I enjoyed your thoughts. May I presume that your idea of socialism extends to the manners in which we respect and interact with the other peoples of the world? Love to hear your thoughts on foreign policy, pre-emptive wars, the empire reinforcing activities of organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, etc. My mind is boggled by people who consider themselves to be good Christians (or members of any major faith) but who are comfortable, if not directly supportive, of our violent and invasive foreign policies.

I am a democratic socialist and you have, in a few words, succinctly stated the positive values and goals of our society. Those who reject these values in favor of wealth, power and control, are, in fact living to a different moral code. I don't share your Christianity, but from my own Judaism, these are the values that we set to help heal the world.

Brian, you raise an interesting question--Does the moral underpinning of Socialism, i.e. the right to receive from other members of my community,presumably fellow citizens of my country,that which is necessary for my flourishing but which I cannot provide for myself--apply as well to the community of nations of the world. IOW, do we as a nation have a moral obligation to provide for other nations that which is needed for them to flourish as nations?

I'd say yes but with this strong caveat: It is much more difficult to predict and control the consequences of such aid to nations, which have much greater sovereignty, than to citizens within a nation. For example, it is much easier to change a domestic governmental policy such as Work to Welfare and/or mitigate any unforeseen negative consequences than to do something similar in say, Iraq.

Lots of Christians--and other persons of faith--are adept at compartmentalizing their beliefs or (re)interpreting the tenets of their faith to fit their emotions and opinions regarding much. :-)

Lyle, "a few words"? Bless you. I've never been complimented for being succinct and have often said there is nothing more dangerous than a preacher without a last page in his/her hand. Anyway...

I don't agree these are the values of our society. You and I might think they =should= be, but truth-to-tell most of our fellow citizens are fairly capitalistic in their economic ethics. And in spite of what I've written, I do like owning stuff and do enjoy a pretty cushy life. :-)

Yes, healing the world indeed and in deed.

The major problem I see is in your very first step. Nobody's entitled to the fruits of any other person's labor (with the exception of people in particular relationships, like children/parents, spouse/spouse, etc.). Rights are things that are inherent to everyone that government should be unable to take away, NOT things that government or other people are forced to provide. The right to speech does not require government to pay a publisher to publish my book. The right to self defense does not require government to provide me with the means of protection.

Another problem, from a religious point of view, is that compelled "charity" is not the least bit charitable. Our christian duty is not fulfilled by being forced to give.

Then there's the problem of substituting income for both need and deservance. Why should government (we) be taking care of people who intentionally choose to underutilize their talents? I know smart couples with advanced degrees who've chosen to let government take care of them and their kids.

Then there's the problem of perverse incentives. I think we all would agree that one of the benefits of capitalism is that it encourages productivity, and the more productive we are as a whole, the better off everybody is at all ends of the income spectrum. But welfare discourages productivity at BOTH ends. The poor are disincentivized because so much is given - they can work a $15k/year job and live a $50k/year lifestyle.

The rich, on the other hand, are discincentivized because more and more of their money is being taken and given to the undeserving.

My view on government’s role is that yes, we should have a safety net. But it should BE a safety net, and not a hammock. In my ideal system, you’d get 5 years of very basic help you could use any time in your life you need it. Housing, food, education, daycare, and medical assistance, but just 5 years. You have that time to get your life back on track and become capable of providing for your family, and that’s it.

Overall the differences between conservative and liberal positions on how much government should take care of people are not based on liberals being compassionate and conservatives being heartless. People who claim that are either ignorant or are trying to pander to the ignorant. Conservatives want to make the charitable choices themselves - they want to choose the beneficiaries of their charity, choose where their money goes. They also want the beneficiaries to take affirmative steps - to come to the soup kitchen, to actually ask for aid. They also want the beneficiaries to not live in comfort without working for it. They favor personal choice. Liberals don't want people to be responsible. They don't want those who have to be responsible for giving, and they don't want those who don't have to be responsible for asking or for humility or improving their own lot.

Tom,
" Nobody's entitled to the fruits of any other person's labor (with the exception of people in particular relationships, like children/parents, spouse/spouse, etc.)."

I think this is probably the most fundamental of our differing opinions. Would you say more about what does/does not constitute a "particular relationship" in which positive rights are present and why a relationship in which there is need on one side and ability to provide on the other does not constitute such a relationship?

I think we need to see where we might agree or might more clearly disagree with regard to the locus and extent of these rights before we can arg...uh,I mean discuss the role of government. :-)

It revolves around a choice to provide for someone else. When you marry, you vow to support your spouse for the rest of your life. When you have a child, you're taking responsibility for that life that you are creating. Same thing if you adopt a child. If you let a brother, friend, etc. live with you during a down time in their life you take on some responsibilities.

I think the difference in government responsibility comes down to this - if you see these basics of care as a positive right, then government MUST provide it, and can be forced to do so or punished if they don't (lawsuits). If you don't see it as a positive right, then government can still choose to do it, but it's providing a privilege, a service, that can be scaled back or even completely done away with according to the democratic wishes of the populace.

Tom,
"It revolves around a choice to provide for someone else."
Right. That occurred to me after I posted.
But I want to still argue that positive rights can and do exist in relationships that have not been our choice. I don't want to establish a false continuum, but an extreme example would be someone who can save a drowning person who comes upon a person who is drowning. Not a chosen relationship but one, I think you'll agree, has within a moral compunction to provide that which would save a life. I think in life threatening situations, even those not our choice, you and I would agree that there is a moral injunction to provide even the fruits of one's labor if such sharing would save a life without putting one's own life at risk. In other words, there are relationships not chosen in which positive rights apply.

But acting in a way that saves a life is extreme and far and away from providing that which is needed to enable someone to "fulfill their potential." That's the weakness of my argument.

So let me argue for an continuum of moral weight with regard to positive rights, from the strong and absolute weight of saving someone's life through the weak and nebulous weight of "realizing potential" and say that socialism better than capitalism embodies this morality, while admitting at the same time that capitalism best embodies liberty and negative rights.

Don, there's not a lot I would disagree with you in that discussion. The question is where government comes in. I would agree that somebody who is capable of saving a drowning person (strong swimmer, physically fit) should try to save somebody who is drowning.

I would consider it profoundly wrong, however, for government to mandate such assistance. In fact, our law recognizes that nobody has to attempt to save the life of anybody else (leaving aside people, like police, firemen, etc., who have taken up such a mantle of duty - they would fall under my formulation of those who have chosen to provide for others). You can't be sued or imprisoned for standing and watching somebody drown (unless, say, you pushed them in). We leave it up to personal morals and societal disapproval to encourage such actions.

That's the problem with governments choosing to recognize and protect positive rights - somebody has to provide that right (health care, a gun, food, etc.), which means somebody is being compelled against her will to act, oftentimes without compensation. Last I checked, being compelled to work without compensation is akin to slavery. At the very least, it's a terrible blow to personal autonomy.

Every dollar I am forced to give to provide for the benefit of others is a dollar I can't spend to provide for the benefit of those I have true responsibility for.

Regarding the practice of faith and being compelled to act charitably. It has been my experience and observation that unless compelled to charity people justify and excuse a level of selfishness that is not only contrary to the tenets of major faiths but immoral with regard to either the golden rule or Kant's moral imperative. And that after being compelled by parents, community or even government persons will embrace the morality of charity, of positive rights and accept willingly what they had been previously compelled to do.

As an example of charity freely chosen being woefully inadequate, I'd sight the conditions in factories and cities during the Industrial Revolution and the support of socialism in the same countries where laissez-faire capitalism immiserated the great majority of the population.

Scrooge was converted and transformed by spiritual visitors against his will. We might love, but we do so quite inadequately.

@Don and Tom....Something I want to consider in the case of positive rights is that of social contracts. Our constitution represents a social contract between the governed and those allowed to govern. I look to the past and it would appear to me that the only way we have been able to fulfill the social contract is to affirm positive rights through government. We would never have had to rely on government if charitable giving had fulfilled the contract.

If you go to the bible, there is a commandment to not glean the corners of the field to feed the needy. To not do so carried a penalty. We have the same condition. Our not gleaning the fields is equivalent to our paying taxes to support the needy.

Lyle, unlike many other countries (and some states - for example, the WIsconsin Constitution grants a positive right of primary education, which is why the state must fund some portion of local school districts), the U.S. Constitution by its text provides no (or close to no) positive rights to citizens. Nearly everything is phrased in terms of what government CANNOT do to people, not what it HAS to do to people. Now, courts have read a precious few positive rights into the constitution but those are only in the context of criminal trials - the government MUST provide you an attorney if you can't afford one (and even that is only a recent development, originally the 6th amendment simply meant government couldn't prevent you from being represented by a lawyer).

There is no constitutional right to any of the welfare programs (leaving aside the protected property right to vested benefits). Government could abolish them entirely and courts would have to respect that.

Curious - where is the biblical commandment to provide for those who are capable of providing for themselves but choose not to do so? Where is the biblical commandment to take from other people to give to the needy?

Tom, being compelled to act against one's will (via taxes) is part and parcel of citizenry, isn't it? And in some way, our choosing to continue to be citizens is freely choosing contribute to a system which will not always use our/its resources as we would choose. Even the degree of protection of negative rights is not something each and all of would choose. What I'm saying is that this compelling by the government is not due to the government's recognition/protection of positive rights, but is part of the authority granted the government by the governed.

Not compensated? Not directly compensated, but examine point C) above. My argument is that we are each and all better off living among citizens who are well-cared for--though not indulged. After all, isn't this exactly the justification for the funding public education even by those who have no children in the schools?

This is not slavery. It is the compromise of citizenship. Am I right in that where you and I differ is to what degree socialism provides for a "tide that lifts all boats"?

I think I have skipped over your original criticism regarding "the benefit of those I have true responsibility for." I'd only reiterate that I believe we do have a 'true responsibility' for fellow human beings. It varies in weight but is not absent.

Last comment here Don, this has been a great discussion. Should I or the government be deciding how much of my own wealth I should be devoting to my general responsibility to all of mankind at the expense of those I have greater responsibility for?

Lyle, ....perfect example. Islam, likewise, makes a pillar out of the commandment to give to the poor, take care of widows, the needy of all sorts. The Bahai Faith is the same. Outside of religion or alongside it people rise above the superficial present focused thinking of just taking care of themselves and look at the complete interdependence of humanity. They look at history and see how divisive thinking, let alone racial or nationalistic or class thinking has throttled what we might have been. And they have the grace and wisdom to see that whatever our circumstances may be, we are not self-made. We require assistance,if not today, then someday. With humility, we want to do what we can for our neighbors, even to sacrificing that which we enjoyed or might have enjoyed.

Well, when you freely choose to vote for one person or another, in some sense you choose an answer to your question. :-)

And your prioritizing of responsibilities as per relationships has great support, interestingly enough, from feminist ethicist Carol Gilligan. My answer to your question is the sort of moderate response that drives my more liberal friends/colleagues nuts. Both. You should decide and the government should compel. In an ideal world we would have a tax system that would leave charitable people alone, giving them wonderful tax breaks, as opposed to the presence system which seems to favor those who acquire capital. Probably not a surprising answer...

Tom, you said I had expressed many misunderstandings about you. Actually, I asked a series of questions. Maybe you can help me clarify. Are you white? Did you benefit by a fairly good education? Have you been relatively healthy most of your life…able to work? Were you born in America or did you at least come here with some means to apply to getting a good footing as you began your American life? These are questions, and if the answer is yes to these questions, then you have had advantages many Americans do not.

Maybe the next thought…about people of your ilk…was what you found to be a misunderstanding? Did you support the first and second Iraq Wars? If you were in agreement with these, then I have not misspoken. If you were opposed to these then I will say you are an anomaly for a conservative.

Tell me then where did I get it wrong?

As I said, I am asking questions, not attacking you.

Brian Carlson
6:19 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012
Tom, Magna Cum Laude from Marquette's Law School. In addition to the unique advantages I assume you have, being highly intelligent is a critical addition. When you stand in the soup kitchen requiring that the homeless woman "asks" humbly for her bowl of food, you can think, with much greater range and subtlety, about why that soul is experiencing that life and you, on another end of one spectrum of measurement, have yours. I mean this with all sincerity... One other point, whereas poverty certainly is not the goal of many, the good life, to my mind, is not measured by the trophies typical in a materialistic culture. This country is a land of excess relative to the planet and I believe there is a huge need for a shift to more altruistic goals... Goals which serve the future betterment of the planet. I think that is where these founders of the various religions were vectoring.