Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Well, then there's the inalianable right to not being educated by religious nuts like the ones on that site. I think that's considered to be in there somewhere too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In other words, I advocate that the federal government do only those things that cannot be done more efficiently, economically, and/or effectively by the states and/or private sector. We would then not need the government to otherwise 'do' anything for us.

There are federal government programs that could, in theory, be turned over to the private sector or to the states. In practice, there are problems involved with either scenario.

Government and the private sector have completely different goals (public welfare versus financial profit).

The rationale for having certain services done at the federal level rather than the state level is that a service can be centralized rather than duplicated fifty times.

0 Replies

Quote:

wandeljw writes:
Government and the private sector have completely different goals (public welfare versus financial profit).

The rationale for having certain services done at the federal level rather than the state level is that a service can be centralized rather than duplicated fifty times.

On the other hand, the profit motive requires that the public be served or profits will quickly dissipate. If nobody wants to buy what you're selling, there is no profit.

The government, however, too often serves itself and its own continuance rather than serve the people. This is why only about 30 cents or so of every government welfare dollar spent gets to anybody who actually needs it and why a government program almost always costs infinitely more to administrate and run than a similar program run by private contractors. While there are charitable organizations that serve as poorly out there, most are much much more efficient.

The bottom line is that what can be done more economically, efficiently, and effectively by the private sector should be done by the private sector whenever possible, which is usually the case. A profit motive is quite acceptable so long as the job gets done. The person receiving the benefit generally doesn't give a flying fig about the motives of those providing it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

On the other hand, the profit motive requires that the public be served or profits will quickly dissipate. If nobody wants to buy what you're selling, there is no profit.........
The bottom line is that what can be done more economically, efficiently, and effectively by the private sector should be done by the private sector whenever possible, which is usually the case. A profit motive is quite acceptable so long as the job gets done. The person receiving the benefit generally doesn't give a flying fig about the motives of those providing it.

However, if there is no profit, the private sector will fail to provide the benefits that the public not only needs but is entitled to.

0 Replies

Ah and there is the debate, isn't it, wandel? What exactly are we entitled to? And can you think of no need of humankind, other than those already cited, that cannot be met by people inspired by a profit motive? And how do you suppose all those charitable organizations out there, run as not-for-profit entities, manage to do so well decade after decade?

I believe there will always be entrepreneurs who will provide whatever the people want, and I think Americans are the most generous of people anywhere and will meet the needs of those unable to fend for themselves.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ah and there is the debate, isn't it, wandel? What exactly are we entitled to? And can you think of no need of humankind, other than those already cited, that cannot be met by people inspired by a profit motive? And how do you suppose all those charitable organizations out there, run as not-for-profit entities, manage to do so well decade after decade?

I believe there will always be entrepreneurs who will provide whatever the people want, and I think Americans are the most generous of people anywhere and will meet the needs of those unable to fend for themselves.

What people are entitled to is debated and decided by our elected representatives.

Unfortunately, the profit motive comes into conflict with many services that people, through their elected representatives, have asked government to provide. (There is nothing wrong with the profit motive itself, the opportunity for profit in some needed services is just not there.) Let the private sector do what it does best and let government provide needed services where there is no opportunity for financial profit.

0 Replies

The difference is when you ask your elected representative to provide you with a service, you are asking ME to provide it. And therein is the rub. I have often asked how it is moral to require Citizen A who educated himself, didn't get pregnant, didn't do drugs, learned a trade, and prepared himself to provide for himself and his family to support Citizen B who cut school, dropped out, did drugs, goofed off, and now looks to the government to take care of him.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless, and I see no evidence that Americans are willing for anyone to have to go without food, clothing, shelter. Citizen A won't let Citizen B starve. But there is nothing in the constitution that allows Citizen B to demand that Citizen A take care of Citizen B and whatever Citizen B receives should be on Citizen A's terms.

Put the relief efforts into the hands of the private sector where it used to be, and we will see a lot fewer Citizen B's for starters, and more efficient relief efforts afforded to Citizen B than is provided by an enormous one-size-fits-all government agency.

In a way, the government has taken over and perpetuated many of the duties that were once left to the churches and synagogues and mosques and other faith-based initiatives to provide. In a way it is almost a violation of church and state for the federal government to serve in that capacity. Not really, but there is a parallel there.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference is when you ask your elected representative to provide you with a service, you are asking ME to provide it. And therein is the rub. I have often asked how it is moral to require Citizen A who educated himself, didn't get pregnant, didn't do drugs, learned a trade, and prepared himself to provide for himself and his family to support Citizen B who cut school, dropped out, did drugs, goofed off, and now looks to the government to take care of him.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless, and I see no evidence that Americans are willing for anyone to have to go without food, clothing, shelter. Citizen A won't let Citizen B starve. But there is nothing in the constitution that allows Citizen B to demand that Citizen A take care of Citizen B and whatever Citizen B receives should be on Citizen A's terms.

Put the relief efforts into the hands of the private sector where it used to be, and we will see a lot fewer Citizen B's for starters, and more efficient relief efforts afforded to Citizen B than is provided by an enormous one-size-fits-all government agency.

In a way, the government has taken over and perpetuated many of the duties that were once left to the churches and synagogues and mosques and other faith-based initiatives to provide. In a way it is almost a violation of church and state for the federal government to serve in that capacity. Not really, but there is a parallel there.

There are so many false presumptions built into this statement, a logical response would be useless.

0 Replies

I don't know how old you are Wandel, but I'm old enough to remember when the government didn't guarantee a living to its citizens. We are possessed of inalienable right only to the point that nothing is required of anyone else other than his/her non interference. Everything else is subject to negotiation re more or less efficient ways to handle a situation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,
Sorry if my last remark was abrupt. Actually, my view on privatization is so different that I was unable to find any "common ground" to discuss that topic any further.
-wandel

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have often asked how it is moral to require Citizen A who educated himself, didn't get pregnant, didn't do drugs, learned a trade, and prepared himself to provide for himself and his family to support Citizen B who cut school, dropped out, did drugs, goofed off, and now looks to the government to take care of him.

Ok, I agree with this statement Fox. But I don't think that the profit motive will work here, anyway. The Citizen B's are naturally lazy. I know people like this. Even if their support is cut or changed, all they will do is fight that, finding more ways to waste resources that were not thiers to begin with. Anyways, this is not the debate...the debate is over church and state.

Hey, anyone know a good site over India's government, I hear it is a theocratic one.

0 Replies

The whole issue though Hyper is that if you restrict the Federal government to its consititutionally mandated duties and the Federal government does only that which cannot be done more effectively and efficiently by the private sector, then the Federal government is not in the business of anything related to the churches or faith based initiatives. And then there is no question that we clearly have separation of church and state.

Though I can't imagine anyone but a Hindi beling elected President, India isn't a theocracy - it is a republic.

http://goidirectory.nic.in/

http://www.india4world.com/government-india/

0 Replies

wandel writes

Quote:

Foxfyre,
Sorry if my last remark was abrupt. Actually, my view on privatization is so different that I was unable to find any "common ground" to discuss that topic any further.
-wandel

I understand the problem when somebody (me) includes so many different concepts into one post. And I also understand the extreme difficulties in implementing a draconian solution to any issue that affects people's lives. I understand the separate ideologies in which one group is sincere and heartfelt in believing that it is the role of government to provide for the people with the other group believing it is the role of government to make it possible for the people to provide for themselves. There is an element of involuntary servitude in one of those ideologies which is offensive to some freedom loving people and the very real danger of creating permanent underclasses; and there is the danger of the greedy getting theirs and the rest be damned in both the first the second.

In the issue of Church and State, I personally see no violation of the intended principle when government and faith based organizations join forces to provide for the people. But if enough Americans do see that as a violation of the principle, then to me the best solution is for government to get out of the business entirely and let the private faith based organizations and the few secular organixations out there handle it.

I do see a role for government in being able to coordinate efforts and perhaps providing initial relief funds in the really huge temporary crises like a Hurricane Andrew.

But as far as having any reasonable discussion when opposing points of view are prominent, I do agree it is much easier to do that by tackling one issue at a time.

0 Replies

hyper,
Before you move on to other countries, I came across an interesting quote from Deborah Lauter of the Anti-Defamation League: "Securing religious liberty in this country means preserving church-state separation."

Comments, anyone?

0 Replies

I think it depends on the definition of "separation of Church and State". If the definition is that the State cannot favor any one religion over another or require anyone to believe or not believe or impose any consequences or reward for what one does believe or does not believe, then I agree.

If the definition means that there can be no religious reference, image, or presence in any form of government, she's full of it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think it depends on the definition of "separation of Church and State". If the definition is that the State cannot favor any one religion over another or require anyone to believe or not believe or impose any consequences or reward for what one does believe or does not believe, then I agree.

If the definition means that there can be no religious reference, image, or presence in any form of government, she's full of it.

this smells of the ten commandments issue. Work of art/history? A subtle attempt to make everyone a Jew of Christian? A way of trying to give an underlying feel of morality to the courts? hmm.....

0 Replies

Oh, and Fox, thanks for the sites, but they do say democratic republic, and that is what I meant, I had just been told that their government did not practice Separation of Church and State

0 Replies

Quote:

this smells of the ten commandments issue. Work of art/history? A subtle attempt to make everyone a Jew of Christian? A way of trying to give an underlying feel of morality to the courts? hmm.....

So long as no one is rewarded or punished by the government for whatever religious beliefs s/he holds, there is no problem whatesoever with any religious artifact, art object, display or whatever in any government building. Art objects do not constitute an establishment of religion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Art objects do not constitute an establishment of religion.

Ok, then in your opinion, do "religious" objects constitue an establishment of religion?

0 Replies

Yeah!? Since you are the more anti-theist voice on this post (a very prestigious position, I might add) how do you feel about the ten commandments issue in particular?

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know