In my last post, What About the Poor? Sustenance Rights Examined, I noted the position of Nicholas Wolterstorff that, “If a rich man knows of someone who is starving and has the power to help that person, and chooses not to, then he violates that person’s rights as surely and reprehensively as if he had physically assaulted the sufferer.” I argued that as stated, this position is subject to three problems; first, that it leads to absurd consequences, entailing that I have a duty to give to every poor person I know about. Second, that it has totalitarian implications and third, that acceptance and practise of this principle would destroy any incentive people have to work.

In a more recent article “Christianity and Social Justice,” Wolterstorff attempts to defend his thesis against the three criticisms I mention above.

Turning to the first problem, Wolterstorff’s response is to note that “acknowledging a person’s right to some good does not imply laying on everyone else a duty to extend to that person that good.” This seems odd, if a right to sustenance on the part of the poor does not mean we are obligated to give them the means to sustenance, what bite does it have?

Wolterstorff puts forward an interesting suggestion. Turning to the paradigm of a right to not be assaulted, Wolterstorff suggests that while we have a duty to not assault people we do not have a duty to protect every person against assault. However, he goes on to note that in addition to having a right to not be assaulted, people have a right against their society “to have practises” and “social structures” that protect them from assault. In particular, such things as a police force, courts and an army. Clearly, if the right does not just mean that members of society refrain from attacking people, it also means that these members have a duty support the police force. Further, if the police force is ineffective, people have a duty to try and improve it (through such things as voting and lobbying).

Moreover, Wolterstorff suggests if “I see you about to get mugged when no policeman is in view - then I may be obliged to offer you my protection in a direct way.” Wolterstorff’s argument is that sustenance rights are analogous to the right to not be assaulted in this way. People have a duty to support whatever institutions or charities exist that alleviate poverty. If they are ineffective, they have a duty to reform them. Further, if one encounters a person in extreme necessity one is required to assist them in a direct way.

Turning to the second criticism, Wolterstorff makes three points to get around the totalitarian implications sketched previously. First, he states that,

the general idea behind having such a right to some good is that individual actions and social practices ought to be such that one enjoys that good. But the role of the government in practices which secure that right may be nil or negligible. Not all rights are enshrined by law. Sometimes in the early church the care for the poor of society was principally in the hands of the bishop.

He goes on to note, correctly I think, that,

Far from acknowledging that there is such a right, nothing directly follows as to what, if anything, governments should do by way of securing that right. In particular, it does not follow that the poor should be put on a dole supported by public taxation. In principle there is a wide variety of other practices which would undo the violation of this right, some of which the government would have little or no role.

Accepting sustenance rights then, does not entail accepting massive public ownership or redistribution.

Second, he tries to mitigate the objection by appealing again to the analogy with assault; “in our fallen world… we do not suppose that, in the face of all the aggressive impulses of human beings purely voluntary arrangements would suffice to secure our freedom from assault.” He goes on to note, “why should we suppose that, in the face of acquisitive impulses of human beings, purely voluntary arrangements would suffice to secure our right to sustenance?” Finally he notes, “it is true, indeed that there are dangers lurking when governments try to ensure that the rights of the poor are respected. But who would be so foolish as to argue that the armies and police forces that we assemble propose no threat?”

Wolterstorff makes some pertinent points here. However, it is worth noting that if one takes the assault analogy seriously, several things are evident. First, the police and armed forces actually do not play as big a role in protecting us from assault as it may appear.

The Police do not patrol everyone’s houses at night, nor does it have 24/7 video surveillance cameras set up on every home, nor do we have publicly funded burglar alarms. If people want any of these things, they hire private security guards, install privately owned cameras and buy their own alarms. The police are called when these systems fail and there is immediate danger.

It is also worth noting that the ability of the Police to catch and prosecute assailants is limited by such things as the presumption of innocence, the need for warrants, probable cause, etc. In societies with lower crime rates, police typically have more sweeping powers, powers our society rightly rejects precisely to avoid the danger of excess state intrusion and its subsequent abuses. As such, if the state is to secure our rights to sustenance similar limits should apply.

Turning to the third criticism, Wolterstorff states that while people do not earn their basic human rights by merit, such as the right to be free from assault or the right to liberty, the same is true of the right to sustenance. Wolterstorff notes correctly that a person can forfeit these rights by misdeeds; if a person attacks another his right to be free from assault is forfeited and I can strike him if necessary to defend myself. Similarly, if a person commits a crime they forfeit their right to liberty and can be imprisoned.

In the same way, Wolterstorff suggests that the right to sustenance can be forfeited if a person is capable of providing for themselves but refuses to do so; just as a needy person has a right against society to sustenance, society has a right against those it supports that they will take responsibility for themselves when they can and not pass of their responsibilities onto someone else.

As far as I can tell, Wolterstorff’s responses enable him to accept sustenance rights without falling into the problems mentioned in my previous post. It is worth noting, however, his response makes the claim that the poor have sustenance rights significantly qualified.

What it means is that individuals in a society have a duty to support various institutions that aid and assist those who are unable to provide for their own needs. These institutions may or may not be run by the state but if they are, the state plays a last resort role and is subject to careful checks on its power. This picture may differ from that some proposed by certain types of Libertarian, particularly those who believe we have no obligations to support the poor at all, but it is hardly the charter for statism or massive public ownership

Lately I have been thinking I must write a post about the sacred cow of homosexuality and how it can turn the most ardent liberal into a lefty. I am not the only person to have noticed this phenomena.

As Matt once commented, “Christians should be very concerned with people who will sell out their commitment to liberty before they would side with a Christian [or a moral viewpoint typically ascribed to a Christian]. Such people cannot be relied upon to defend my rights at all.”

Matt was alluding to the so called principled liberals whose principles dissipate the minute they encounter someone who shares most of their views but whose moral code differs from the narrow point of view they define their liberality by.

If you ask them to defend their views and offer a critique they cannot. I doubt they know why they hold their views they just know they are supposed to so they just repeat their mantra.

Their blind adherence to the “correct” moral views are not based on principle or reason, if you point out a flaw in an argument for one of their sacred cows they intolerantly froth and deem you to not be a member of the club. They will jump on the “correct” side regardless of whether the arguments used are sound.

This bigoted intolerance from the right is not completely reserved for Christians; anyone secular daring to voice a flaw in an argument advanced by the sacred cows of the-state-must-endorse-gays-movement is also slammed as illiberal.

Look at all the fuss and bother over David Garrett's comments on paedophilia [note the comments were NOT on homosexuality, learn the difference between an analogy and an identity claim]. In Real Bigotry Versus Mere Opinion Blair Mulholland notes:

Today's Herald has two separate stories dealing, in a roundabout way, with the issue of homosexuality.

In one, we have an elected official actively condoning violence because some of his constituents regard having their town labeled a "gay capital" as an insult.

In the other, we have a barrister, who was not an elected official at the time, pointing out that, in his view, both homosexuality and paedophilia are unchangeable psychological phenomena.

Guess which elected official has had their head called for?

Seriously, this is bullsh*t. The blogosphere, and I am looking at you too David Farrar, needs to get their priorities straight... so to speak. A small town Mayor says it's allright to give Jeremy Wells the bash for a comedy piece he did ten years ago and we shrug our shoulders. A new MP makes a crude observation about human behaviour and the crowd demands crucifixion.

It's not acceptable.

Consider Lucyna's argument in Finding Socialists in the Darndest Places, she cites Lindsay Mitchell's argument that one spots a socialist by their walk, not their talk or the ribbons they wave.

Want proof of how support for homosexuality turns liberals into lefties?

Compare Blair Mulholland, who says he is "more attuned with the Libertarianz" than ACT's, endorsement for Wellington Central with Cactus Kate's, one of the last, self-proclaimed, bastions of complete right-wing bias, hero worshipper of ACT's Rodney Hide.

Blair's endorsement:

Stephen Franks was worth about ten regular National MPs when he was last in parliament, so if you put him in their caucus he will kick some arse. My wholehearted endorsement for the National candidate here.

Cactus Kate's are here, here and here:

Grant, You are the only Labour candidate I am endorsing at this election

and:

With great humour I see all the National Party candidates are now MP's and yet none of the Labour candidates made it through. Oh dear. Crying a river. With
such a vicious swing Nationwide to National that result was a fait accompli.

Well done Sam, Aaron, Simon and Nikki. I hope all your dreams come true. And Grant Robertson who managed despite this massive swing to Toryism, to upset
Stephen Franks in Wellington Central. Brought a wee glow to the cheeks.

For the benefit of our overseas readers, Grant Robertson was the Labour (left-wing) candidate and Stephen Franks was the National (right-wing) candidate in the Wellington Central electorate in the recent NZ election.

Robertson is a unionist and state services flunky from way back; a hard-core left wing activist. As an example of what I mean, when he was National President of NZUSA he organised an activist training conference and invited and sponsored a speaker who advocated vigilante assaults on the private property of those they disagreed with.

Franks is a former ACT Party MP (more right-wing than National), is a Classical Liberal, has years of experience as a lawyer working in NZ’s top law firms, is considered across the political spectrum as being one of the sharpest, most competent and most ethical MP’s in recent times. Franks is secular and, from conversations I have had with him, does not share my view that homosexual conduct is immoral or that abortion, far from being liberal, is homicide.

So, I ask you, why would the uber-right wing Cactus Kate be pleased to see Robertson trump Franks? I asked her that and as yet she has not answered. As she moderates her comments, she has seen my questions, so I must assume the silence is deliberate.

I speculate, with good reason, that the answer is Robertson is gay and that to the socialist-liberal being gay forgives every other flaw; especially when Franks, during the NZ debate to have the state endorse gay relationships through the passage of the Civil Unions Act, made some critical observations on some of the reasons advanced by the defenders of the Bill.

This of course renders Franks a homophobic hate-filled conservative (liberals by definition are pro-everything gay, no matter how inconsistent it renders them and will turn and blacklist their own in heartbeat at the first sign of a betrayal) and elevates the statist Robertson to the position of the better candidate. [I am reminded here of Matt’s blog: Bigotry as Tolerance: Homophobia as Orwellian Double Speak.]

Right-wing socialists loudly claim to be principled yet to avoid being associated with a perceived affront to their moral values they would sell their freedom on the basis of knee-jerk ignorance, straw-men and stereotypes.

So now I turn to Glenn's latest offering where he suggests that the state has no role to play in endorsing any relationships. Something liberals have always claimed on every other, non-homosexual, issue. This is a concept I endorse accross the board. Marriage existed for centuries without the help of the state. State endorsed marriage is a fairly recent phenomena.

Extract from: Homosexuality and Socialism?

It might seem like a very odd connection until you consider… well, actually no matter what you consider it still seems like an odd connection, but in the recent song and dance about Proposition 8 in California, that very odd connect has been reinforced yet again. I’m sure that there are plenty of homosexual people who don’t choose to identify as socialist, so don’t take me to be saying that they all do. But when it comes to the public scrap about marriage, for some of them the red comes to the surface quicker than you can drop a hat.

As evidenced here, here, here, here and in many many other places, some outspoken homosexuals actually believe the following slogan:

Marriage is a civil right.

Now let me very clear what’s being said here. They’re not saying that they have the right to live together as a couple. They already have that right in California, and it was not under threat. They mean legal marriage, and I don’t mean a relationship that is legally permitted (again, they already have this, which is why Keith Olbermann is lying in the second link above when he says that all homosexuals in California who opposed proposition 8 want is the ability to be “a little less alone in the world” by having a relationship”), I mean a relationship that is created by law. What they are actually saying is this:

I have a basic right for the government to create a type of legal relationship and to confer upon my relationship the status of being one of those relationships.

Excuse me? There exists no such civil right, for anyone - homosexual, heterosexual…. or otherwise! What kind of nannyish rubbish is this? The government does currently create such a relationship and confer upon many heterosexual relationships the status of being one of those relationships (and it refuses to do so for others - e.g. close relatives, relationships with more than two people etc, which is why Representative Anthony D. Weiner is lying in the third link above when he says “We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage”). It’s like thinking that the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arms, that is, the government has the duty to buy you a gun!

If I stood up in public and said that my wife and I had a civil right to a free house from the government, what would you say? And how crazy do you think I would look if I went further and said that if the government did not provide one then it was somehow displaying hatred or contempt for me or for my relationship?

I’m a conservative Christian, and I take very seriously the teaching of the Bible. So if you tell me that I have no choice and I must accept the fact that all marriages must be state-endorsed, then obviously I’m going to think in terms of my traditional understanding of marriage, since I don’t want the government creating and then endorsing things that are immoral. We’re going to clash and war over that. But here’s a radical thought: If you want to get married then get married, and let’s not let the government have a part of it at all!

But what about incest, polygamy etc? Well firstly, people in the USA are already legally permitted to have sexual relations with multiple people and commit adultery. If you think that’s so horrific, then support a law banning it. And incest is already illegal, so the question of incestuous marriage isn’t an issue. The act is banned. Let’s just say that anyone can get married, as long as they don’t commit any acts that are themselves illegal (like incest or marrying a minor or any other illegal sexual practices). Enter into whatever property contracts you like, regardless of sexuality.

Issues of sexual practices are determined on their own (e.g. the notorious “anti-sodomy law” issue in Texas). But the suggestion that you have a civil right for the government to come into your bedroom and give you a nice certificate and pat your relationship on the back (so to speak)…. Please don’t do that to my language. “Rights” are important things, and you’re dragging that word through the mud when you use it like that.

(This is to say nothing of the misleading claim that currently, different individuals have different rights based on their sexuality. They don’t. No individual is excluded from getting married in California based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. That’s why emotive comparisons to interracial marriage being banned just have no substance.)

When I began university I had strong socialist leanings. The reason was that I believed, as a Christian, we had a duty to help the poor. Studying at Waikato University, however, brought me face to face with socialist academics and left-wing activists and I discovered a hostile and dangerous social agenda that I could not in good conscience embrace.

That, however, left me with a burning question. What about the poor? If the classical liberal or conservative view is correct. What about the poor?

In the next two posts I want to discuss my thoughts on this a bit. I will do so by examining Nicholas Wolterstorff’s defence of welfare or sustenance rights. I will argue that, as initially stated, Wolterstorff’s position is subject to three problems. In my second post, What About the Poor? More on Sustenance Rights, I will suggest that while Wolterstorff’s position can escape these problems, it does so only by qualifying itself in such a way that there is no necessary link between accepting the poor’s right to sustenance and the kind of statist re-distributionary policies favoured by the left

In, When Justice and Peace Embrace, Nicholas Wolterstorff suggests that “If a rich man knows of someone who is starving and has the power to help that person, and chooses not to, then he violates that person’s rights as surely and reprehensively as if he had physically assaulted the sufferer.” Wolterstorff suggests further that this conclusion is orthodox Christian teaching. He provides citations from Basil, Ambrose, John Chrysostom and Aquinas to substantiate this claim.

One immediate problem with this line of analysis is it ignores something of the context in which these theologians wrote. They were addressing the situation of alms-giving. A wealthy person living in a small town or village in the Roman Empire would come across destitute people in his community whom would ask for assistance in most cases a wealthy lord would be able to do so. In the age of the mass media, however, things are quite different. It is not just about the poor person down the road; I am regularly bombarded with stories of poverty and suffering of thousands of people all across the globe when I turn on the new or surf the web.

In this context, to suggest that failure to alleviate any poverty I know about violates the person I fail to help and is analogous to assaulting them is problematic for a couple of reasons.

First, take my duty (and corresponding right on the part of others) to not assault people. This duty applies 24-7, it is not like I can refrain from assault on Fridays but smash peoples heads in on Sunday. There are 6 billion people in the world, as I have a duty to not assault anyone I owe that duty to all these 6 billion people. Moreover, each one of them holds a right to not be assaulted against me. This is not problematic, because discharging my duty to all 6 billion is not hard, I can do so by refraining from assault.

Discharging such a duty and its corresponding right, is unproblematic because the duty to not assault is a duty to not do something

A claim right; a right requiring me to do or give assistance, however, is different. Clearly I cannot give assistance to all 6 billion people in the world at all times. I simply do not have the resources or the ability to do that. Hence, each individual poor person cannot hold a right to assistance against me. At best, I have a duty to help some people, some of the time, with some of my resources.

A related problem is that unless I live just above the sustenance level and force my family to do the same, and donate every cent I earn above that level to the poor then I will be failing to discharge my duty. Hence, accepting Wolterstorff’s claim would quite literally imply that everyone has a duty to live just above the poverty line. Wealth of any sort is a sin, a conclusion at odds with scripture which commends many wealthy people (like Job and Abraham) as Godly people and not as mass murderers.

A second problem is the quite oppressive political implications of Wolterstorff’s claim. Given what I have outlined above, if failure to give to a poor person when we can is analogous to assaulting them then every person who does not live just above sustenance level and does not donate everything they own and earn to charity is in fact a serious criminal. A just government would then be required to lock all these people up, their children would end up in foster care and all their property confiscated and given to the poor as restitution. The implications of accepting a right of the sort Wolterstorff affirms is totalitarianism; a system where everyone is poor and anyone else is arrested and detained. The state would be obligated to take almost everything.

A third problem, which follows on from the first and second, is that if everyone must be self-frozen in their income to just above sustenance level and any falling below it grants one a right to receive what’s needed to get above the sustenance line wouldn’t this destroy all incentives to work or be productive in any shape or form?

The problems with the idea of ‘sustenance right’ were not lost on Aquinas, whom Wolterstorff interestingly cites. In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the question of whether a destitute person who steals food to avoid starvation has committed theft. Aquinas’s answer is no and he cites with approval the claim of Ambrose of Milan that the poor have a right to sustenance and any property given to those unable to maintain themselves is money they are owed.

However, Aquinas goes on to offer some important qualifications. First, in the articles prior to this section of the Summa, Aquinas defends the concept of private property and argues that those who claim the private property of others are in sin, further, those who claim we are required to renounce property to be Christians are expounding a heretical doctrine. Second, Aquinas states that;

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all
to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the
stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of
those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that
it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at
hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no
other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by
means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this
properly speaking theft or robbery.

Aquinas observations are worth noting. Because there are so many in need and I cannot give to all I am not required to give to every needy person I know of. Instead I have a duty to give some of my money to some needy people and it is my choice to decide who. It follows from this observation that giving to the poor is an imperfect duty. Unlike the duty to refrain from assault it is not a duty to be discharged to all people at all times, but rather it is a duty to give some money to some poor people. But it is at the discretion of the property owner to decide who.

While there is a duty to give to the poor there is not a duty to give to any specific poor individual and hence no individual poor person has a right to my property (although I will be in serious dereliction of duty if I give to no-one).

Aquinas does provide an exception; what has been called the case of extreme necessity. As Donagan puts it, if a person “encounter[s] another who then and there needs help, which only he can give without disproportionate inconvenience” then such a person has a duty to give it and the other has a right to such help.

The medieval position Aquinas expounded is well summed up by Donagan in The Theory of Morality. Donagan suggests that all people have a duty of beneficence, “it is impermissible not to promote the well-being of others by actions in and of themselves permissible, in as much as one can do so without proportionate inconvenience.” By promoting the well-being of others, Donagan means things such as [paraphrasing Donagan] promoting the well being and up-bringing of those who are not adults, especially orphans; helping those who have duties, which owing to bereavement, injury, illness or desertion, they can’t perform without help; restoring to a condition of independence those who have been incapacitated with illness, accident, or injury and caring for those who are crippled, deaf, blind, are chronically ill, or senile.

However, the principle of beneficence is an imperfect duty. No individual poor person has a right to my assistance except in cases of extreme necessity. Donagan draws the appropriate conclusion; apart from cases of extreme necessity,

Duties of beneficence, seeing they are not owed to specific individuals generate
no enforceable rights; and apart from duties of beneficence, no innocent
person has any obligation to contribute to the wellbeing of others, except as he
may freely undertake.

Donagan suggests that the duty to benefit the poor is an imperfect duty to pursue a particular end and not based on a right that another may have. While one has a duty to pursue this end, it is at a person’s discretion as to how exactly they would pursue it.

It would seem then that social polices based on alleged welfare rights of the poor and the authority of the state to coercively uphold such rights are unjust. While we have a duty to aid the well-being of the poor as an end, no poor individual, outside of cases of extreme necessity, has a right to such assistance and hence one cannot justly be forced or required to give any individual such assistance.

In my next post I will look at how Wolterstorff responds to criticisms of this sort and how he qualifies his position to do so.

With each of us feeling pulled, guilt tripped, bribed, confused over not only who to vote for and how to decide Glenn does it again; read his analysis of the state of our country and where exactly we have gone wrong in our thinking.

Extract from New Zealand: Land of greed, envy and political stupidity (the election blog, part 2):

The New Zealand political environment is one of very strong statism and government intervention, wealth redistribution and disincentives for many people to work hard and try to get ahead. “Share the wealth” might sound like a nice idea, only in this case it’s not a case of someone saying “why don’t you share your wealth,” but rather a case of the state saying “I am going to share your wealth – with everybody else.”

There’s more to it than just this. The involvement of the state with our finances is part of the intervention into private lives, but it’s not the only form of such intervention. Marriage in New Zealand is now essentially a legal construct, and as such those who make the laws inevitable end up telling people what does and does not count as marriage. We’ve recently been told (by lawmakers) that we must – regardless of our own views on the matter) treat same sex couples as having a relationship that is the same as a married relationship, if they have a civil union. Now, you might personally think that’s fine. The point here is that it wouldn’t be an issue if the state didn’t own marriage. If marriage was a private affair, perhaps accompanied by a private contract, there would be no “same sex marriage” controversy. Let churches marry who they are prepared to marry, and let anyone have a public gathering to celebrate what they will. But as soon as the state gets involved and starts bestowing its blessing, they have started forcing other people to endorse forms of relationships.

Take another example: The notorious (at least in new Zealand) “anti-smacking” law. Assault is a crime in New Zealand, however there have always been exceptions – scenarios where you are permitted to use force against other people (within reason). You can use reasonable force in self defense, the captain of a ship can use reasonable force to subdue and contain a passenger who poses a risk to other passengers, and up until recently, a parent could use reasonable force in the course of disciplining a child. The has always said that the force must be reasonable, so you couldn’t injure your child, for example. But you could use force – for example – to place your child in confinement (which would normally be illegal – I can’t confine another person under normal circumstances), or to smack your child (again, with the proviso that the force is reasonable and not harmful), or any other kind of force along those lines. However, section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed for this exception in the case of disciplining children, has now been repealed. The state can use force against you if you need correction, but you cannot use force against a child if that child needs correction. As has frequently been noted, this as the unambiguous consequence that any person who uses any amount of force on a child for any reason is a criminal. If you place your child in “time out” when he doesn’t want to be there – you’ve commit a crime, and a crime for which there is literally no legal defense. If you did this and the police laid charges, you’d be guilty, no matter what the circumstances, because the law has been changed so that absolutely no amount or type of force can be considered reasonable. When challenged with this fact, the member of parliament who proposed this law change, Sue Bradford, explained that yes, it’s true that nearly all parents would technically become criminals, but we should trust the police to use discretion. It’s sometimes hard to convict people who physically abuse children, she explained, so this way everyone is prosecutable, meaning that the genuine abusers can be successfully prosecuted without hindrance like pesky defences of “reasonable force.” Think I’m exaggerating? Not even close. I was physically present (and almost physically sick) at Bradford’s public meeting here in Dunedin when she happily explained this.

Another example is the Electoral Finance Act, which I discussed recently here. This is, in effect, an attack on the free speech of political spokespeople who do not wish their personal address to be provided to the new Zealand public.

Another example is Labour’s re-write of the Immigration Act. The new version gives immigration personnel (not even police officers) powers to invade private property, seize belongings and detain people, without the need of a warrant. Oh, and the detainees do not have to be given the specifics of why they are being detained, either.

Then of course there was the notorious Seabed and foreshore Act. The government, one side of a dispute over ownership and governance of parts of New Zealand coastline, decided by legislation that the dispute could never be taken to court, and it declared by fiat that the state owned all of the disputed pieces of land. Case closed. No compensation required (oh, and no due process either).

And then there’s the general all-powerful thuggish behaviour of Labour’s members of parliament over their last few terms of government, including the Prime minister herself, to whom ordinary laws and principles of conduct simply don’t apply – whether it’s the leaked fabrications she used to end the career of the Police Commissioner, the artwork she falsely signed for an auction, the speeding that she apparently required of her driver to get to a rugby game on time – and then let him take the fall for it, as well as the more general reputation she has earned for being a controlling bully who allows no dissent (or free thought). Then there are the cabinet ministers (note: not just members of parliament but cabinet ministers) who, the police agreed, had prima facie cases to answer for assault, but against whom the police, for some reason, chose not to press charges. And then there was the cabinet minister who abused police power by literally calling them up to go and advise a citizen of a request to pay damages (i.e. a civil matter, and even before a civil suit had been filed). The Prime Minister did literally nothing about any of this. There was also the case where an application to build a marina in Whangamata was approved by the environment court, after much effort and expense by the applicants. But then cabinet minister Chris Carter overturned the decision. Again, no due process, no separation between the legislature and the courts, just heavy handed intervention to overthrow the normal process because a government minister didn’t like the outcome of the court.

There’s little doubt that Clark has had a clear vision for the type of society she wishes to engineer. The society towards which the policies of Clark’s Labour government are geared is a society that eschews traditional morality, sees solo parenting as normal and provides financial support to make it no more difficult than two parent parenting, a society where “sexual norms” is a judgemental term and same-sex unions are absolutely no different from traditional marriage between a man and woman, where authority and to some extent, responsibility, are transferred out of the family home into into the hands of the state (it is the state’s role to discipline, educate, or use force to punish, etc), a society where it is fundamentally the role of the state to see that your family is provided for, a society where healthcare and educational choices are made by the state and funded by the taxpayer whether they use those options or not, a society where the type of free expression that finds acceptance is that which upholds all these norms, and expression that call into question the moral acceptability of these things is frowned on, a society where the idea of promiscuity as something abnormal or unhealthy is itself seen as something abnormal, unhealthy and oppressive, a society where the defence of all these values is described as tolerance, and the defence of different values is presented as intolerance. Of great importance, amidst all this, is that the wise, benevolent state faces no opposition to its decisions, and if there is ever public opposition to its intentions (as was the case with the Civil Unions Bill and the Anti Smacking Bill), these complications are simply ignored.

Why, exactly, would a Christian vote for a government like this? I’ve asked a few, and I think that, unfortunately, the reason some Christians might vote for a party like this is that “if they become the next government, they will give me X.” What about their impact on laws relating to marriage, or prostitution, or their immoral solutions to land disputes, or their threat to free speech, or their thuggish and unaccountable influence over civil servants, or their disregard for human rights, whether in its treatment of immigrants or in other cases (such as their rejection of the freedom of association for students)? Don’t any of these give my fellow Christians pause before voting them back into power? “They’ve going to give me X.” Whether that X is a cash payout via some sort of state welfare, or a bonus for people working in the state sector, or something else, how in the world could anyone be so short sighted as to snap at a cash carrot and to ignore the wider picture of what is happening?

One answer has to do with the basic human condition: I’m greedy and envious. If the government gives me money, then regardless of whether I deserve it, my first inclination is to take it and enjoy it. Other people make much more money than I do, so why shouldn’t I be able to get my snout to the trough as well, right? And if the way to get this present is to vote for a particular party, then that party will get my vote.

There are less cynical ways of looking at welfare payouts, of course. Perhaps the Christian voter might think that the state is being kind to the poor by having these programmes (which should, hopefully, make them wonder why they payouts are made to families that earn salaries over $60,000). Maybe they believe that “social justice” just means distributing wealth so that nobody ends up at the bottom of the heap. I’ll say more about this in my next post, but my experience tells me that the main reason some Christians have for voting for Labour is that Labour will give them something, and they don’t want to lose it.

Here’s a question I put to any who think this way: Aside from the fact that you like getting free money, what would be wrong with you not getting that free money? Now I know – when you write conversations yourself you get to determine the outcome, but look at it this way:

Jerry: Hey Perry, who are you voting for?

Perry: I’m voting for Labour.

Jerry: Really? Wow. I wouldn’t have seen that coming. You’re a Christian, right?

Perry: Yes – what does that have to do with anything?

Jerry: Everything, I would have thought. I mean Labour is totally pro-abortion rights, they created same-sex marriage in this country, they made parents into criminals, they forced people to publish their address when they make political comment, they ride roughshod over human rights, they take incredible amounts of tax, they-

Perry: Woah, woah, slow down!

Jerry: Well, you do realise that Labour did all those things, right?

Perry: Well, maybe. I’m not sure. But still… won’t that other party take away the money Labour is giving us? And I work in the state sector, I mean, my future there is more secure with Labour, right?

Jerry: You’ve got to be kidding me.

Perry: What?

Jerry: Do you really think that your personal finances and security in a government job is more important than matters of right and wrong?

Perry: No, no of course not. It’s not just about me. What about all those other families out there? They get family assistance from the government too!

Jerry: And you point is?

Perry: Well isn’t it obvious? Getting money from the government makes it easier for them to get by, so of course I want to vote for a party that will keep giving them that money.

Jerry: Well firstly, pretty much every party is going to give them that money. It would be political suicide not to now that they’re already getting it. But there’s a much more important question here.

Perry: And what’s that?

Jerry: Should the government take my money and give it to you?

Perry: Oh come on, let’s not make it personal….

Jerry: OK fine – should the government take my cousin Bob’s money and give it to you?

Perry: Well it helps the families who get it, right?

Jerry: Oh, so if it helps families then the government can do it?

Perry: Well, I guess. The government is here to help us.

Jerry: Let’s see where that takes us. How would you feel if you worked hard to save up and buy a car, and then some agents from the government burst into your garage tonight and stole it, and gave it to my cousin Bob.

Perry: Come on, that’s ridiculous. Nobody is saying that the government should be allowed to do that.

Jerry: Well Perry, the thing is, Bob can’t afford a car, and having a car would really help his family. He could take them on holiday, and his wife could take them to soccer practice. Do you have any idea how handy a car is in today’s world for a family, Perry?

Perry: But the fact that they would find it helpful doesn’t give someone the right to just take it from me and give it to them! I worked to buy that car. I earned it!

Jerry: So what? Remember, it helps families. I thought you said a second ago that the government can do something if it helps families. In fact while we’re at it, some families struggle to pay for good healthy food. I hope you don’t mind if your local MP comes and raids your fridge for some food for them.

Perry: This is getting silly. OK, the government can’t do just anything because it helps families.

Jerry: Why not?

Perry: Because that stuff is mine! That wouldn’t be just!

Jerry: Just?

Perry: Right. Taking my car or my food would be unjust!

Jerry: That’s interesting Perry. Last time I heard, you were all in favour of this thing you call “social justice.” Am I right?

Perry: You bet! As a Christian, issues of social justice are so crucial to me.

Jerry: I see. So what are some of the fundamental issues of social justice?

Perry: Well probably the biggest one is our attitude to the poor. We should share the vast wealth of society with them, redistribute those resources to see that nobody misses out.

Jerry: OK, so why can’ the government redistribute your car and your food?

Perry: Like I said, that’s unj- [the penny drops]

Jerry: Unjust?

Perry:… yeah. Unjust.

Jerry: I think we need to take a big step back here. I’m all in favour of me sharing my wealth or you sharing your wealth. But what do we normally call someone who takes it upon himself to share other people’s wealth?

Perry: Yeah, yeah, a thief, I know. But look, you can’t say that just because it would be wrong for an individual person, it would also be wrong for the government. Governments can do all sorts of things that an individual can’t do. They can make laws, they can change taxes, heck they can even declare war!

Jerry: OK, now we’re really getting to the heart of it. What can the government do, and what can’t it do? What’s it’s job in the first place? There’s no way we can even begin to ask if it’s all right for the government to take my money and give it to you if we don’t even know what the role of the state is in the first place. Is it the government’s job to redistribute wealth at all? Exactly what rights do I have to the money I earn and the property I possess? How much authority does the government rightly have?

Perry: There you go, getting all academic. Why doesn’t anyone just think of the children….

Perry is a moron. Not in every way, of course, but when it comes to voting and politics, he’s pretty dim. That’s not measured by who he wants to vote for, don’t get me wrong. There are politically smart people who will vote for Labour. They are politically smart because they realise what they are doing: They are giving their support to a particular vision of the role of the government in society. When they debate politics, they realise that they are not debating individual policies, they are really involved in a clash of ideologies: Different political philosophies altogether. Two people might both support the same policy, but on the basis of very different political outlooks. Take the civil unions act that created a kind of same-sex marriage here in New Zealand. One person might support it because they firmly believe that it is the role of state to create by law all the formal types of relationships that adults enter into because they support a big government statist ideology, and if all relationships are covered by law, they can be regulated. Another person might support it in the (mistaken, I think) belief that this law generates more liberty and gets the government out of the lives of consenting adults.

What grates me horribly, however, is the fact that so many Christians (like so many people in general) don’t even ask the big questions. Questions of principle like “should the government be taking and redistributing people’s earned money in this way – is that its job?” are replaced with much more selfish questions like “how much will I get,” or “how will this benefit my profession,” or even more benevolent sounding questions like “what will they give to families,” and people who dissent are not challenged intellectually on whether or not their political philosophy make sense, rather they are targeted with guilt trips like “but you’d be taking [taxpayers'] money away from ________ [insert some group here].” Never mind asking if the government should be giving them other peoples’ money at all, or if the government should be doing anything to benefit those in your profession. What about those not in your profession, or those from whom the money would be taken to give to you?

Let me put some flesh on the bones: I know a person (nobody who would be reading this blog) who is a Catholic believer, who would vote for a pro-abortion rights pro same-sex-marriage party on the grounds that his taxpayer funded job would be less likely to get funding if another party came to power. I have known Christians – high profile ones at that – who have stood up in public and said “when you cast your vote, just ask one thing: What are they going to do for _______,” and he then named the Christian institution that employed him. In short, Christians get tangled up in some pretty ugly political messes, supporting parties – some of them self consciously Christian parties – that are struggling to impress people by how much they are going to give people or do for them, and they are not once engaging in high-level discussion about why anyone should care that those parties are going to do those things. “He says he’ll get the government to promote heterosexual marriage in law! I’ll vote for him!” Or “they want to give cash payouts to married couples who stay together! He gets my vote!” Not “he consistently advances policies on the basis of a good understanding of private property rights,” or “He really understands the role of the state and the limits of its authority.”

A post by Glenn caught my eye the other day and I have not been able to stop thinking about it as despite knowing that Glenn knows what he is talking about in this field, I just am struggling to believe his numbers. It really is proof-positive of the socialist extent of Labour's policies in practice and should serve as a warning to anyone tempted to vote Labour because they think the criticims levelled at Labour's attempts to turn as many working people into beneficiaries dependant on the state as possible are exaggerated.

I have reproduced some of it below as it warrants further exposure.

Extract from New Zealand: Land of greed, envy and political stupidity (the election blog, part 1)

Wealth re-distribution is at an almost unbelievable level at present. Take a family with one income earner. At current taxation levels, with an annual income of $40,000, that income earner will pay $7770.00 in PAYE (“pay as you earn”). This includes income tax plus 1.4% ACC (socialised accident compensation insurance). On the whole, that’s about 19.43%. If the earner works more hours or gets a more skilled job that pays more and the income is $70,000, the total PAYE is $18,090. That’s about 25.84%. It gets worse if you earn more than that.

But it does not end there. Let’s add this to the mix: This family has four children below the age of 12. This means that this family will qualify for state welfare for those children. Use the calculators at www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz to check the figures for yourselves. Let’s imagine that there are two families with one earner in each, one earning 40K and the other earning 70K. I’ll be taking into account the payments received from the “working for families” welfare scheme as well as the accommodation supplement each of these families will qualify for. I’ve arbitrarily hypothesised that these two different families live in the same city that I live in, and pay the same amount of rent that my family pays. Taking all of the above into account, here is the weekly combined income from all sources – after tax – for these two families.

Family 1, earning $40,000:
Total after tax weekly income (including welfare payments) of $1018.27
This family will pay $7770 in PAYE and receive $19,916 in state welfare. No, that is not a typo. Nineteen thousand, nine hundred and sixteen dollars of untaxed welfare payments.

Family 2, earning $70,000:
Total after tax income of $1208.27
This family will pay $18,090 in PAYE and receive $10,920 in state welfare.

Take a few moments to take this in: Family 2 earns $576.92 more than family 1 each week. For their extra effort or skill, they end up just $190 better off each week.

The level of wealth re-distribution to minimise the difference in income between these two families is staggering. And yet, each of these families is a recipient of a sizable chunk of the re-distributed wealth of others. The first family effectively pays no tax at all and then receives a further cash bonus of $12,146. But even the higher earning family still receives well over half of the earner’s PAYE payments back.

Who are the benefactors here? The benefactors are those without children who are trying to get by on $30,000 per year and not receiving a penny from working for families (but still qualifying for an accommodation supplement of about $60 per week). The other benefactors are those who receive none of these taxpayer funded handouts but who fund a huge proportion of them: those who contribute more tax because they earn more.

Essentially, the financial landscape this creates is one where a family on a low to medium income with several children has little incentive to increase their salary/wages beyond around $36,000 (the level at which state handouts start to decrease). Even if they had a salary of $70,000, the difference in financial positions would not reflect this increase in earnings.

That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about statism and wealth redistribution. It’s not just rhetoric without substance. It’s a real system that demonstrably penalises the high achievers, and for everyone else it serves as the great equaliser, making it seem like nobody’s earning more than anyone else. When everyone gets ahead – nobody gets ahead, nor is there any incentive to do so.

If you can't pay for your traffic fines you will soon be able to drive at speeds like those that Helen travels at when she is late for rugby games with no fear for your wallet.

Yep folks the government's latest socialist policy is that those who cannot afford to pay their traffic fines should not have to.

This is apparently supposed to help those on low incomes who commit traffic offenses. Why should anyone get help with breaking the law? Don't want a $200 speeding ticket? Don't speed. Don't cry I'm poor, I should be allowed to speed for free...

Apparently its because a $200 fine is nothing to a rich person but to a poor person its your whole family's grocery bill for a week. Well on that rationale lets take a look at the cost of groceries - for a poor person the family grocery bill takes most of their paycheck/benefit but for a rich person its nothing... I guess the goverment should pass a law making all supermarkets inflate their prices for rich people and reduce them for the poor....