|
| Is there a right to shelter? Is that found in natural law?
There are clearly two dominant sides to this discussion. One side purports that there exists an absolute right and the government should fulfill this need. The homeless must be cared for and the government is the organization to do it. The other side argues that the government has no right to take from one person and give to the poor. There is no fundemental right that should be protected by the government, or if it exists, it is merely a right to pursuit of housing, etc. It seems that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and as is common with many difficult things is difficult to elucidate.
It seems that a discussion may be wrongly centered around the issue of rights. A discussion of duty may be more helpful in distilling the the truth from this situation. First, the entire terminology used in this debate and others in the social/political realm is a secular one derived from Enlightment ideas. While there may be valuable truth in some of these thoughts, it is important to maintain a Christian perspective, not merely in the discussion itself, but how we discuss it. In Scripture the discussion of these sorts of issues is not one of rights, but of duties. Discussions concerning government, slavery, familial relationships, etc. did not address the individual parties rights, but rather what duties that they had to each other. It is very possible to distill from these discussions and analysis from the natural law that such rights exist, but I would posit that it is incumbant on us to first discuss the duties involved in the situation and possibly from their derive rights.
Thus framing the conversation, it seems that there is a middle ground to the extremes pointed out earlier. I do not think that one can deny that society, comprised of responsible individuals, has a duty to care for the poor. This is almost universally established, the difficulty coming in regards to how to allocate this responsibility. Some would say that the private sector has this responsibility entirely and that the government has no place there. I would agree that the Church, speaking of Christians universally, should carry the bulk of this duty, and in a perfect world perhaps there would be no need of any government involvement. However, not living in Utopia, one must look to how this should operate in our society. The current state shows that the private sector, and the Church (again speaking of Christians universally, not strictly in regard to the Catholic Church), has failed in this endeavour. Some would argue that the government is to blame for this and that if the government would lower taxes, etc. the private sector would step up the to plate. However, this seems to be something of a pipe dream. There is plenty of money in the private sector yet it has failed to effectuate change. Asking the government to stop providing services for people seems to put the cart before the horse, without there being adaqute provision, this responsibility would be shirked by society, at least temporarily, based on this idea. Additionally, I think that the idea that the government should solely care for these people, is one that is fiscally foolish and in its own right shirking the personal responsibility that should be present for these social woes. What remains is a middle ground in which the application of government activity is where the real criticism should lie, but that there is a role for the government, as a tool of the people, to help those who are truly in need and are not being cared for.
The real argument then comes to how this is effectuated. The problem with the approach that is generally taken now, is that it is based on a secular humanism that views these problems as something merely in a need of a fix. This arguably extends the bounds of the governments involvement far beyond the reasonably established bounds of social responsibility. As a social experiment that has obviously failed miserably. The approach should be one of responsibility, which is severly lacking in much of the implementation of social help. While I think there is a role appropriate for the government, it is not inconsistent to severely limit its role and ask for a dialogue of shared responsibility between the public sector and the private sector. Just because such a division is difficult to achieve, by no means does it suggest that the determination should not be made and we should resolve to one or the other extremes of no public responsibility or complete public responsibility. I would propose that we recognize that there is a place for the government in the current organization of society, but that it should be limited and defined, rather than promiscously promoted as the answer. Additionally, it is incumbent on all Christians to put action into the action the command of Christ: to care for those in need, and when we do this, we do it to Him.
I invite your opinions/comments.
| | |
| On the news that I did not get accepted to the Blackstone Fellowship and my recent winnings in the Ave Maria Charity Poker Tourney, I would like to announce that I am retiring from the law and am going to become a professional poker player.
| | |
| I lost my mind in a book --- I am trying to find it.
Here is an interesting story from the bizarre world of torts:
There was guy fixing a gas leak. There was also a rat in the room of the gas leak, covered in gas, naturally. The rat left the room and was under a machine of some kind that had sparks falling from it. The rat caught on fire. Obviously disraught by his condition the rat hastely returned home to where the guy was fixing the leak. An explosion followed resulting in the death of the rat... the guy got hurt too.
Don't ask me what that has to do with the law. It was about proximate cause so the judge probably didn't know either.
| | |
| Middle aged guy (looking pretty un-cool) pulls up to the coffee shop we were at last night in a bright green Eclipse with a huge spoiler. Mid-life crisis anyone? I also saw a girl with dreds that looked like Side Show Bob. It was a great night.
  | | |
| Right now there is quite a flurry descending outside. It is the first real snow of the year. I like it. Combined with some good music and a hot drink, it can help create a very good enviroment for thinking. As long as you are inside, that is. Last night I finally got on a role in my studies. I had been struggling with my research memo. Michelle and I went to our coffee shop (yes, it is our coffee shop. I find it helpful designate one as your own, which makes you go there more often.) and just started writing. I was able to get through most of it, which will make the weekend a lot more relaxing. Peace out.
| | |
|
