As I understand the conservative antipathy regarding governmental programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care reform, unemployment benefits, food stamps etc., it is that: (1) Government should not have the power to create such programs and fund them, and (2), aside from the fact that this is a power that should not be given to a government, the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from creating and then funding such programs. Is this correct? Furthermore, I think most political persuasions can agree that charity is a good thing for many reasons on many different levels. But let’s get beyond that and discuss more fundamental issues.
In a society in which governments either do not have, nor exercise a right or power to establish such economic safety nets, conservatives appear to believe that charity would be sufficient to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries? If this is correct, then I can understand their position, though I do not agree with it. If it is not correct, are those consequences (suffering and death by members of our community) something that conservatives would find acceptable to live with and witness?
Personally I do believe that, 1) governments should have the power to create and implement very basic societal safety nets, 2) the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from doing so, 3) I do not believe that voluntary charity (in a large society) will ever be sufficient (no matter how minimal government was structured to stay out of the lives of its citizens), nor well organized enough to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries, and 4) I am philosophically opposed to living in a large society in which members of that society die or succumb to illness due to malnutrition, starvation or the inability to access medical care–especially when they are required, when physically and mentally able to do so, to contribute to the accumulation of value and wealth within that society.
There is nothing abhorrent about this philosophy nor is it inconsistent nor incompatible with patriotic, Christian, Democratic, and civilized teachings and ideologies.
Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - Fighting aside, none of the far right wing conservatives have addressed my question. (PS. The LDS Church does some very admirable work, but it doesn't always get it right--as is the same for many other religious organizations, but the simple fact is that Americas not quite ready for your suggestion D.M.M. They are not fully invested in the Temple thing along with a few other big money projects. Keep trying though, who knows. I recommend we all sit done with Bruce Hafen and D. Oaks--they might surprise you all on some of the middle of the road opinions on some subjects--not all)
Loren M. Lambert © June 30, 2012
In a society in which governments either do not have, nor exercise a right or power to establish such economic safety nets, conservatives appear to believe that charity would be sufficient to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries? If this is correct, then I can understand their position, though I do not agree with it. If it is not correct, are those consequences (suffering and death by members of our community) something that conservatives would find acceptable to live with and witness?
Personally I do believe that, 1) governments should have the power to create and implement very basic societal safety nets, 2) the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from doing so, 3) I do not believe that voluntary charity (in a large society) will ever be sufficient (no matter how minimal government was structured to stay out of the lives of its citizens), nor well organized enough to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries, and 4) I am philosophically opposed to living in a large society in which members of that society die or succumb to illness due to malnutrition, starvation or the inability to access medical care–especially when they are required, when physically and mentally able to do so, to contribute to the accumulation of value and wealth within that society.
There is nothing abhorrent about this philosophy nor is it inconsistent nor incompatible with patriotic, Christian, Democratic, and civilized teachings and ideologies.
Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - Fighting aside, none of the far right wing conservatives have addressed my question. (PS. The LDS Church does some very admirable work, but it doesn't always get it right--as is the same for many other religious organizations, but the simple fact is that Americas not quite ready for your suggestion D.M.M. They are not fully invested in the Temple thing along with a few other big money projects. Keep trying though, who knows. I recommend we all sit done with Bruce Hafen and D. Oaks--they might surprise you all on some of the middle of the road opinions on some subjects--not all)
Loren M. Lambert © June 30, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment