Reports hav
e risen over the Catholic Church’s opposition to a portion of the Affordable Health Care Act that will require institutions whose mission is not primarily religious to provide health insurance that pays for prescriptions and procedures that are against the teachings of their faith. According to CBS News, “Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees."
Although in the past there were some concerns expressed by Catholic leadership for parts of this law, a genuine outcry is only surfacing now well over a year after the health care bill was signed into law and only in regard to a single provision. In a report from The Christian Century, January of 2011, Catholic Bishops collectively joined to not support Republican attempts to repeal Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act. Also, according to FaithInPublicLife.org, Sister Simone Campbell the Executive Director of Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, was quoted as saying “[r]eligious sisters on the front lines of our nation’s health care crisis know from experience that health care reform will save lives.”
One could argue that the leadership in the Catholic Church simply did not realize that the thousands of pages which comprise the health care law contained provisions that ran contrary to their faith, and only until now did such knowledge surface making their objection valid. Their objection may in fact be valid, but that is not the point.
The point is in regard to the foundational immorality of the law; an immorality one must accept if they are to support the law in any way.
The logic used by the Church in its initial lack of opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act is their belief that it would actually make health care more affordable and therefore save lives. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, they believed it. Therefore, support for the law made sense to them, and reports are they believed any differences could be settled in the future.
As we have seen with the Catholic Church over the past few decades, they were focusing solely on their agenda which was to get more health care to more people. As we have also seen repeatedly over the past couple of decades, the Catholic Church lent very little thought to principle.
Support for the law, of course, is predicated on the belief that if we just force everyone to buy health insurance, each person will be covered and we all live happily ever after. And seeing the initiation of force against people and organizations that have done nothing wrong is deemed acceptable, it would follow that politicians should decide what must be covered. Beyond the immorality of initiating force against people that did nothing wrong, the law will also be administered based upon what will earn a politician votes come election year, not according to the sensibilities of each and every individual.
It is hard to understand if it is stupidity that drove the Church’s actions or they are simply forgot what it means to be a morality based organization, but it is either one or the other. By supporting the Affordable Health Care Act in principle, the Catholic Church is supporting the initiation of force against people who have done nothing wrong. Even the objection expressed recently is only against a provision of the law, not a stance against the moral grounds the law is built.
No matter the attempts to justify the position of the Church based upon their naivety in thinking the health care law could help people, they sacrificed any sense of morality by supporting the very foundation of the law. And now, after realizing that the law is enough of an offense against their agenda, the Catholic Leadership is speaking out in regard to one lousy provision, yet continues to support the law overall. If any person or organization values their agenda over their principles, no matter how well intended, they will be on the wrong side of morality. The Catholic Church is no exception.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 187
We do not get to pick which laws we support and which agendas to support with our tax dollars.
The Catholic Church has gotten rich off the donations of poor people; it should be willing to fund health insurance and it should spend its energies toward rogue priests that prey on choir boys and young women.
I am sick of the belly aching of the religious right
Taking tax dollars for medical research or to use coercion to make people buy the products of a private company is NOT the proper function of government.
Just like I am sick of The Left Winger New Age Liberals Belly Aching about George Bush for "All" The problems The Obummer is causing Here and Across The Globe.
Yes we do have the "Right" to pick how "Our" Tax Dollars are used.. that is why this President is a One term Fling. Won and Done.. Next!
Exactly. Hence the intrinsic immorality of arbitrary statism. Government should not concern itself with "agendas" in the first place. The only just and legitimate scope of violent force in society is the defense of persons and property from initiatory force and fraud -- and hence this can be the only just and legitimate scope of government, since government is nothing but an organized monopoly on violent force in society.
The inherent justice and legitimacy of laws to secure to each and every individual their life, liberty and property is so self-evident, so palpable and immutable, that none would have any occasion or sensible reason to object to it. And it is only this limited scope of government power which could ever be objectively proven to be in accordance with the "general welfare" or the "common good."
Indeed! Why even bother with an enumeration of powers in the first place? Why not just have the document say:
The end. Now, for the signatures...
But I am not sure I understand your question . . .
Therefore, I ask if the Church should follow a strict set of moral principles regardless of the consequences of such actions.
We all have a set of values, some are low level values like chocolate ice cream. Others are high level value systems like a respecting life. The high level values are our morality. It is different for every person, but what is not different for every person is the fact that those values one considers their morality is not negotiable if one is to be, in fact, a moral person.
Self-defeating premise. Harm being inflicted upon someone itself constitutes immorality. If people are being harmed as a direct result of a policy stance, then they are not, therefore, "being moral."
to say that contraception is a bad thing as a moral principle and to enforce that moral principle by preventing the use of contraception will cause great harm to some people and moderate harm to many people.
This is true. But contraception use is not objectively immoral, since no one is wronged by it. It may very well be considered as "wrong" according to the particular value scales of certain individuals, as informed by certain religious doctrines, etc.; but this is ultimately a subjective opinion, regardless of the strength of the convictions of the holder.
Yes, it would be immoral for any person or institution to use coercive force to prevent people from using contraception. But this is not what the Church is doing, or trying to do, in this case.
The Church is citing the immorality of the State forcibly compelling private institutions to perform a function (and compelling private individuals to finance this function in some cases, and in all cases to finance the administration and enforcement of the provision) which is considered by them to be repugnant to their religion and morality.
So long as the Church does not use force to compel obedience and compliance to their dogmas, they do not objectively *wrong* anyone.
The same however cannot be said of the State.
I always welcome your voice of calm reason to my posts. It's cheering to see your comments and your icon. (Your son?)
Larry, the photo is my youngest daughter, she'll be three on the 29th of this month. She's kicked back in her little brothers' bouncer seat eating a bag of Goldfish crackers, looking like she owns the place (which it's pretty funny because she really thinks and acts like she does. She's actually yelled at me "Get out of my house!" when she's been mad at me for something. Too cute and funny to even admonish her for it...)
You lucky fellow. She's a dream. Love the confidence. I was thinking she was your youngest which I seemed to remember was a boy. (Those icons are so small. :-) ) I hope things are going well for all of your family.
If we were talking music or movies, I could see the issue not rising to the level of morality. But coercion to punish people who have done nothing wrong does, and yes it is black and white.
Yet I am a highly moral person because I believe in a rational morality. Not doing something because you think you are going to burn in hell invites subjectivity and irrationality into one's thinking. Not doing something because it makes no logical sense induces reason into ones life and makes advocating for such morality impossible to deny.
"Martin O’Malley, the Catholic governor of Maryland, called the recent uproar “too much hyperventilating,” pointing out that many European countries with high Catholic populations have mandated similar birth-control coverage without the same kind of reaction.
And it's been widely reported that 28 states already have in place an insurance mandate for contraceptive coverage in place, just like the mandate that's the focus of all the fuss this week, and, just like the federal mandate, with waivers for churches, mosques, and temples and so on where the primary mission is to promote a particular faith and where employees are primarily those who share that faith. promote a particular religious faith and who primarily employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs.
Then there was this bit of news that hardly caused a ripple back in October, 2007: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of New York Law Requiring Insurers to Cover Contraceptives.
So why all the carrying on in February, 2012? Is it, as one cable TV talk-show guest contended this evening, the "free" aspect? The notion that employees of Catholic hospitals will be able to get contraceptives without forking over a co-pay?
I've yet to be persuaded that it's fair or good public policy to dispense birth-control pills free of charge while most other medications, many of them truly life saving, require a co-pay. But setting that aside, don't we all know that even in a co-pay situation, the purchase is subsidized by the benefit plan?
If this were truly a matter of principle -- that the church doesn't want a benefit it "provides" (a term I have taken issue with) to go toward funding a product it finds morally objectionable -- then why hasn't this battle been raging all along? Why hasn't it been raging in these 28 states and in Europe?"
If one does not have health insurance they pay a fine, if they don't pay the fine they go to jail. Both are punishment for something that is not a crime. Wouldn't you agree?
You figure out how to insure people by making face the facts of life. Just like any other insurance, if you don't have it you can't use it. No law in the world is going to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.
You are citing a problem and saying we need more of the cause of the problem, wouldn't you agree?
I'll give you a little MBA knowledge, teach yourself the difference between normal and economic profits. The reason why businesses can do what you cite is because government imposed monopolies.
Do you believe in minority rights, Ron? I'll fight to my last breath for them.
"but this is not a black and white world, it is shades of grey."
This coming from the guy who says that the only person responsible for the financial mess we are in is President Bush, the guy who claims that no one else contributed to it!
LOL!
Once you learn the difference, you will understand why your views are un-American and wrong.
You are wrong Ron.
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. - Alexander Hamilton, First United States Treasurer, Under Washington : Report on Manufactures, 5 Dec. 1791
What an unbelievably silly thing to say. Because there were no founders around hundreds of years after their death, the laws and precedence they set mean nothing? Wow, Ron, you can do better than this.
Prohibition and the amendment process in general were set in place because the power of the government comes from the Constitution, not a majority in congress and not a majority of citizens. A very inconvenient fact, isn’t it Ron?
Thank you for citing Hamilton. This quote is key:
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
In other words, the amendment process (the express terms not carrying a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the constitution) is the means in which the general welfare is carried out.
Underscored by this is HISTORY Ron. There is an amendment process and it is there fore a reason. This is evident by history. What is happening today is unconstitutional and un-American, and it is because of people like you that it is allowed simply because you want your agenda to be pushed and have no concern for morality or American principles.
What an unbelievably silly thing to say. Because there were no founders around hundreds of years after their death, the laws and precedence they set mean nothing? Wow, Ron, you can do better than this.
Thousands of misguided constitutional arguments have been argued in front of the SCOTUS, and they do not reference what someone in the 1900s thought or did, they reference what the founders did and thought. Give me a break.
Prohibition and the amendment process in general were set in place because the power of the government comes from the Constitution, not a majority in congress and not a majority of citizens. A very inconvenient fact, isn’t it Ron?
Don't know why it would be, since the General Welfare clause is right there in the Constitution plain as day.
Thank you for citing Hamilton. This quote is key:
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
In other words, the amendment process (the express terms not carrying a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the constitution) is the means in which the general welfare is carried out.
Underscored by this is HISTORY Ron. There is an amendment process and it is there fore a reason. This is evident by history. What is happening today is unconstitutional and un-American, and it is because of people like you that it is allowed simply because you want your agenda to be pushed and have no concern for morality or American principles.
So you are trying to tell me you think Hamilton spent 95% of his written argument arguing the general Welfare Clause's logical base in the Constitution, only to negate it all in the final 5%, huh? You read it the way you want to, incorrectly, as the SCOTUS has confirmed. What he is saying there is that unless the limitations he expressed are carefully followed, then it is not in the interest of the general welfare as defined for constitutional purpose, and you could include that language he went through, in his argument, and it would not violate the the rest of the constitution, either. That is frankly pathetic, it doesn't even make sense he would lay all that out, and then say, whoops, I'm wrong, lol. You are grasping at some pretty thin straws.
The point is, Ron, that if government could grant itself such power as that of the Affordable Health Care Act, why bother amending the Constitution for prohibition? Your deflection regarding the founders is week and childish.
Don't know why it would be, since the General Welfare clause is right there in the Constitution plain as day.
Thank you for admitting your utter ignorance. A step in the right direction Ron.
Regarding Hamilton
Yes, the conclusion is the conclusion.
Well, speaking for myself, it is nice to have clear, consistent principles. It's not a "black and white view of the world"; it's a recognition of the fact that wrong is wrong. Subjugation, plunder, murder and fraud are always wrong, even if their perpetrators and proponents (and sometimes even their victims) call them by different names, e.g. "regulation", "taxation", "war", "inflation", et al.
If two men rob a lone third man in alleyway, it is wrong -- regardless of how much greater they considered their need for the money in his wallet to be than his own. If they then immediately turn around and give the contents of his wallet to a poor homeless man in the street, this does not negate the intrinsic criminality of their act; it does not make them philanthropists, and neither does it make the man who was robbed a philanthropist. These facts are based on immutable principles; the only factors subject to change are those of degree. In other words, this plainly evident wrong is not rendered right (or even any less wrong) when the number of people involved changes. When two hundred million people combine and apply to the coercive power of the State to forcibly expropriate one hundred million others, the principle which demonstrated the criminality of the former example is not altered one iota, and demands the same verdict regarding the latter.
I'm familiar with the Libertarian outlook, and anarcho capitalist, Von Mises economic theory, but I have to say that pie in the sky doesn't impress me. Its utopian, in that it uses various not so logical rationalizations to ignore the very greed we are talking about.
I see you still haven't found it worthwhile to actually read anything by Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, et al., before spouting off uninformed judgment concerning them and their work.
I am afraid I think if it ever became reality, it would be like declaring open season for corporate predation, sorry.
I guess what you mean to be passing judgment on here is If we ever actually had a government that protected, as opposed to trampled, liberty and equal justice for all.
Since corporations are creatures of the State, and not institutions that could arise in an unhampered market society (since the such a society requires that the laws hold individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions and decisions, as well as being protected in their right to full ownership and [noninvasive] disposition of the rewards of their effort) -- so there goes roughly 90% of the premise of your uninformed judgment.
Leaving some room open for what will doubtless be your response, that businesses would still somehow be able to "prey upon" the hapless public, even without the explicit shielding from liability which the interventionist state grants under the auspices of "incorporation," I'd counter by (yet again) asking you: What form do you expect this "predation" to take?
If all the power of a society's laws are narrowly focused upon the protection of the life, liberty and property rights of all individuals equally, then how do you expect anyone -- a business owner or otherwise -- to be able to successfully, systematically, "prey upon" anyone else?
Your naive assumptioms are built upon an ignorance of social phenomena which is, in my opinion, inexcusable for someone who steps into the arena of political and philosophical debate and pronounces such vociferous judgments as you do, for so long as you have been doing it.
If you can't be bothered to take a little bit of time and effort to actually learn about the ideas you are denouncing -- and don't lie and say you have because your ignorance of the subject matter is glaring and obvious -- then it behooves you to be honest and responsible enough to qualify your opinions with phrases like "I think..." or "My uninformed gut feeling seems to suggest that....", or something of the sort.
I am still waiting for an answer as to why we have an amendment process built into our system if the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause covers ever whim a politician deems appropriate. I won't hold my breath waiting for Ron to respond to such a direct and simple question.
Such as?...
Not everyone is going to fall for the perfect mind attraction of it all.
Well, since there is no "perfect mind" attraction to fall for, in the first place, concerning Austrian school economics or libertarian philosophy, then I would say your remark has all the substance of a bag of hot air.
Some of us live in the real world, where real forces on the nature of man affect outcomes, not arbitrarily modeled what we would like forces
In fact we all live in the real world. And it is precisely those "real forces on the nature of man" that Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, and the scientific institution they founded, deals with. It deals solely with a priori premises, deducing necessary implications thereof and therefrom. It is by chains of deductive logic from the original a priori premises that the entire structure of Austrian economic science is built. If you want to attack any part of that edifice, then all you have to do is prove that some link in the chain of deductive reasoning is unsound. You have to be specific. You can't just say "It ignores the inherent greed of man," because in the first place, thats a ridiculous claim, since praxeology is a study of human action which is premised on the very fact that all individuals act to maximize their own utility; that indeed all human action can be reduced to the choosing between available means to satisfy most urgent ends (the separation of the "economic" from "non-economic" human action, in this regard, is specious; when choosing between food or honor, wealth or love, etc., we weigh all of these considerations on the same scale of personal, subjective value). Praxeological science does not ignore "the greed inherent in the nature of man"; it assumes it as an apodictic premise and builds outward from there.
And to accuse the Austrian school economists of having "arbitrarily modeled what we would like forces" is palpably absurd.
Despite your frequent claims to the contrary, it's painstakingly clear to me that you have not done your homework. I'm guessing you've probably gathered all of the opinions and criticisms of the Austrian economists you feel you need from "progressive" writers and websites, under the assumption that they've done their homework, and you can safely rely on their judgment on the matter.
I think if you actually did do even a little bit of your own research, with even somewhat of an open mind, you would soon come to realize not only how very mistaken are so many of the remarks you've made on the subject and elsewhere over the last few years, but you'd also understand why it's so obvious to me right now that you haven't made the slightest effort to understand that which you presume to pass authoritative judgment upon.
As concerning the "real world forces" and "arbitrarily modeled" comments you've made here, that unfortunate bit of ignorance can be remedied relatively quickly (assuming you actually care to be informed about things you feel certified to publicly denounce); easy homework, well less than a half an hour out of your day: Chapter I of Hans Hoppe's Economic Science and Austrian Method titled "Praxeology and Economic Science," pages 7 -27.
Yes, I realize this may be daunting for you, and primarily because -- whether you yet realize it or would admit it if you did -- you run the risk of conversion by studying to better understand this body of science which you now reflexively reject. But don't be afraid; understanding and enlightenment is liberating and refreshing to mind and soul in a way that's impossible to put into words. The humility to renounce the fallacies and confusions that once were the foundation of your worldview comes easier than you think when the excitement of enlightenment is still fresh and new.
What the hell do you know of how much sun I get? I work outdoors 50+ hours a week.
It seems like you would know even less about what appeals to "thinking folks" than you do about how much sun I or anyone else on these threads gets.
It doesn't take much critical thinking to stubbornly cling to fallacious paradigms that quickly unravel under the light of logical scrutiny. Someone who thinks the proper "thinking folks" answer to the inherent greed of human nature is to endow a group of humans with arbitrary power over the lives and property of all others in society is not someone who should be impugning the depth of others' thinking.
Someone who thinks the way to make people prosperous is to purposely forsake wealth under the pretext of encouraging the means of attaining it, and despite having the fallacy of this viewpoint painstakingly demonstrated for them over and over again, is certainly not someone who ought to be impugning the intelligence of others.
Yes, the Tea Party sheeple have allowed themselves to be herded away from the one candidate that actually stands for and fights for the principles that they only cynically weave into their empty rhetoric whenever it suits them. Very much expected. But to assert that this means the remnant who actually understand the concept of liberty and equal justice, and understand that society progresses and prospers only to the extent those principles are de facto and not merely de jure, and that Americans enjoy what prosperity we do in spite of the incessant growth of collectivist statism, not because of it, that these are all just "crackpots and kooks," is just thoughtless tripe.
In relation though to the Tea Party, Steve, you are partly right but not fully. There are those of us fighting every day to keep the movement based in principle and fighting for a moral social system and not for people or parties. I will post an article tomorrow that will help explain this, I hope you will read it and consider its message.
I am not a Catholic, but I do believe in freedom of choice, both from a religious view and a moral view. Everyone whines about the "religious right" forcing their beliefs on others, but find it just perfect when their side (the left) forces their beliefs on the people of faith.
This is just another step toward total control.
Ron, you have posted some of the weakest arguments to maintain your wrong and un-American point of view then I have every seen anyone in a long time.
Finding the proof you requested was not very hard. If you want to know the truth, try Google so you don't look so foolish next time:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/congrept/87th/620601.html
A social insurance program of this nature is financially sound if future income will support future disbursements. Like Social Security itself, this addition to the system can function successfully without recourse to general taxation.
Four years ago, during the Eisenhower Administration, a top-level advisory committee made a thorough study of the financing of Social Security and concluded that the program is "sound, practical and appropriate." I am confident this is still true today.
It is interesting that the arguments against "Medicare" are the same arguments used against Social Security 25 years ago, and that system has never yet had to go to the Congress for appropriations from the general fund. Social Security funds now total $22 billion and are expected to reach $80 billion by 1980.
Amen. And that's what we're seeing in the Democrat party today, and in unions, especially government unions.
On the matter the law DOES say the following:
" PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No individual
health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated
against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing
so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider
or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer
for abortions."
This means (if words mean anything) that providers cannot be forced to provide or pay for abortion or the morning after pill if they don't wish to. That the president says that they also have to not only provide such but to do it for free is the height of arrogance and would be laughable were it not so serious.
It is not the Catholic church that is in error here but rather it is President Obama who is acting far beyond his allowed legal space.
I generally agree with your posts and comments, so I am intrigued by your opposition to my point in the article. Are you saying that the Catholic Church's general support for Obamacare squares with Catholic values?
Examples of this are the un-discussed parts of the law (that Pelosi said we had to pass in order to see) and the undefined aspects of it which require later definition by the administration (such as this Contraceptive treatment issue which Obama said/campaigned/sold as would never happen due to his supposed and obviously evaporating respect for conscience clauses).
The president's periodic misapplication of scripture to tacitly and cleverly claim (without quite saying) that the government is the proper vehicle for the exercise of the people's responsibility for the poor is an example of the trap unto which the already fairly liberal Catholic church establishment fell in the general support of Obamacare. I expound on this error here.
Also is it good stewardship (another Catholic and biblical principle) to give a dollar to the federal government and have them using unmonitored methods give .20-.40 cents to the recipients from which they require virtually nothing?
Absolutely not, but wouldn't it be nice if the Church agreed?
I believe Jesus said, "do as I do," not "do as I do or pay a fine or go to jail."
Again, this underscores the point of the article, the Catholic Church has sold out a principle-based position for what is easy and shallow.
They should now be campaigning to get rid of the entire bill not just a small part of it. I venture to say their are a lot more of those little suprises in that legislation.
I can't see how any organization that claims any stake in morality could support it from day one, and the fact that they STILL support shows how truly morally lost and corrupt the organization . . . of course this is quite apparent in the case of their complicity with the rape of children, so maybe the point was pretty obvious from the outset.
It is a case of the Obama administration subverting the Constitution by dictating to the Church what they must provide as far as health insurance. The Government does not have the right to do this to any group or individual, it is as simple as that.
Paul, I am glad you read and liked the article. I was concerned you might read it and be offended. I am encouraged by the fact that so many people of faith have read the article and affirmed its validity as opposed to taking offense.
The Government is telling the Catholic Church what they must do even though it goes against their religious doctrine, whether people agree or not with that doctrine. If this isn't a case for the mythical "separation of church and state" argument I don't know what is.
You are right. What is even more concerning is that they are not doing something to stem the overall morality of the law, only those parts that do not square with the policies of the church. They have an agenda, not principles.
Stem cells are found in the umbilical cord and we don't need any kind of fetus but, still, the church publicizes the contrary; the church needed about 500 years to , finally, acknowledge that Galileo Galilei, Copernicus were right.
Who could expect that a church driven by so many simple minded people, who are more sectarian than accepting modernity, who can commit crimes and protect the criminals, would accept present scientific realities?
I think, although, they have a point that government should not be involved in taking people's money and giving it to others for such research (or any research for that matter). Private industry has been and continues to work on stem cell research and no one is forced to support them. This is the way it should be.
You either Love Her, or you don't.
In any rational society people have to pay for the protection of their rights, but that doesn't mean when the right of government to wage war is abused or done improperly we should be happy about it. This was more so my point of agreement.
Clueless is right.
Another slight disagreement- I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s immoral for the Catholic Church or anyone else to support the health care law. Ignorant and uninformed maybe, but unless we’re God, none of us can really say definitively what is moral and what isn’t - we can only say what WE consider to be immoral. Like you said, morality is an individual decision. To me, that doesn’t square with you then saying the Catholic Church is favoring their agenda over principle simply because they take a position you disagree with. Maybe from their perspective, covering everyone is of the highest moral imperative, and they might not even see anything wrong with forcing everyone to buy insurance. The opinion of the wrongness of that law is your morality, not theirs. Obviously you disagree with that and so do it, but I think the only way you can say unequivocally that someone is acting immorally is if they consciously know something they're doing is wrong yet do it anyway, and I don't know if you can prove that in this case.
Why do you say altruism is immoral?
I just joined this site and I'm looking forward to reading your other posts. You're exactly the kind of thinker I've been wanting to read more from and it looks like you write about a lot of topics that have been occupying my mind as of late.
WOW, thank you so much for your insightful, interesting, and intelligent comments about the post. I would be happy to answer your questions.
Proper functions of government and war
When I said I agreed with Diana, I agreed with her general sentiment, I too do not want my money to go to any more wars, at least no more senseless wars as we have seen over the past few decades. But to say someone does not want their money to go towards senseless wars is not the same (although I definitely see how one can interpret it this way), as saying it is not a proper function of government.
Without question, the proper function of government is to protect equal rights, and the only way it can do that is to have the right to initiate force against people. This means, at times, war against aggressors.
Morality
To say that everyone’s value system is different is not to say that we should not judge that value system. We should judge everyone and be prepared to be judged every day.
My issue with the Catholic Church in this article is not based upon its morality vs. mine; it is based upon its proclaimed morality and its actions.
No where in Jesus’ teachings did he ever say, “do as I do, and if you don’t I’ll make you.” I most confess that my understanding of the Bible is very limited; I haven’t paid attention to the religion since I was very young, but I know enough to know this is the case. Unless someone can prove that in fact coercion and the initiation of force against people who have done nothing wrong is a tenant of the Catholic religion, my reasoning stands firm.
Why do you say altruism is immoral?
GREAT QUESTION! I am glad you asked it.
Altruism is immoral because it requires that people forgo their reason and own self interests for the sake of others. If one finds enjoyment or self satisfaction from helping others, then that is great and is NOT altruism. It is not a sacrifice is someone wants to help or actually values the helping over any other thing they could do.
The reason who altruism is immoral is because its foundation is based upon giving up what one holds as a higher value for something they deem as a lesser value. This is what is immoral.
I am very happy you joined the discussion Mike and I truly appreciate your comments. I hope we can engage more and I can learn from your insights.
Freedom is the key,
John
Regarding war, I understand what you’re saying about government needing to have the right to initiate force against people. Yet, if we’re talking about freedom, and the rights of people to not be forced to fund anything that goes against their individual morality, I do see it as a double standard to allow the Catholic Church to not fund abortion, but force a pacifist to fund war. And even if that person is someone who differentiates between senseless wars and wars that “make sense,” we don’t have any say in the matter, do we? If we’re conceding that the government (i.e. the people at the top who have their own agendas) has the right to wage war with our tax dollars, we don’t get to choose which wars to get involved in and which wars to avoid. That’s giving the government too much power for my taste. There’s not an issue I can think of more critically important than war. If you don’t trust the government to provide health care, etc., why in the world would you trust them to wage war on our behalf?
On morality, I don’t agree with how you’re looking at it. You’re taking a specific interpretation of Christianity/the Bible, assuming the Catholic Church sees it the same way you do, and then judging them for going against that interpretation. I’m no Bible expert either, but I know enough about it to know it’s a very intricate and complicated work. You can cite passages which forbid killing, or you can cite passages which justify going to war. You can cite passages about stoning promiscuous women to death, or you can cite passages about universal love. In this case, I don’t think it’s clear that the Catholic Church views legally requiring citizens to purchase health insurance as an initiation of force in the way you do. Perhaps the highest principle worth honoring to them would be ensuring coverage for everyone, making the initiation of force the lesser of 2 evils, in the same way that it’s pretty much impossible for any modern day Christian to literally live out the Bible letter for letter without contradicting themselves, going to jail, or both.
Altruism- we see things very differently here. I do not feel that being concerned for others or the world outside yourself is giving up a higher value for a lesser one. In fact, I feel it is a higher value, because it’s a recognition that there’s more to the picture, and it’s not just about you. On the other hand, I consider only being concerned about yourself and your own immediate interests to be a lower value, and actually the cause of most of the problems in the world. To me, altruism is just an acknowledgement that there’s a big world out there that we depend on, and it depends on us, and that learning to interact with it with a greater awareness of the big picture will ultimately lead to the best results, collectively AND individually. Results matter to me more than ideology.
Don’t concern yourself with timing. Well thought out commentary never comes quick and easy. Take your time.
I do see it as a double standard to allow the Catholic Church to not fund abortion, but force a pacifist to fund war.
This depends, of course, on the standard one uses. If a civil society presupposes a common defense as its foundation and there is no other way to logically provide it, it is a necessity. I would argue this is the case with a common defense and not the case in regard to abortions. Abortions are not part of the foundation of a civil society.
Note here, I am pro-choice. I believe that abortion is ending a life and I think irresponsible people have irresponsible children. If they don’t’ value their own flesh and blood, why should we? There is a reason why tigers eat their young innately.
If you don’t trust the government to provide health care, etc., why in the world would you trust them to wage war on our behalf?
Without a common defense, no rights can ever be secure. Rights will only flow to those who could be as powerful as or more powerful than their neighbor, whether that neighbor is across the street, neighboring state, or a border country. It is a necessity in order to preserve equal rights, as previously stated. This is not true in regard to health care, someone dying due to their own irresponsible or stupid decisions have no affect on the rest of us.
I don’t think it’s clear that the Catholic Church views legally requiring citizens to purchase health insurance as an initiation of force in the way you do
If they do not see this as an initiation of force then that is due to their own stupidity. It is, by all account and reason, the use of force. When a law states, “do this or be fined or go to jail” that it the initiation of force – it is not up to debate, it is a fact.
If the church is choosing the lesser of two evils, it is choosing evil. I wouldn’t’ be surprised if this is what they were doing, but it would even more underscore my point – they are a society devoid of principles.
I do not feel that being concerned for others or the world outside yourself is giving up a higher value for a lesser one.
I do not either, as long as what you are giving up is of a lesser value and what doing instead. But that is not altruism, which is acting in one’s own self interests. Altruism is different. Altruism is the belief that regardless of what one values, they should give it up for the greater good. That is what is wrong and immoral.
Let me clarify what I said about the initiation of force. I didn’t mean to say the Catholic Church doesn’t see Obamacare as an initiation of force, but rather, they might not see it as being as bad of a thing as you do, and yes, maybe they are consciously choosing the lesser of 2 evils, because what choice do they have? Again, you can use the Bible to defend going to war, or to defend not going to war. It’s a matter of interpretation. Taken in totality, weighing the pros and cons, the Catholic Church may legitimately feel that supporting Obamacare is the most morally sound position according to the Bible. They might feel that the whole “caring for the least of these” and “am I my brothers keeper” thing outweighs the initiation of force, as misguided as that might be. You can disagree with them and call them stupid. I don’t agree with saying they’ve lost their principles or calling them immoral, other than, obviously, immoral according to you.
“Altruism is the belief that regardless of what one values, they should give it up for the greater good.”
Could you give me an example of this? Because if someone values something, then “giving it up” would NOT be for the greater good according to him, right? So then why would they do that? For example, a white person who fought for the civil rights of blacks because they thought it was the right thing to do, even if they had nothing to gain personally from it and might even lose something- my guess is that would NOT be altruistic in your view, because they would simply be acting in accordance with their values, right? So what would be an example of someone GIVING UP their values for the greater good? If someone did that, it wouldn’t be for the greater good, right? The only way I could see this happening would be if they were being coerced or forced into doing something they didn’t want to do, but I don’t think that’s altruism, that’s just being deceived/pressured into something.
Great response. Some thoughts:
But I think I understand what your view is - liberty, with the exception of providing for common defense, and anyone who wants the full version of liberty with no restrictions is free to go live in another country.
I cringed when I read this because so often people have said to me, “if you don’t like it, leave.” This, coupled with your comment that you believe a common defense is not necessary makes me think that the discussion, to be productive, really does need to be taken to the next level if you are willing to go there. So rare I am able to do this, by now the person in the discussion most ofen is making some plea for emotion and can’t get over it to discuss anything much further.
My thought is this: What is rational? What makes sense? Is it rational to believe that a society without defenses can stand for very long? Is it not human nature to want what others have, and is it not apparent that man would act on this desire? I would argue that such societies could never exist for very long and are destined for failure. Rights and liberty, by the nature of our being and our world, must be defined, wouldn’t you agree?
The initiation of force and the morality of the Catholic Church’s Position on Obamacare
Thank you for clarifying your comments on the initiation of force, it helps. I must admit I am not an expert on the Church in any way, but this is what I know: Jesus said “do as I do” not “do as I do or else”. So “caring for the least of these” and “am I my brothers’ keeper” may very well be their rationalization, but it is still just a rationalization. It is not based in fact or reason.
I guess the answer as to whether they lost their principles would be better addressed by a person more versed in their teachings. Yet my biggest motivation I writing this piece was to motivate those who are more familiar with the religion to consider the consequences of their actions and advocacy.
“Altruism is the belief that regardless of what one values, they should give it up for the greater good.” Could you give me an example of this?
Yes. Valuing choice more than forced conformity but supporting Obamacare because overall it will (in theory) save money.
Because if someone values something, then “giving it up” would NOT be for the greater good according to him, right?
. . . depends upon what it is they are giving up and their value system.
For example, a white person who fought for the civil rights of blacks because they thought it was the right thing to do, even if they had nothing to gain personally from it and might even lose something- my guess is that would NOT be altruistic in your view, because they would simply be acting in accordance with their values, right?
Yes. I support equality under the law even when inequality may benefit me because I value reason above all other things.
So what would be an example of someone GIVING UP their values for the greater good?
In addition to my prior example, take the war on drugs. Most people would say they value property rights very highly, and most would also agree that if anyone owns anything, it is their own body. But they’ll sacrifice that value in order to impose their value system on others, the lesser value of a healthier life style. Is this helping to make the point?
I am very much enjoying our discussion Mike.
I’d love to take this discussion to the next level, I just don’t see how it’s possible. We’re talking about human nature now, which is way too broad a topic to expect to have an adequate discussion on given both our busy lives. And even if we had all the time in the world, I don’t see how either of us could adequately prove either of our views. You could provide numerous examples that would seem to support your contention that it is human nature to want what others have, and I could provide numerous examples that would seem to suggest otherwise. Not only that, but there is also the question of whether human nature itself is static or not, and how evolution fits into the picture (not physical, more in terms of thinking/consciousness). Whatever we may think we know about human nature, is it possible that it could change? Or are we simply doomed(or blessed, depending on your perspective) to repeat the same general behavior patterns and replicate the same general social systems we’ve had up till now? Given all these possibilities, I just don’t see it as realistic for us to do this discussion justice, but I’ll leave it up to you where you’d like to go from here. To be clear, I’m of course not saying that we can do away with the military today. The cat’s already out of the bag. To reverse it now must be careful and strategic. What I am saying is it didn’t have to be this way, and yes, I’m disagreeing with your assertion that a society without defenses could never stand for very long, and that man can’t help but act on his desire.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse here with the Church, but again, the Jesus quote you use to make your point is your interpretation and you’re assuming the Church has the same values as you. Your highest principle which cannot be violated is an opposition to the use of force. The Church’s highest principle might be “caring for the least of these.” So if the Church were to uphold the principle of being against the use of force as you’d like them to, perhaps that would violate their higher principle of “caring for the least of these” in their eyes, as misguided as that might be. But, no need to keep going on about it. I will agree with your general disagreement with the Church on this issue.
Your example of the war on drugs is a great one and it definitely helps me better understand your view. Still, I’m not sure I would call that altruism? The most consistent definition I’ve found is simply “selfless concern for the well-being of others.” That to me doesn’t say anything about giving up higher for lesser values, but we may just be lost in semantics now, and that’s not as important to me as understanding where you’re coming from, and I think I do now.
I’ve read almost all your posts and I really appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into them. I agree with a lot of what you say, and disagree with plenty as well. Again, to discuss all of the areas we disagree on is simply not possible. In a perfect world we could, but we both have bills to pay. I do write about a lot of these issues on my blog and will repost relevant posts here. That could be seen as continuing a dialogue in a sense.
A few last things. I’m an Occupy supporter, and I’ve been reading as much as I can lately about the libertarian view, which is what led me to your writings. I think it has a lot to offer Occupy in terms of forming a coherent philosophy. In my opinion, occupiers have correctly identified the problem, and they mean well, but many of them simply haven’t done the thinking required to adequately determine the next steps forward. Your example of the drug war is a great example of something that would expose this. Most occupiers would surely say they are against the war on drugs based on principle, but many would also say they are for other things because it leads to the best results, regardless of principle. So more reflection is needed for people in the movement to really understand what they believe and hence, how to move forward. Another example- many occupiers reject Ron Paul out of hand, when in fact, I think he shares many of the same values they do. Not all, but certainly more than Obama or any of the other republicans in the presidential field. Of course, Occupy really isn’t about politics at all, but as long as there’s an election, we might as well try and elect the best person.
Speaking of Ron Paul, I have a question for you- why in the world isn’t the tea party falling all over themselves trying to get him elected?? If I take your writings to be a fairly faithful portrayal of what the tea party stands for, then it would seem to me that Ron Paul would be the absolute dream candidate for the tea party platform. I was disappointed and surprised the tea party hasn’t been more forceful in their support of him. I would absolutely vote for him if it comes down to him and Obama.
Nice to have you back!
I think for the most part, as long as we agree that no society could stand without defense, the point is made and it is not necessary to discuss something we are in agreement for the most part.
Regarding the Catholic Church:
Can we both agree that coercion does not square with the religion? My value system has nothing to do with it. You are correct that this is my interpretation of the Church’s value system, but I believe it is accurate. If you agree, then let’s move on. If you do not, I would be interested in the basis for your interpretation.
We all have different value systems this is of course true and mine are different from the Catholic Church without a doubt. What I am saying is that from what I have observed the Catholic Church’s value system not only includes non-coercion but also would view the initiation of force as a sin (or really bad thing). Again, if you agree, the point is made. If you disagree, then I’d like to understand the basis for that conclusion.
I’m not sure I would call that altruism? The most consistent definition I’ve found is simply “selfless concern for the well-being of others.” That to me doesn’t say anything about giving up higher for lesser values
I recognize this is a challenge to make the connection but follow me here. What does it mean to be selfless? If a person have a value system and one acts in accordance with that value system, they are acting in their own self interest. I am not talking about the well accepted connotation of the words “self interest” I am talking about the actual meaning of the word, to act in accordance with what one believes they should do or their value system. Not all, in fact most actions one does in their own self interest is bad. A baby knows intuitively to reach for a bottle or breast for nourishment. This is a completely selfish act, the baby doesn’t care about whether it is convieant to the person offering up the subsidence, they just do it. I contribute to charity because that is something that squares with my value system so I adhere to it. That is a action done specifically because of it self interested.
To say that one does something that is “selfless” is to say that they disregard their self, or their personal value system, and does something else. This is wrong, immoral, and what tyrants and others use to get the masses to go against their value system.
Take for example fascist Germany. Do you really think everyone in Germany was evil, or do you believe they were told they should suspend their value system for the greater good? I do not believe that the majority of the average person in pre WWII Germany were evil.
Thank you so much for reading most of my posts and I have no delusions of thinking anyone agrees with me 100%. In fact, I am shocked when anyone agrees with me at all! When you say “your blog” do you mean here in Gather or elsewhere? If elsewhere, please share the link. I am going to seek out your posts there on Gather.
I am also a supporter of the Occupy Movement. I have taken to task and annoyed quite a few people in the Tea Party for this stance, but I will not let up. They have the main ingredient to being a moral advocate in society: They care. So rare today. Plus they recognize the problem as you cite, which make them about 70% of the way there. They simply are wrong, but who isn’t in some capacity, It is our JOB to show them the way.
Speaking of Ron Paul, I have a question for you- why in the world isn’t the tea party falling all over themselves trying to get him elected??
Many are, but we are a very diverse group and we as a rule do not support candidates. Tea Party Express is a political PAC of jackasses who are taking our movement for their own personal advancement. They are NOT a tea party. I am a huge Ron Paul supporter and the only candidate I would cast my vote in favor.
Always a pleasure!
“I think for the most part, as long as we agree that no society could stand without defense, the point is made and it is not necessary to discuss something we are in agreement for the most part.”
If we’re talking big picture/human nature here, no, we don’t agree. I think humans are capable of living in peace, without the need for military. It just isn’t possible right now with our current power structures. But that doesn’t mean we can’t begin the process today of increasing our awareness to the point where it will be possible one day. To simply say it’s human nature and will never be possible is a self-defeating prophecy and only serves those for whom war is a critical means of maintaining their power. But again, I think this conversation is way too broad to have here.
I’m afraid we’re going in circles with the Church. Let me try one more time. Again, even if non-coercion is a principle of the Church, it may have other principles which conflict with that. As I said before, it is impossible for anyone to follow the lessons of the Bible verbatim. If a local Catholic Church decides to welcome gays with open arms, are they not going against the whole “homosexuality is a sin” principle? If another Church slams the door on gays, are they not going against the whole love your neighbor, etc. thing? Who is to say which principle supersedes the other? So, it then becomes a matter of interpretation and them choosing which principle is the “higher” or more important one to them. You can’t just pick the one you identify most with, and then assume the Church is acting in an un-principled way if they go against it. They may see things differently.
That being said, to be perfectly honest, I actually don’t know if non-coercion is a principle of Christianity or not. I’ve read the Bible, but it’s very long and I don’t remember everything. There may have been something about non-coercion in there, but I don’t recall. If I had to guess, though, my present understanding of Jesus leads me to believe he was a collectivist, and that if he were alive today, he wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with forcing everyone to buy health insurance if it meant everyone would be covered. Well actually, he would be against money altogether, so really, the Church is acting against principle by even accepting donations, but enough of that.
With this altruism thing, I think it’s just a question of semantics. If someone chooses to be eaten by a shark in order to save the life of 5 strangers, I would call that altruistic. I know the guy is just acting in accordance with his values, but still, he is giving up his own life for the benefit of someone else’s. More importantly, what you call “selfless” or “altruistic,” I simply call ignorance. The reason people in Nazi Germany did what they did was because they were deluded by Hitler. I don’t think they saw it as suspending their value system for the greater good. They really did think at the time that what they were doing was right and in accordance with their value system, because their judgment was severely impaired by the emotion and fervor Hitler was able to stir up in people. Like you said, they weren’t evil, they were just misguided by his persuasiveness and charisma. It was only after the dust settled that they could see clearly again and realize what they had done. But again, I really think we’re both denouncing the same behavior, we just choose to call it different things.
That’s too bad about the Tea Party. But I have to ask, if they don’t support candidates, what’s the point? The Tea Party, if I understand them, does believe in the basic structure of our government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial – right? So why wouldn’t they support a candidate who shares all of their values? I assume you disagree with their approach and are trying to convince them otherwise, being a Ron Paul supporter. The Occupy movement is different, I think, in the sense that they are concerned with specific issues- poverty, war, environment, etc., and there are many means and views on how to go about progressing on these issues. The Tea Party to me seems mainly concerned with government overreach and the issue of liberty. But, how else can you further the cause of liberty other than supporting candidates which share your vision? If the problem is big government, I can’t think of any other way to proceed other than to protest big government candidates, and support limited government candidates. Protesting unconstitutional laws, like Obamacare, just came to mind. But still, why take supporting like-minded candidates off the table, given that, unlike Occupy, the Tea Party does generally believe in our political system and institutions of government?
Is teapartypatriots.org the real Tea Party, or is that Tea Party express? If it’s the real Tea Party, I have to believe they’ve been co-opted somehow, as I see no reason why they shouldn’t be supporting Ron Paul given the views I see expressed on that website. I have no doubt that you’re a real, genuine person that wants to change the establishment. I do doubt that the real big shots of the movement want to change it as much as you do.
I blog at primitivetimes.com. I don’t post everything I post there, here, so you’ll have to head there if you want to see everything. I have no doubt you’ll disagree vehemently with most of the content there, but I welcome it. It really is about truth with me, and I’ll change my tune in a second if convinced of an alternative.
Regarding military, do you think that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were just flukes? People such as these are evil at their core, are they not?
I think you are right about the discussion of the Catholic Church. It depends upon what they hold as their highest value. I just don't think that coercion could possibly be that low on the list because it is the existence of a non-coercive world in which peace is established. I do believe that most people, when left to their own lives, will choose cooperation and peace over anything else. As I said, Jesus said "do as I do" not "do as I do or else" . . .
"I simply call ignorance. The reason people in Nazi Germany did what they did was because they were deluded by Hitler. I don’t think they saw it as suspending their value system for the greater good. They really did think at the time that what they were doing was right and in accordance with their value system, because their judgment was severely impaired by the emotion and fervor Hitler was able to stir up in people."
This is all likely true, but your comment disregards reason. Is it logical to believe that one population has a right to life and free will but another does not? Logically, a right is not a right unless it applies to everyone in the exact same way. No matter Hitler's charisma, the population had to suspend reason to justify their actions and advocacy. This was done though through the application of the very foundation of altruism.
But I have to ask, if they don’t support candidates, what’s the point?
This is a great question. The point is to change the system. Electing people to office that is built upon corruption and the acquisition of power leads to only one thing: corruption and the acquisition of power.
Changing the system is harder than electing officials, but it leaves a better world for generations to come. Even if we were to elect better politicians, when the system is geared towards a particular direction, it will make its way there eventually.
I believe one of the best way to change the system is to establish a ranked voting system. I wrote about it here:
Break the back of the two-party system and save our Republic
Is teapartypatriots.org the real Tea Party, or is that Tea Party express?
There is no real tea party. It is an organic movement that spans quite a spectrum. I believe eventually it will become more defined, and I hope to shape it. I personally do not support or care for the Tea Party Express, they are just a bunch of republicans.
I do doubt that the real big shots of the movement want to change it as much as you do.
You are right, they do not. But I hope to amass an army of capitalist to drown them out.
I will check out your blog now! I hope you get this response and you read it. Sorry it took forever to get back to you.
I don't see it in terms of evil, rather ignorance. Acts that we call "evil" are simply the result of the ignorance of those perpetrating them, but that's not important. What is important is that even if we accept that Hitler is evil, the real problem is not Hitler, but the society which buys into his propaganda and allows him to rise to power. Hitler is just one stupid man. He is powerless in an enlightened society which would recognize his ignorance for what it is. If Hitler is simply "evil at his core," and there is no way to prevent his exploits other than to use military force, what's the point of raising our kids and instilling values in them, teaching them right from wrong, etc.? Hitler is not an alien threat, like some meteor coming from outer space that we have no control over. We all bear responsibility for Hitler, for murderers, etc. In an enlightened society, these things would not occur because there would be no fertile ground for them to develop in. Now, again, I’m not saying we can do away with our military today. But the conversation we're having here is whether we will always need a military, right? And I think as humanity increases its awareness and realizes what war is, we will be able to cast it aside, just as we cast aside slavery and segregation, which, in their heydays, also probably seemed like an unrealistic thing to do. I think we're taking big steps toward that goal even today, with the many global popular movements/revolutions you see taking shape. Selfishly I hope this war-less world will come about in my lifetime, but I know it's probably not likely.
I'm glad to hear you use the word "cooperation." That seems to be a bad word to many capitalist/free market people, a code word for "commie" or something. The funny thing is, though we have our differences, I think we actually advocate for the same thing. I'm all for stripping down the government's power, and even if I may feel that "collectivism" is a better driving value for a society than "individuality," I of course don't think it should be imposed by the government or any institution. That isn't collectivism, that's a dictatorship, and it misses the point - the only way for people to have more power is to actually have more power, not abdicate it to a government or corporation or messiah.
I think our differences lie in our answer to the question - When government is removed from the equation, what happens then? Perhaps a truly free market will solve all the world's problems - the exploitation, war, environmental degradation, etc. If that's the case, great! Or, perhaps local communities will come together and make decisions for themselves, unburdened by the heavy hand of government - some of which may allow a free market to operate in their communities, and some of which may not. I don't think any of us truly knows what would happen if government was removed from the picture today. That's why, instead of advocating for "capitalism" or "socialism" or "American values" or what have you, I tend to talk about "awareness" and "consciousness," because I believe that being as committed to truth itself as possible, rather than an ideology, is what leads to the best result for everyone, which is obviously what we're after here.
"Is it logical to believe that one population has a right to life and free will but another does not? Logically, a right is not a right unless it applies to everyone in the exact same way. No matter Hitler's charisma, the population had to suspend reason to justify their actions and advocacy. This was done though through the application of the very foundation of altruism."
Nothing you say here contradicts what I said, the only difference is I call it ignorance, and you call it altruism. We both agree that reason was suspended, and that in itself is ignorance. Even if they are suspending reason as a result of being altruistic, the question is - WHY?? Why would they be compelled to do that? In my opinion, ignorance compelled them to do that, and the ignorance came about as the result of Hitler's propaganda which people bought into. Truth/reason took a back seat.
"The point is to change the system. Electing people to office that is built upon corruption and the acquisition of power leads to only one thing: corruption and the acquisition of power."
Ok, but you do support Ron Paul, right? And you do believe that there still should be a government - with a president, senators, congressman etc.? I'm just saying that I was confused as to why the Tea Party didn't support a candidate that seems to precisely embody their values. But, you acknowledge that the Tea Party isn't really defined yet, and that's good, because I definitely can't say I understand what they're about. I'm inclined to think that the real Tea Party and libertarianism is one and the same, but maybe that's too simplistic. I think my main question is - how does the Tea Party(the one you're a part of) plan on achieving its primary goal of shrinking government without engaging it? Occupy, for all its shortcomings, doesn't have this problem, because it has a laundry list of issues which have a number of possible solutions(which is also its weakness). For example- OWS sustainability builds a rooftop farm to address a lack of access to affordable, healthy food. Simple problem, simple solution.
I'm all for the fair vote, but again - HOW? 99% of congress and the corporate powers who control the airwaves and thus the thoughts of most people don't want that to happen, because they would lose power. The only way the fair vote could happen would be from a massive popular movement, and actually, if that happened, that in itself would signify to me that we are ready to change the establishment. More than any specific policy or philosophy, the only way to truly change the establishment is for people to simply wake up on a mass scale and recognize the current corrupt state of affairs for themselves. Sadly, most are still asleep, but I do feel there are some encouraging signs, including a growing number of people like yourself doing your best to wake them up, one by one. I applaud you!
I woke up this morning knowing I was doing one thing today: Responding to this post! Sorry it took so long. I was slow to respond and then quite frankly, after the ACA SCOTUS decision I went a bit into mourning . .. .
What is important is that even if we accept that Hitler is evil, the real problem is not Hitler, but the society which buys into his propaganda and allows him to rise to power.
This is all very true, but the point is that such people do exist and so do populations that support them. It is just a fact of life, and we need to protect ourselves from such realities, no?
If Hitler is simply "evil at his core," and there is no way to prevent his exploits other than to use military force, what's the point of raising our kids and instilling values in them, teaching them right from wrong, etc.?
I don’t think you are making a logical correlation Mike. When rights are protected by the establishment of a policing force, one can live their lives as they see fit.
But the conversation we're having here is whether we will always need a military, right??
Yes
And I think as humanity increases its awareness and realizes what war is, we will be able to cast it aside, just as we cast aside slavery and segregation, which, in their heydays, also probably seemed like an unrealistic thing to do . . . Selfishly I hope this war-less world will come about in my lifetime, but I know it's probably not likely.
The key words in this comment is “increase its awareness”. Yes, we can increase awareness, but can we guarantee that everyone will know such wisdom? Will ignorant people like Hitler never exist and stupid people not follow? We can increase awareness, but we cannot permeate it throughout society forever.
I'm glad to hear you use the word "cooperation." That seems to be a bad word to many capitalist/free market people
I have read many books on capitalism and never have I read such a thing. I believe you are deriving this statement from anti-capitalist propaganda. Can you cite any capitalist saying such a thing?
The funny thing is, though we have our differences, I think we actually advocate for the same thing.
I agree.
I may feel that "collectivism" is a better driving value for a society than "individuality," I of course don't think it should be imposed by the government or any institution.
If each person’s rights are not respected, then coercion must ensue. One cannot assume, of course, that everyone will see the world as they. There is no single “collective” view, morality, value system, or priority. To believe as such is the epitome of naiveté. This is why collectivism will always beget nearly unlimited government power.
You may think you your view does not result in fascism, but it does.
When government is removed from the equation, what happens then?
I do not advocate for the elimination of government, and free markets need government (the enforcement of equal rights) in order to thrive.
I agree that I think we agree for the most part regarding the population in Germany pre-WWII.
Ok, but you do support Ron Paul, right?
Yes, I do . . . but I do not believe the Tea Party should, as an organization, support a candidate for the aforementioned reasons.
I definitely can't say I understand what they're about
We are about capitalism and American Values.
I think my main question is - how does the Tea Party(the one you're a part of) plan on achieving its primary goal of shrinking government without engaging it
This is a question we are still feeling out, but I believe it is done by changing the system. Ranked voting, a constitutional amendment forbidding government from the right to force people to buy the products of a private company, these types of things.
Occupy, for all its shortcomings, doesn't have this problem, because it has a laundry list of issues which have a number of possible solutions(which is also its weakness).
Right, but based upon what principles?
Sadly, most are still asleep, but I do feel there are some encouraging signs, including a growing number of people like yourself doing your best to wake them up, one by one. I applaud you!
Right back at-cha Mike. Thank you. So sorry for the late response, I hope you had a enjoyable and safe Independence Day.
The Hitler thing- I just have to disagree with you that people like Hitler, and populations that support them, will always exist, and like I’ve said before, I don’t think either of us can possibly prove our views. I do not feel the realities of violence, war etc. we see today are human nature or static. We evolve. We have revolutions. We are still an extremely young species in the grand scheme of things. In the caveman days, maybe they just thought the best approach to life was clubbing anything that stood in the way of their next meal. Eventually, they evolved, gained the ability to think ahead, work together, form communities, etc. Same with technology – everything we do today would have been unimaginable 1000, 10000 years ago. So in this way, I think humans are capable of evolving out of our current selfish and destructive tendencies, and coming to the realization that it is actually in all of our individual self-interest to do so. Just like we don’t need a military unit to keep the peace in our own families, I think we can extend that awareness to the wider human family. To say we’ll always be violent and need to police ourselves is a very defeatist attitude and completely undermines our ability to learn from mistakes and adapt. Even in very recent history we’ve evolved/matured significantly, and we’ll continue to evolve. If we don’t, we won’t be around much longer.
Regarding increasing awareness and your point about it never being able to permeate through society - well, it depends how specific we want to be. Let’s take racism. I think it’s fair to say that our awareness on that issue has increased dramatically and permeated our society. Most people in the U.S. today are not racist, which wasn’t the case 50 years ago. Yes, there are still overt racists today, but they are an extreme minority and becoming more and more inconsequential. But even if we say, fine, the fact that there are still racists makes us unable to say that this new awareness has permeated society, what about in another 100 years? We only recently made significant strides in this area, and I think it’s definitely possible that in another 100 years, racism as we know it could be completely wiped off the map. Or take another issue- the vast majority of people in the world today recognize that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, which wasn’t always the case. That awareness has permeated. The fact that there may be isolated pockets of folks who still think otherwise doesn’t, in my opinion, invalidate the view that humans can become unified in their understanding of various fundamental truths.
I have read many books on capitalism and never have I read such a thing. I believe you are deriving this statement from anti-capitalist propaganda. Can you cite any capitalist saying such a thing?
My comment (about cooperation being linked to communism) was referring to numerous conversations I’ve had and observed with free market advocates, online and in person, who often equate the term cooperation with collectivism, and in turn equate collectivism with socialism/communism. Basically, if you hold the view that a society should in general be built around the value of cooperation rather than competition, it’s common to be branded a communist. It’s a knee jerk reaction many people have and I’d be surprised if you aren’t aware of it. I suppose I could find some instances of people making this accusation online, but that’s a bit foolish.
If each person’s rights are not respected, then coercion must ensue. One cannot assume, of course, that everyone will see the world as they. There is no single “collective” view, morality, value system, or priority. To believe as such is the epitome of naiveté. This is why collectivism will always beget nearly unlimited government power.
You may think you your view does not result in fascism, but it does.
Collectivism has nothing to do with thinking there is a single view/morality, etc. It has to do with recognizing that we are all part of a collective whether we like it or not, and that accepting and building a society around that truth is the best way to ensure individual freedom and prosperity. We are all part of a collective and dependent on each other, again, whether we like it or not. If you’re a CEO, you’re dependent on your workers, your customers, etc. When you shop for food, everything you buy was produced, shipped and packaged by someone else. You are collectivist/socialist around your family, etc. You can’t escape it. Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere and live a completely solitary life off the land, you are part of a collective, are dependent on others and others are dependent on you. So collectivism is just about awakening to that fact and acknowledging that everyone is needed, and contrary to capitalism, which encourages people to pursue their own individual greed, which allows the few truly greedy among us to rise to power, influence laws, own the media, and create a system which suits their interests so they can do things like pay fulltime workers less than what is needed to live on, collectivism empowers people to be exactly who they are and contribute their unique talents and gifts to society, which are often suppressed in a capitalist system that is all about endless growth and profits. It’s about the collective, which includes the individual, not about enabling people to run rampant and exploit others and justify it by saying “Well, we have to let them do it because it’s about individual freedom.” I know you’re all about principles, and I respect that, but the whole purpose of having principles, in my view, has to concern what is best for society as a whole in terms of meeting basic human needs, and that’s not a relative concern being imposed by the majority on a minority who doesn’t want it- everyone has the same basic needs, and this planet is fully sustainable and capable of meeting them. So the goal is to first, meet those needs, then second, enable people to thrive as individuals and live out their destinies by contributing their unique talents to the world/community, which in turn makes life better for everyone. Imagine, for example, how much better off we’d all be if every single person in the world was educated. The whole reason we’ve accepted capitalism, supposedly, is because we think it’s the best means of achieving these things. But if that isn’t happening, something is wrong and we need to fix it. If you think it’s wrong of me to be so focused on things like food and shelter over ideas like freedom, fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree there.
About collectivism leading to fascism- doesn’t the existence of even one peaceful tribal community refute that? Or for that matter, all the indigenous communities which were for the most part living peacefully before we got here? You may not want to live their lifestyle, but to say collectivism always begets unlimited government power seems very misguided. Maybe you’re thinking of corrupt communist or fascist regimes which use collectivist jargon as propaganda, but simply speaking in collectivist terms doesn’t actually make something collectivist. Like I said before, the collectivism I advocate for has nothing to do with government coercion, and everything to do with people just waking up. It would also consist of numerous empowered local communities, not huge nation states. Again I go back to the family example. That’s a collectivist unit. Does that lead to fascism? Does that suppress your individuality, or encourage it?
I do not advocate for the elimination of government, and free markets need government (the enforcement of equal rights) in order to thrive.
I know you don’t advocate for the total elimination of government, but you do advocate to eliminate most of it except for those purposes you mentioned, and so do I. My comment was meant to just highlight the difference we have about what comes after government’s influence is severely lessened. Your answer is the free market, mine is collectivism, but frankly, I don’t think it matters. If Americans ever become enlightened and capable enough to throw off government(most of it), that will be indicative of a dramatically more conscious and aware population, and that, more than any ideology, is the key ingredient that’s needed to tackle all our problems and create a better system. If we can reduce government’s influence, whatever flows naturally out of that will be positive I think. If it turns out the free market is the thing that solves all our problems and provides for the stewardship of the planet and the human needs and happiness of the entire world’s population, trust me, I will embrace it and bow down to your foresight.
“I think my main question is - how does the Tea Party(the one you're a part of) plan on achieving its primary goal of shrinking government without engaging it”
“This is a question we are still feeling out, but I believe it is done by changing the system. Ranked voting, a constitutional amendment forbidding government from the right to force people to buy the products of a private company, these types of things.”
But again, how can you do any of this without engaging government? All those things you mention involve engaging government. The people in power, who by the way are only acting in their self-interest, don’t want ranked voting. They want to keep things as they are. Changing it will involve confronting them. Again, this question arose from my confusion as to why the Tea Party didn’t support a candidate who seems to embody all their stated values. I know that the Tea Party is a big movement and not everyone in it has the same views on things, so that’s why my question was more directed at you – why didn’t YOU try to convince your fellow Tea Partiers to support Ron Paul? Seeing as you have to engage government to achieve any of the goals you listed above, electing Ron Paul would have been the most significant thing you could have done. If the Tea Party had thrown its weight behind Ron Paul, he would have made a much bigger impact in the election, but as usual, he was ridiculed/marginalized by the corporate media just like any third party candidate who might actually change things always is.
“Occupy, for all its shortcomings, doesn't have this problem, because it has a laundry list of issues which have a number of possible solutions(which is also its weakness).
Right, but based upon what principles?”
This goes back to the Catholic Church thing. Just cause someone has different principles than you doesn’t mean they have no principles. Maybe your principle is that people should have the freedom to use their millions however they want, even if it means bribing politicians and controlling the media. Maybe my principle is that allowing them to do that impinges on the freedom of those who don’t have millions. The Occupy movement has many principles, they may just not be ones you value. Also, like the Tea Party, it’s a big, diverse movement, so it won’t always be perfectly consistent and many folks within the movement will have different views. But what I like about Occupy is that it generally operates at the local level and rejects stubborn ideology. An example I gave earlier was a community garden or rooftop farm. This simply involves individuals choosing to use their personal time to fulfill a community need. It has nothing to do with ideology or going against free market principles or any of that, so you don’t have a problem with that, do you? Here’s another example- workers deciding to strike and demand better pay and more say in the workplace. No problem there, right? No government is imposing anything. Workers are simply deciding to join together, act in self-interest, and reject the proposed employer/employee relationship. That’s totally consistent with free market principles, and the system will adapt to that. This is what I mean by Occupy having a number of different solutions to different problems. I know the Tea Party doesn’t really approach things in this way, but that doesn’t mean all the solutions proposed by Occupy go against the Tea Party’s principles.
Yikes, another long one. As you can tell I think a lot about this stuff and I know you do too, so I figure you’re not one to get freaked out by a long message like this. Take your time responding as always.
Is this all due to abstinence? I doubt it. It's time for the Catholic Church to recognize the realities on the grounds. Catholic women are using contraceptives as much as women of any other religion.
Because the religious among us are really just sheep following the rules. And their leadership gave up on principles in exchange for their agenda decades ago.
We all agree that the goal is the opportunity to possess affordable health care for everyone Lora. The question is only how?
This is a bit of assumption, but from the tone of your comment I assume you think the way to do this is by granting politicians the right to force citizens to buy the products of a private company. This is not just wrong and a bad precedence, it is also un-American.
The better solution is a free market solution. The same system that creates a situation where I can buy a six pack of Diet Cherry Coke at 3 AM on a Wednesday for only $1.99 from my local A&P. Wouldn't it be nice if health care was that accessible and affordable? It certainly would. Now imagine if the government was to force us to buy soda from a program they set up. I don't think any honest or rational person would think they could even come close.
This article is a prime example of what I am describing;
Massachusetts pediatric mental health care provider shortage - the real cause and effect
I must point out that we are forced to do many things in a structured society. I am forced to carry auto insurance. I am forced to wear my seatbelt while I drive. I am forced to drive a certain speed. I am forced to pay taxes. I am forced to file a tax return every year.
The general argument when I compare forced auto insurance coverage to "forced" healthcare coverage is that auto insurance is for everyone else's safety as well as mine. Is healthcare not the same? Don't we want a healthy society (an example is forced vaccinations before kindergarten)?
And the typical response I get from conservatives is that poor people without health insurance get welfare and get free health care. To which I say, the "real" poor people are the ones working who still cannot afford healthcare that lose their credit rating and possibly their homes, etc when they cannot pay the bill after a major illness.
Obamacare helps keep insurance companies from inflating the costs of insurance premiums and will bring down the cost for EVERYONE. Obamacare provides covered, with no deductible, preventative care --- prolonging everyone's life.
And, finally, yes, my thought is that a Catholic hospital that employs thousands of people should offer birth control through the employee health insurance. People that are Catholic and choose not to use it because of their own religious beliefs will obviously not partake. But the option should be there as not all Catholics are of that generation.
Driving is a PRIVILEGE...therefore, you are NOT forced to do anything you don't wish to do. If you choose to drive, you have to follow the Law associated with it. However...YOU ARE NOT FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to DRIVE. Wake up. You are smart enough to understand.
"Health Care", whether you believe or no, is not a "right." And, the Government HAS NO RIGHT to FORCE us to PURCHASE ANYTHING...
As for Taxes, you are quite correct...save for 1%, the Constitutional requirement.
Wake from your slumber, Lora. ObamaCareLess will do NOTHING of the kind. It will cost EVERYONE MUCH MORE...and even more dearly than THAT.
You will see. The question is, do you have the courage to admit what you will see...
Are you kidding me? You must still be sleeping. Does this ring a bell?
"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..."
How is an injured or sick person able to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when they cannot afford a doctor?
You, Mark-John, cannot see past your politics. Obamacare is not giving away free healthcare. The system we have now is WAY more expensive than what Obamacare will be in the years to follow. Obamacare is providing AFFORDABLE healthcare to all.
There are laws that say children have to be vaccinated before attending public school. Or is public school a "privilege" too now?
And driving is a necessity in some areas where there is no public transportation and people have to get to work.
"Consent of the Governed" was completely ignored, Lora. It was HEAVILY-OPPOSED BY THE OTHER SIDE, and most Americans are opposed to this Socialist crime. And, as more information comes out, it is OPPOSED now by A LARGE MAJORITY.
Additionally, your selfish whining about driving distances has nothing to do with it. Driving is a privilege.
Wouldn't you agree?
I would agree that I would like this to be true.
On this basis, a Catholic hospital is not tax exempt, correct? They are just like any other corporation, correct? So, they should follow the law and treat their employees as any other company.
Personally, I don't think hospitals should have any religious associations. Religion has it's place and it should not be in corporate America.
If they want to be exempt from the rules, then their facility needs to be a private, Catholic facility run on donations and no tax payer money. Same goes for federally funded Catholic universities.
They think they can have their cake and eat it too. You don't get Federal money and then think you are going to ignore the Federal laws.
Our legislators passed Obamacare. We, the people, voted for them to represent us. If we don't like it, all we can do, at the end of the day, is try to vote for people that represent our views. All of us here feel very strongly and will do just that. :)
And if Catholic churches are going to employ Catholic healthcare professionals only, they are going to be understaffed.
Many surgeons have no faith whatsoever. So, are these Catholic hospitals going to provide all healthcare EXCEPT for surgery?
I quite agree with you on Taxpayer Funding, however...those Hospitals and Schools shouldn't take a dime of Federal Money...and then they wouldn't be required to propagandise, as is a Federal mandate if they do. They would be able to Teach and Heal as they please. That would be a change for the better.
Yes, Home-buying Programmes, Student Loan Programmes...we're being had Lora. It's not about "winning" an argument. I just hope for you to see what's really going on. Thanks.
So...until our next Friendly scrap, then? ;)
Yes, 100% correct.
Personally, I don't think hospitals should have any religious associations. Religion has it's place and it should not be in corporate America.
Whose to say? No one has a right to say how any business is run as long as the business is not offending the equal rights of people. Just as a religious organization has not right to tell a secular hospital to be religious, the same holds true in reverse. And to advocate for one, on principle, is to advocate for the other.
Our legislators passed Obamacare. We, the people, voted for them to represent us. If we don't like it, all we can do, at the end of the day, is try to vote for people that represent our views.
This is a very commonly held view and it is very wrong. The majority does not rule, and our representatives do not just vote themselves power. We live in a constitutional republic. In other words, the power of the government is derived from a piece of paper, not the majority in congress or the country.
If Congress voted as they should have, my statement is correct.
The constitution outlines their powers. It does not state how the people feel on any given issue. Nor whether that sentiment gets passed from our State legislators to our National legislators. If there is a breakdown in how Congress is voting vs. what the sentiment of the country is, then WE THE PEOPLE are to blame.
We have this ongoing discussion about the good and the bad of the Catholic church.
Great comments, thank you so much. I am not familiar either with any proof that government is buying houses and then selling them to qualified Muslims Interest-Free to accommodate their Religious mandates. Sounds like something we'd hear all over the internet if it was in fact the case. I am wondering if Mark has anything we can review. This would be quite a topic for an article!
My only other comment is that the way our government grants itself power is by amending the constitution, not just voting on it but voting with a super majority.
I agree we need an educated and engaged society, that is why I write. It forces me to educate myself and when I get comments I either learn from them or reinforce what I have learned.
I am surprised that no doctors on television (that I've seen - and, admittedly, I don't watch much TV) have brought this up.
The issue is BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO ONES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Wake up, and stop twisting the Issue.
It's not.
In regard to the controversy generally: the Healthcare Act was supposed to separate health insurance from employment
Well, you mean don't take the tax breaks, right Libramoon? As a general statement, I agree if this is what you mean. Everyone should pay the same tax rate, EVERYONE, regardless of race, creed, color, or wealth. Equality under the law is the only moral stance.
the Healthcare Act was supposed to separate health insurance from employment
I guess we all could imagine what the Act was "supposed to do" the fact is it doesn't.