From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Charity (Re: Ignorance
Summary: Point/counterpoint
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:50:17 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov17.214347.16758@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov17.023549.3771@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>Good point. But since it was ruled un-Constitutional, it is a moot point.
> 
>Not exactly: The many of the provisions of the Constitution are to
>prevent exactly the sort of imposition on minorities that I'm talking
>about. 

Exactly. That's why it was ruled unconstitutional by the Warren Court.
Or am I missing the point?
> 
>> For instance, the majority 
>>now is setting the level of money that is going for building roads and
>>bridges. The roads and bridges are for the social good. There is a need
>>for them.
> 
>However, to do so the government had to get permission from, essentially,
>everyone: This is one of Congress' ennumerated powers to which the
>people consented when the Constitution was ratified. That is, the
>people as a whole formally agreed that this was for the common good,
>something the federal government needed to be involved in (if it was
>going to work) and sufficiently important to justify the risks of abuse
>of power by the majority.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the power was vested in the Constitution.
There is also a clause in the Constitution about "supporting the general
welfare." Now before we get in a big debate about what that clause was 
intended to mean, do you agree that this clause does apply to supporting
societies needs that are greater than what any one person can do?
> 
>>	There is also a need to help the homeless. It is in the communities
>>best interest, both for sanitary reasons as well as keeping the community
>>from looking run down.
> 
>If we are talking about federal programs, I don't think the above
>standards are unreasonable: That the people as a whole (e.g. the overwelming
>majority) formally consent to this in the form of an amendment to the
>Constitution. This would assure that everyone agrees on the need for
>such programs, that the involvement of the federal government is vital
>and consents to the administration of the program by the majority (or
>possibly places restrictions on the majority: There are such conditions,
>for example, on how the army may be funded.) Before someone jumps
>on me about how difficult it is to get an amendment ratified, that
>is exactly my point: The government should be involved only if there
>is a widespread consensus among the people as to the need. If that
>consensus doesn't exist then such a program is, in effect, forcing
>the views of the majority on a sizeable minority.  

This is all true. What I am saying is that there is a demonstrated
willingness to help the less fortunant through federal and state programs
already. The degree of that help is what is in debate.
> 
>>>No, I'm saying that how much and no under which conditions to give
>>>to charity is a question of moral standards and views. To me, there
>>>is very little difference between a system of moral standards and
>>>views, and a religion. Imposing the moral judgement of the majority
>>>is effectively no different than imposing a religion.
> 
>>Yet another good point. This moral judgement discussion always borders
>>on a fine line. I get very offended (believe it or not) when a religious 
>>person tries to impose their values on me too. But let me put it to you
>>another way. Would you consider murder as morally wrong? Of course you would.
>>Anybody would. That's why it's illegal.
> 
 This is central
>to the federal nature of our government: If there is no overwealming
>national agreement on a subject, the national government (in theory) does
>not impose the judgement of the majority. Instead, the matter is left
>to smaller jurisdictions where (presumably) views are more uniform
>and almost everyone agrees on the matter (or, at least, consent to
>go along with the majority's decision.)

This point diagrees with your point about the Alabama example. The people
in Alabama with power were wrong, and the federal government stepped in
to stop it. In other words a minority was persecuting a smaller minority
and the majority came in and stopped it. Comments?
> 
>>	Now would you consider helping your fellow man when he is hurting
>>morally right? Of course. So the question isn't whether the morals of the
>>majority being imposed on the minority are out of line, the question is
>>WHICH morals are and to what degree.
> 
>It is certainly a matter of degree, but to goal is (or ought to be) for
>such impositions to be of the smallest degree possible. That can be
>done by local as opposed to national laws. If the people of Colorado
>Springs and of Boulder disagree on what sort of social programs
>are proper, they can seperately enact whatever local programs they
>consider appropriate, without either imposing their views on the
>other. This both reduces the degree to which majoritarian views are
>imposed and gives the dissenting minority somewhere to go, if they are
>that strongly opposed.

I agree that there should be a certain amount of local autonomy, but 
once again I must go back to your Alabama example. How much local autonomy
should exist?
> 
>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7242 ca.politics:9665