This is the kind of stuff that makes me sure I could add something to our national conversations, such as they are. I'm sure I'll be destroyed by a media deception, or words taken out of context. But we've got to do better than this. Lurking in this pile of nonsense is the idea that consent between two parties is sufficient to establish moral licitness, and a real connection to the common good. In other words, markets are neither moral, nor amoral. But Catholics--left, right, or center--cannot believe this.
The state exists to promote the common good; that is, the sum of all the conditions necessary for every single person to reach the end for which they were made. To believe that a particular intervention by government is imprudent, unwise, or unnecessary is different than believing that government has no licit role by definition in promoting the common good. For this reason, I believe that this philosophy is ultimately destructive, because it views government as such as the enemy. "Limited government" is only useful insofar as that limitation serves healthy self-determination, economic and otherwise, and personal growth.
If we've got nothing to replace standard left-liberal programs but rhetoric about "liberty," (which means today, "radical individual autonomy,") we're going to keep losing. Americans generally do want to be left alone, but not at the expense of the disabled, the very poor, and good things like public libraries, schools, and the arts. Generally, we are in debt to ourselves, so various means of social assistance and organization do need reform. Yet too many people hear, "Government is bad," when we say "reform." What they ought to hear is, "Government needs to work for its people, not for large firms, or for politicians who support failed programs for personal gain and public approval."
Can we have Cantor back, before we lose that seat to Planned Parenthood?
The state exists to promote the common good; that is, the sum of all the conditions necessary for every single person to reach the end for which they were made. To believe that a particular intervention by government is imprudent, unwise, or unnecessary is different than believing that government has no licit role by definition in promoting the common good. For this reason, I believe that this philosophy is ultimately destructive, because it views government as such as the enemy. "Limited government" is only useful insofar as that limitation serves healthy self-determination, economic and otherwise, and personal growth.
If we've got nothing to replace standard left-liberal programs but rhetoric about "liberty," (which means today, "radical individual autonomy,") we're going to keep losing. Americans generally do want to be left alone, but not at the expense of the disabled, the very poor, and good things like public libraries, schools, and the arts. Generally, we are in debt to ourselves, so various means of social assistance and organization do need reform. Yet too many people hear, "Government is bad," when we say "reform." What they ought to hear is, "Government needs to work for its people, not for large firms, or for politicians who support failed programs for personal gain and public approval."
Can we have Cantor back, before we lose that seat to Planned Parenthood?
Comments