeing. Its the same view with leftwing christians that like some early church fathers on not paying interest. Both medieval Europe in the east and the west couldn’t totally abolished usury. My view is a reform on the state welfare system and a way to coordinate better the private one as well.
Thanks.
Mark said:
“What some of the liberal commenters here seem to miss is that Land, most conservative Christians, etc. do NOT want to do away with government. It is Scriptural to believe that government is God-ordained. The concern is with governmental over-reach and governmental tyranny.”
Hi Mark. I may be wrong about this, but based on an experience I had about 2 years ago, my best guess from that quote is that you are about 28 years old + or – 5 years. Of course, that is a guess that might be dead wrong. Please let me know how off my guess is because there is method to the madness in my asking.
However, I have no method in asking the questions I am about to ask and no ulterior motive other than to be educated. In other words, this is not a rhetorical setup to try to nail your ears to the wall or anything like that. I am just honestly interested in knowing something new. So, here are my questions all in a lump:
When you say “the concern is with governmental over-reach and governmental tyranny,” what exactly do you mean by that terminology, what are some important examples of it in your mind (other than the Catholic hospital employees/birth control issue), and how does that over-reach and tyranny directly and negatively impact and turn upside down your own personal life and that of your nuclear family? Government over-reach and tyranny in the sense that you use those words has historically resulted in great pain and suffering. In what specific ways are you and your family in pain and suffering at this time? If such personal pain and suffering exists, how specifically could it be relieved. If you do not wish to discuss that here, you can send me an e-mail message at tcbkjbbrown@comcast.net.
Moderators at Juicy Ecumenism should not freak out at this point. This e-mail address is not a secret and is posted for all the world to see on my own blog—so calm down. Exhale. Relax. There you go. Feel better?
Your guess about my age is off by 20+ years. But that’s not necessarily relevant to a rational, factual discussion of issues.
As far as governmental over-reach and malfeasance, you do mention one regarding government forcing taxpayers to fund things which they deem immoral, like abortion.
But if you want a comprehensive list of others I would have to write a book. There is simply not enough space. Among them are placing burdensome govermental regulations on business, minimizing work requirements for welfare receipients, implementing punitive taxation for producers, fighting drug testing for those receiving government assistance, subsidizing failed industries like Solyndra, throwing billions down ratholes for supposed “stimulus projects” and foreign wars and foreign aid, failing to have reliable methods to determine eligibility for programs like Medicaid, failing to encourage poor families to remain intact by providing financial inducement for absentee fathers, etc. etc.
And yes, most definitely, this has caused “great pain and suffering.” Untold, immeasurable pain and suffering.
You ask how this affects my family, but such a question assumes I am only concerned about my family (which tips me off as to your thinking process). I am concerned about all families; I am concerned about the continued fluorishing of humanity, and that requires intact traditional families. Many of our current political leaders appear to be at war with that notion.
Obama isn’t the anti-Christ, he’s just a cliche-spewing, teleprompter-dependent, robotic political hack from the corrupt Chicago machine, just stumbled into a lucky moment in American history when the biggest political asset was White Guilt. Geraldine Ferraro, who said few intelligent things in her career, was correct when she called him the Affirmative Action president.
As for Schaeffer: enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, you bottomless reservoir of bile. You’re a bit old to be going Nyah-nyah at your long-dead Dad and the people who loved him. Do something positive and creative instead of flipping off evangelicals. Or get some therapy, a shrink could have a field day with your Oedipus complex.
Ben…
…you bottomless reservoir of bile.
Irony, meet Ben. Ben, Irony.
Re: Mark’s reference to Os Guinness’s remarks about the rearing of Franky Schaeffer: This fits a familiar pattern – the spiritual leader who isn’t so great at disciplining his own children, as in the biblical cases of Aaron, Eli, Samuel, and (most notoriously) David. Francis Schaeffer had many thousands of spiritual children, but look how his son turned out, malicious, spiteful, an infantile seeker of attention.
So, Mr Schaeffer (rightly) suggesting that those (and there are many of them) who think OBAMA MIGHT BE THE ANTI-CHRIST are “beyond crazy,” is that what you find disturbing in Schaeffer’s comments that would cause you to go in to an off topic ad hom attack on the man, rather than the message?
Do you who are slandering this man, gossiping about him viciously and speculating about his upbringing (and I’m assuming that you weren’t there and that you are not omniscient – let me know if I’m mistaken on either point) ALSO think that Obama might be the anti-Christ or, if not, do you recognize how most of us might find that just a bit batpoop crazy?
Dan, let me attempt to respond to you since you have spent a fair amount of time writing in this forum. Even though you have repeatedly mischaracterized and misunderstood the points I have made, I will offer a response since you asked for one.
I have not generated any “gossip” about Mr. Schaefer, I have forwarded a direct, published quote from someone who knows Mr. Schaefer very well (Mr. Guiness).
I believe Mr. Schaefer has made some valid points that we should all consider in trying to have a dialogue. Unfortunately, Mr. Schaefer doesn’t practice what he preaches since he regularly demeans those who disagree with him in vile, offensive ways. This, it seems to me, is further proof that Mr. Guiness is correct in his description of Mr. Schaefer.
In short, I’ll take a little truth wherever I can get it, but here’s the point: Mr. Schaefer’s credibility is a serious issue.
(Incidentally, if you want to bring up ridiculous, rigged surveys, how many liberals would view someone like Ann Coulter as the anti-Christ (assuming they believed in Christ) ?)
Since you have difficulty understanding how my earlier comments address your arguments, I will take the time to be more specific. Now to your earlier, enumerated points, which I will respond to one by one.
1) I agree, but we need to recognize the limitations of government.
2) I don’t think that taking a position on marriage that is consistent with thousands of years of recorded human history, natural law, and the religious understandings of all the world’s great religions is tantamount to “bedroom policing.” No one is telling you what you can or cannot do in your own bedroom. If anything’s a straw man argument, THAT is.
3) You are exactly right. Humans, whether they are in government or the private sector, are imperfect. But the private sector has greater incentive to be efficient. When you are spending other people’s money, as the government does, the incentive to be cost-efficient is diminished.
4) I never claimed that you did not support private charity. Don’t know where you get that. And if you think that 90% of government welfare workers would cheer losing their already hard-to-lose jobs you are living in a fantasy world. I work with several of these folks and they are generally good people, but they don’t want to lose their jobs, particularly not in the current economic climate of high unemployment and economic stagnation. You really miss the boat on that one.
5) I don’t argue that there is a Biblical injunction against government assistance, and I don’t know any conservative/orthodox Christians who do. But there is no real mandate for it, either. Indeed, one could understand the directive “render unto Ceasar” as an argument against it. The Biblical commands to help the poor, the “least of these,” is, first and foremost, a command for INDIVIDUAL believers. This is harder than sanctimoniously calling for charity using other people’s money. One could argue that one of the reasons the private sector cannot do more to help the poor is government interference. A great resource on this is Marvin Olasky’s “The Tragedy of American Compassion.”
6) For the reasons already listed, I don’t think there is any need to oppose judicious governmental intervention in helping the needy. The problem is the scope and method of doing so. One can make a strong case that the traditional family in poor neighborhoods has been shattered by governmental programs limiting assistance to families with a married father in the household. A well-known Democrat, Patrick Moynihan, warned against this in the 1960’s. He was largely ignored by liberals looking for votes. Your poverty charts have some inherent limitations, but it stands to reason if you give money to someone they are going to have a little more after than before. The issue here is long-term viability and sustainability. As mentioned, I don’t oppose all of these programs, but some have encouraged a father-less culture, trapping people in cycles of ambition-destroying dependency. A single-parent home is the most common risk factor for ongoing poverty.
With me??
Dan, you write a lot in this forum, and you sometimes make good points. However, I would strongly urge you to make a greater effort to consider the facts and arguments at variance with yours. That is what true dialogue requires. If, as you say, you are truly interested in intelligent, fair-minded dialogue then you will need to modify your approach. If you are unable or unwilling to do this then you cannot blame anyone for not responding.
Mark…
And what do modern liberals want to do about it? Double down on dysfunctional governmental programs in the name of compassion (incidentally, statistics indicate that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals do, so those who say conservative don’t care about the poor are simply wrong).
Indeed, Mark, it would be wrong to falsely accuse conservative folk of not caring about the poor. It is wrong of any of us to misrepresent the intentions or words or goals of another.
So I find it ironic that you have misrepresented those on the other side of the argument so much in this post. Why not just advocate your position without misrepresenting the other side’s arguments?
We ALL who are talking on this topic care about the poor. There are no monsters here, no tyrannical socialists, no hard-hearted Scrooges… We are just trying to think rationally about the best ways to deal with the problems associated with poverty.
Starting from THAT point, my brother, I wonder if you have any thoughts on our actual points?
Can we agree that there is nothing inately unbiblical about gov’t solutions for poverty?
Can we agree that, IF the private sector is not sufficiently meeting all the needs, then why not have a two-pronged approach: Find better ways to encourage the private sector to step up and meet existing needs and, in the meantime, have gov’t solutions with fact-based evaluations of their success?
Seems like a reasonable approach to this so-called liberal.
As to the “dysfunctional gov’t programs…” perhaps you could be more specific? We might find we can agree on specifics rather than disagreeing on vague and scary sounding “dysfunctionality.”
For instance, I have friends and church members who are social workers/mental health workers in private and/or Christian non-profits. One program “takes” federal money to assist veterans who are homeless. These men and women often have mental and health issues, sometimes leading to drug abuse issues. These programs help these men/women find homes, supports them in getting off the drugs and finding solutions/support for their health and mental health problems. They don’t always succeed, but sometimes they do. They keep track of what works and what doesn’t and strive to improve their programs.
Because these programs “take” federal dollars, are they part of the dysfunctional problem or part of the attempted solution?
Another loved one works with an agency that assists homeless families. One example of a family would be the mother with two young girls, both of whom have cancer. The medical expenses bankrupted them and they ended up homeless. The shelter is helping the family work through their impossible medical options while trying to find them a place to live. But with these medical debts over their heads, where is a solution? Non-profits and/or churches might help with a month’s rent here and there, but that’s not meeting all their expenses.
Multiply that family times several dozen and you can see what this one shelter in this one city is dealing with. This shelter receives some federal dollars. Part of the “dysfunctional” problem or part of the solution?
In general, I’m opposed to spending federal (or private, for that matter) on less than effective solutions. I support spending money (private and federal) on solutions that work.
Are you saying you’re opposed to any fed money supporting solutions, even if they have a, say, 90% effectiveness rate? 65%? 50%?
No answers? Any forthcoming?
So, if not, it appears that this is not a forum for reasoned discussion of ideals, but bitter demonization of those who disagree with you, is that what you’re saying?
It sounds that way.
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other…
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.
I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God.
BUT the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
~The Apostle Paul (emphases, mine)
Well, basically according to Lev we would be better off not favoring either rich or poor. Now in the US which is not ideal, yes there are some homeless people or some people skipping meals but Americans are far from being poor in the ancient sense. Instead of just thinking about helping or not helping the poor we would be better thinking about what is best for the nation and that will probably help the poor more.
Well, Schaeffer converted to Eastern Orthodoxy which is filled with a lot of political liberals not saying everyone is but Eastern Orthodoxy Christians tend to be Democratics. Franky was influence by Alexy Young who was pretty anti-west and pro-east. Schaeffer in one of his books talks about the 4th crusade as being a bad moment of history. which is an eastern orthodox view since the Byzantium empire is sometimes thought to be the height of civilization. Personality, I think Guinness who has never came across much comments by Eastern Orthodox downplays the influence on Frank Schaeffer.
What some of the liberal commenters here seem to miss is that Land, most conservative Christians, etc. do NOT want to do away with government. It is Scriptural to believe that government is God-ordained. The concern is with governmental over-reach and governmental tyranny.
Land, et al also point out that government has not been effective in eradicating poverty. The Great Society programs of the 60′s were poorly thought out in at least one aspect: keeping poor families intact. They had the unintended effect of creating more absentee fathers, and, today, we see the lagacy of this in that single parent homes are likely the biggest single cause of ongoing, generational poverty.
And what do modern liberals want to do about it? Double down on dysfunctional governmental programs in the name of compassion (incidentally, statistics indicate that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals do, so those who say conservative don’t care about the poor are simply wrong). What else is on the detached-from-reality modern liberal agenda? Abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers. Marriage re-definition. Etc., etc.
As for Mr. Schaeffer, he does make some observations we would all do well to listen to, but his anger at conservative Christians makes him close to being one of those “fringe,” scary people that he so loves to demonize. (It is certainly no accident that he appears on the reliably liberal, conservative-bashing show hosted by the ever-smirking Ms. Maddow). Schaeffer, of course, throws all conservative Christians into one kettle and then turns up the fire. If anything is unfair or unintelligent that is.
Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank’s best man, wrote in a published review of “Crazy for God,” that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. “The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of “fundamentalist missionaries.” . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a “little Napoleon,”. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.”
Mark, I see where you have engaged in ad hom attacks on Mr Schaeffer (about whom I know nothing except your gossip) and straw man attacks on the points we have raised here, but how about the questions we DID raise and the points we actually made? Would you care to address them?
You say…
What some of the liberal commenters here seem to miss is that Land, most conservative Christians, etc. do NOT want to do away with government.
No one here has said that this is what they want to do. I will apologize for a line I wrote which may have given you that idea. I had said “we could also probably agree that NO gov’t is not a good solution.” and that may have been where you got off on that tangent. I apologize if I was unclear.
As I said, WE PROBABLY AGREE that “NO gov’t is not a good solution…” By stating it thusly, I was indicating that you and we can agree that having anarchy with no gov’t is not a good solution. Thus, I hope you can see that I wasn’t suggesting that conservatives want “NO gov’t.”
With me?
My points were this:
1. That we can reasonably expect to have SOME gov’t.
2. That we can reasonably want limits to the size and scope of gov’t (do you agree, for instance, that we ought not have gov’t deciding who can and can’t get married, as long as they’re consenting adults and no harm is done? I always find it odd that those who decry excessively large gov’t are often the same ones that support bedroom policing…)
3. That ANY human effort is going to be flawed and imperfect. This is true whether it is a gov’t effort at solving poverty problems or a private effort at solving poverty problems. Agreed?
4. For my part (and contrary to what you claim), I FULLY SUPPORT private efforts at solving poverty problems. I would be fine if the private sector put gov’t OUT of the social services business. And you know what? I guarantee you that 90% of gov’t social workers would say the same thing. They would rise up and call you blessed for ending their jobs IF it meant that the problems of poverty were seriously alleviated.
5. The point that I (and probably this other commenter) were making is that there is no biblical injunction against gov’t efforts to solve poverty and, indeed, there exists biblical support for just that, the case could be made. The point being made was, assuming the private sector HAS NOT stepped up and seriously dealt with these problems, I support gov’t doing so. Recognizing that both gov’t and private sector efforts will be flawed and incomplete.
6. Or, put another way, IF the private sector is not sufficiently addressing the problems of poverty, is there any rational reason to NOT support gov’t intervention IF it makes things better (if not perfectly right)? This chart shows the poverty rate dropped from over 20% before welfare to consistently below 15% since welfare, is that not success, flawed though it may be?
Here is another chart showing pre- and post-welfare poverty rates in multiple nations and, in each case, welfare efforts reduced the poverty rate.
If the concern is seeing a decrease in poverty and its associated problems, why is this not something we can celebrate, all the while encouraging more private sector (which at least some of us agree can be even more effective) attempts to meet the needs?
For the points that were actually being made, do you have responses to THOSE ideas?
Dover said…
When Jesus makes his comments about the “least of these” in the New Testament, I take that seriously and do not see it as an all voluntary charity thing. It is required of every man—Christian or not—and Jesus does not specify that there is a proper or inproper way to do it.
You make some excellent points, friend. I have never seen any of our more conservative (or, if you prefer, “conservative,” since I question the aptness of the title for Christian “conservatives…”) friends address the point.
Yes, charity can be a good thing. But the facts are, the Bible never states that voluntary individual charity is the one and only way that God approves of dealing with issues of poverty. You might want to make the case that it is a BETTER way of dealing with poverty, but you simply can’t say with any serious authority that it is the one-God-approved (TM) Way of dealing with poverty.
Indeed, the bible holds examples of whole nations of people/nations as a whole being held accountable for failing to tend to the needs of the least of these. In fact, as we all should know, this is a primary reason give for the biblical destruction of Sodom. Those weren’t Christian folk or God followers, apparently, but nonetheless, they were held accountable for not dealing with the problems of poverty and, instead, wallowing in their wealth.
Indeed, the kingdom of Israel had national laws in place that required the setting aside of land/food/wealth for the poor – a tax, if you will, that was systematic and required, not voluntary.
So, one can’t seriously make the argument that using tax dollars to deal with issues of poverty is biblically wrong. I am fine with the argument, “I think non-profits and local entities can do better apart from gov’t intervention…” I think there is some truth to it. And, as soon as non-profits and the private sector actually do that successfully and systematically, I’m fine with ending gov’t programs.
Until such time, the more important thing is that something is done, even if less than effectively.
After all, the private sector efforts are and will be less than effective, as well. We are, after all, fallen humanity with imperfect solutions.
I also agree with you that it is despicable to make support for gov’t programs an opportunity to demonize. Shame on those conservatives who do this. Shame on those who don’t treat the subject with enough respect and gravity to hodl respectful, goodfaith conversations with those who disagree on how best to do a good thing.
Disagreement is okay. Demonization and brainless slander, notsomuch.
Well, I agree with Land but he favored legalizing people that tend to have low skilled jobs and Children and tend to get free and reduce lunch programs from the Taxpayer. Illegal Hispanics and others while gainfully employed tend to have poverty rates sometimes as high as 26 percent and when they have minor children they quality for several programs. Richard Land should have considered this when he agreed to legalized Hispanics. They usually get WIC, and sometimes food stamps becaus of their minor children born in US and emergency healthcare. By legalizing Millions of Hispanics Richard Land discussion will take money from the native born population and redistributed to the legalized foreign born population. this that foreign born is poorer. Conservatives like Land never think of the cost of illegal immigration which has expanded the welfare state in California more than anything else. Also, illegal immigrants get earned federal tax credit by filing the TiC.
I thought about writing a very long and coherent essay in response to Richard Land and this post, but I decided it would be a waste of good typing fingers. However, it is necessary for me to say that the Bible has hundreds of scriptures requiring us Christians to have a heart for the poor and down-trodden. When Jesus makes his comments about the “least of these” in the New Testament, I take that seriously and do not see it as an all voluntary charity thing. It is required of every man—Christian or not—and Jesus does not specify that there is a proper or inproper way to do it. Furthermore, I personally grew up in circumstances of poverty that I doubt few who post here have ever experienced and many would not have survived without going insane. If you have never lived it, I can assure you that you have no idea what it is like—only fantasies, untested hypotheses, opinions, and theories. It is chic, avant-garde, and all the rage these days on the radical right to accuse the government of making poor people dependent so they can never fish for themselves. However, I think that is just a convenient excuse for middle class and rich Christians to abandon all of those Bible verses about helping the poor, sick, old, widows etc. and use the fiction of “bad government” as the excuse. As some supposed Christians have opined:
“See!!! Jesus says we will have the poor with us always. They are hopeless. He admits it!!! Helping them is like flushing money down a toilet. We should just give up and spend all that money on something else more worthwhile.”
Lastly, I get so tired of being accused of being a Marxist, Communist, or Socialist just because I have a Jesus heart who cares for people who are less fortunate than I am. Where do you people here at Juicy Ecumenism get off the train in lumping me and other Christians with the murderers that sent millions to Siberian gulags or Cambodian killing fields. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!!! The fact that Richard Land could do that with serious Christians just because we think that government has a role in helping others in need really disappoints me. No, it makes me angry—not like Cain with Abel—but like God was in those restrained few moments when they were nailing his Son to the cross. I would better call it righteous outrage and indignation on behalf of my less fortunate sisters and brothers in this world.
Here is how I really feel about Richard Land, his opinions, and the people who share them. I am not trying to insult anyone. This is just really and honestly—on an even plane—how i feel about them. This person says it all more articulately than I could ever hope to do, and it is one of the best articulations of truth that I have seen in a long time, so I will let him do the rest for me:
Pingback: Dr. Richard Land on Faith and Government in the 2012 Election | THINKING PRESBYTERIAN | Scoop.it
Limited government follows from human nature. Since man is a fallen creature and therefore “There is no one righteous; not one” (Romans 3:10), he cannot live out the old Marxist motto, “From each according to his ability and each according to his need.”
Limited gov’t? Absolutely. We wouldn’t want gov’t intervening in matters like who marries who or what we do or don’t ingest, or how we worship or don’t worship, not when none of that is hurting anyone else.
But we could also probably agree that NO gov’t is not a good solution.
Human beings are certainly fallible, but that includes the humans who are NOT part of gov’t, as well as those involved directly in gov’t. So, we can reasonably expect gov’t to intervene in non-gov’t areas, at the least, when people are harming others, oppressing others, depriving others of basic human rights.
I say the line should be “Harm.” Gov’t can reasonably be involved in areas where there is harm occurring and, as a rule, should limit itself OUT of matters where NO harm is occurring.
Seems rational in the extreme, to me.
And therein, I think, we find a problem with the way that Land and Nathaniel appear to be advocating. Nathaniel writes…
Therefore, the further expansion of government to help the poor will simply not work.
That is not a wholly well-thought out conclusion. While there will certainly be PROBLEMS if we authorize gov’t investment in areas of poverty-related problems, there are also problems in NOT authorizing gov’t investment in public welfare.
We can see this clearly when we consider roads and bridges and fire protection, etc, but when it comes to HUMAN investments, conservatives too often seem to suggest, “IT won’t work perfectly, therefore let’s not do much (or any) investment in human needs…”
Why in areas of physical infrastructure but not in areas of human “infrastructure…”?
Why not let the “free market” take care of roads and fire protection? Because “human nature” is fallen and won’t step up to take responsible actions? Yes, at least partially. That is why it’s not a crazy idea to invest in human needs, just as we invest in other needs.
It would be fine IF the (fallen and sinful) private sector stepped up and solved 99% of the problems associated with poverty, but if they don’t (and they haven’t and I see no reason to expect that fallen humanity ever would), then gov’t intervention – flawed though it may be – is not irrational.
Seems to me.