My first links!
Susan b. on government vs. individual acts of charity.
Lee Anne Millinger has comments too.
My take on this is pretty much the same. When Jesus preached in Judea, He was living in the Roman empire, which wasn't known for its compassion. The Romans practiced slavery after all. I don't think Jesus was preaching to Caesar (though Caesar wouldn't have been turned away if he showed up at Jesus' feet - but then he wouldn't be Caesar anymore either!). He was preaching to the man sitting on the grass, saying "Love your neighbor as yourself", extending that to include those you consider your enemies, meaning that we are to stretch and extend this compassion to the point where we do things we couldn't do unless we had the motivation of loving God first.
Can the government do this? No, the government protects our rights, and enacts and enforces laws which should reflect righteousness and justice, which the Lord loves (this is a modification of what I used to believe as a former disciple of Ayn Rand - the modification is based on Psalm 33:5 and Psalm 103:6). Now the source of much disagreement between leftists, conservatives, and liberals is: "just what is justice anyway?" Is it an equitable distribution of resources so that everyone pretty much has the same? Or is it a way of rewarding people for their work in a way proportional to their contribution to society? My own view is the latter, modified by teaching in the New Testament to give of ourselves to others.
So, why shouldn't we just give more to the government in order to help others? My main reason is that our government is not particularly that good at helping others. Most money that goes to government programs goes to pay for government employee salaries, very little goes to the needy, and the money that does go to the needy is not delivered to them in a way that will truly benefit them, i.e. encourage them to move out of their situation of need.
What about the other view of justice - that everyone should have just about the same? This view of justice does not lend itself well to "the rule of law" or equal protection under the law. Indeed, in practice, it seems to set up a two-tiered system of oppressors and victims, where a state of victimhood is seen as a justification for different standards for different civil classes, thus enabling unequal protection under the law. That's where our national debate on hate crimes, racial profiling, and affirmative action is leading us now.
Looking at the results of how socialism has worked in other countries, it can hardly be considered just. I'd say it was a system designed to promote human misery instead. From Communism, which has killed millions, to what President Clinton called The Third Way, Sweden-style European socialism, which isn't known for killing people, but rather for lowering their standard of living, people living under socialism have never been better off for it.
UPDATE: Add tax policy to that list of two-tiered institutions too. Indeed I can hardly believe I left it out.
Just wanted to let you know, your trackback to my post worked!
Posted by: susan b. at June 11, 2003 10:15 AM