The Government, not you, is Your Brother’s Keeper…?

Listen to William Lane Craig (dude who debated Christopher Hitchens…and scores of other fellas on various topics) talk about left-leaning religious arguments for Obama’s health care plan.

It’s good stuff, trust me.  One thing he comments on is the moral argument I wrote about a while back.  Obama is still trying to take the moral high ground, except this time he’s using religious language to do it.  I don’t have a problem with him using religious language, but I do have a problem with the specific argument he makes.  He argues that we each have an obligation to care for each other.  On this I agree.  On this the New Testament also agrees.  But then he coyly suggests that government is the best way to do that!

What ballyhoo.  Like I hinted at earlier, that is such a weak sauce definition of  “solidarity,” and it needs to be put to rest.

HT: Wintery (dude, you’re en fuego)

4 responses to “The Government, not you, is Your Brother’s Keeper…?

  1. Nothing on the planet stays the same! Everything changes quantitatively and when it can no longer change quantitatively, the change will become qualitative.
    Capitalism has gone through stages of development and like everything that exists everything has a life span and eventually capitalism like everything else that exists will go out of existence and will be replaced by the diametric opposite of what capitalism represents.
    Because life is a learning experience, we ultimately learn from our mistakes the opposite that occurs when revolutionary change takes place is an opposite that is not the same as the change what occurred in the past. In other words history does not repeat itself, but progresses, becomes refined, and streamlined, … and like a spiral, moves upward and forward. Eventually history as we know it will go out of existence and a new form of history will come into being.

  2. With the propaganda unleashed about political ideology that is so confusing that it is amusing, I believe it becomes necessary to define what is so blatantly misrepresented so as to add light onto the ignorance of “IDEOLOGY”
    The definition of “Fascism” ” The dictatorship of the Capitalist Class!”
    When the threat of an overthrow of “Capitalism” becomes apparent it becomes necessary to do away with any pretense toward democracy.
    “Fascism” signals the end of the right to freedom of speech! Freedom to assembly! The end of civil rights! , Etc. The strict enforcement of “Law and Order”
    Nazi philosophy is that part of fascism that is “Racist and bigoted!
    “Socialism” is defined by having a nation that is ruled by “The Dictatorship of the Working Class!” This “Proletariat dictatorship was regarded as necessary to keep the former capitalist class from regaining power and overthrowing the dictatorship of the Working Class!”
    “Communism” is defined as that which is built on a foundation of socialism.
    Under communism you have a planned economy that has created the material conditions of enough abundance to allow the distribution of goods and services to be equally distributed to all of it’s citizens without discrimination. “From each according to their ability! “To each according to their need!” Under communism cooperation replaces competition. Under a system of “material cooperative abundance” a new type of human nature will be born out of this type of secure environment. A social scientific being that becomes their own leader and their own follower and does not need a political government or state apparatus to tell them what to do. Consequently the “State Apparatus” withers away and you only have an administration of things, … not an administration of people.

  3. Pingback: The Cure that Kills the Patient « The Pugnacious Irishman

  4. Ian Clotworthy

    Correct, it is ridiculous to say that we should care for each other but also that the government should do it. I expect that Obama is trying to say that his opponents do not really care about their fellow Americans.

    That is probably true. If America was a society where people cared about each other then national healthcare would already exist there.

    Some conservatives say that they do care about other people but that it’s wrong to force their uncaring brethren to pay for health out of their taxes. Now I don’t believe that for a second, mainly due to my negative view of human nature. There is no way that it’s just a coincidence that their “moral ideals” and their financial interests are so well aligned by coincidence.

    What these conservatives really mean, for the most part, is that *I* don’t want to put my money where my mouth is and pay for health care for other people.

    However, I think that these silly abstract moral debates are a waste of time. The debate should centre around economics – that is how the Democrats should win this one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s