But then, I don't think its the federal government's role to take everyone else's money to pay for my personal welfare. We likely disagree on that more than any particular bit of policy, so discussing the policy will just result in butting heads since the disagreement runs deeper. I think there's something to be said for a state government dabbling in such programs, since if a very successful system does come out of one of the fifty states the rest can tailor it to their own needs, and in an exceedingly limited way national programs for the welfare of certain persons, but I'm referring to things like veteran's care and possibly childbirth expenses (after all, how could you hate new mothers and newer taxpayers?). But why should marathon runners in San Francisco pay for donut-munching layabouts in Jersey when they get their inevitable heart attack? If they volunteered to buy the same insurance policy, that's fine. But if they were forced to buy the same policy, that uses coercion to make the responsible pay for the irresponsible. That is no basis for a just society of free citizens.
You've managed to hit the moral pothole of social welfare both ways running. On the one hand, you ask who could hate new mothers. Well, that implies being fine with hating other people. You ask why healthy people should pay for lardasses. Well, what's the difference between the new mother's life and the fat guy's life? Hypothetically, I hate children and have no intention of having any, but I still pay property taxes so your obnoxious children can go to public school, because you can't afford private schooling for them.
The point is, if you're willing to accept one form of social welfare, like childbirth expenses, on purely moralistic grounds, but not others, like universal emergency care, you're necessarily deciding whose life is worth more on essentially nothing more than a gut reaction. And if you're fine with that, then you're fine with that and there's nothing more to be said; certainly it's an easy argument to justify on practical grounds who better "deserves" enough concern to burden the rest the of society. If I can explain my own stance that likewise brings the discussion to a logjam, it's that I think making that decision is itself immoral. Sure, caring about veterans and new mothers is moral. I say if you're not willing to extend that concern to everyone, it blows the moral legs out from under the whole idea, and devolves into plain old enforcing cultural values through legislation.
Sure, it's reactionary, but that's where I'm coming from. The phrase "just society of free citizens" is where it always come apart for me. I fundamentally believe that there is no such thing as a "just society of free citizens", and trying to chase that idea leads to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Priority one is making a government that can function of its own accord in relationship to the reality around itself, which I think necessitates a lot more "action" for lack of a better word than the Night-Watchman ideal. Priority two is removing the major burdens from everyone's lives, and if at the cost of a minor burden or two like the occasional waiting line or tax (and remember that American taxes pale in comparison to other industrial nations) then so be it, as the cost a functioning, dare I say it moral, society that doesn't leave anyone out in the cold because of quaint ideals or unrealistic assumptions.
Author
Topic: Political theory (Read 16584 times)