Lutherans and Socialism

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
Yes. The state necessarily defends the nation, protects individual rights, regulates international trade, etc..
Me:
And there is much mischief and disagreement in that “etc.” that will not be resolved here.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter’s phrase:
‘…imposed by the coercive power of state that is contrary to liberty.”

I ponder:
And just what is this “coercive power”? Passing laws? Federal regulations on such things as safety and health? Any kind of taxation, especially on businesses and industries? Exactly how is this “coercive power” exercise?
And “contrary to liberty”. What kind of liberty? To whose liberty, the liberty of people with money? We all want some “liberties”that are not good or healthy for our neighbors.
If one chooses to reside in this country, is one not voluntarily accepting how this country decides it will order itself?

If one doesn't like paying taxes, stop earning so much money. Move to a state that doesn't have sales tax.

[Charles Austin]

Schools. Roads. Bridges. Police. OSHA. FDA. CDC. Courts. Local health departments. Army. Navy. Air Force. Marines. Coast Guard. Building codes. Fire departments. EPA. And, among still more things, the mechanics needed to put our constitution into action. All - and probably more - “necessary functions “ of government. (Including, I believe, the responsibility to mandate vaccines in a pandemic.)

[peter_speckhard]

School are not a necessary function of government. Listing all the branches of the military separately indeed gives you a longer list, but is still just defense. Many fire departments are volunteer. Some of things on your list, like the EPA, didn’t exist for a good deal of our history, so they cannot be said to be necessary functions of government other than that if you’re going to have one, it has to be government. Why? Because without coercive power it can’t do its job.

There are a lot of good things government can do. But they all require coerced participation. Therefore, those who value liberty tend to prefer the government forgo doing unnecessary things even if they are in general beneficial. People who value material security tend to want the government to do more even at the cost of liberty.

[Charles Austin]

So Caring for our natural resources when they are in danger is not the job of the government? And yes, the EPA was not necessary in 1789. Does that make it invalid today? In 1860, people died of phony medication. Does that make the FDA unnecessary today?

[Brian Stoffregen]

School are not a necessary function of government. Listing all the branches of the military separately indeed gives you a longer list, but is still just defense. Many fire departments are volunteer. Some of things on your list, like the EPA, didn’t exist for a good deal of our history, so they cannot be said to be necessary functions of government other than that if you’re going to have one, it has to be government. Why? Because without coercive power it can’t do its job.

There are a lot of good things government can do. But they all require coerced participation. Therefore, those who value liberty tend to prefer the government forgo doing unnecessary things even if they are in general beneficial. People who value material security tend to want the government to do more even at the cost of liberty.

"coerced participation"? You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Did Luther coerce people into receiving communion by stating that if they didn't desire it at least three or four times a year, they weren't Christians? How often has the church coerced people into participating through guilt? Is guilt a bad thing? Isn't guiding people into righteous behaviors a good thing?


Our infection of original sin will always misuse our freedom, e.g., like the first humans. We require curbs and guidance whether they are both seen as under the first use of the Law or the first and third uses.

[D. Engebretson]

Schools are not a necessary function of government.

I know we have discussed and debated the idea of the public school system before.  In principle I am not against it.  My three children when to a public high school. A lot of good people teach at these schools, and a lot of good people send their children there.

But I am fearing that the public school system, as well as the public university system, is becoming more and more an extension of the government with regard to indoctrination of social mores and accepted social constructs. And I'm not referring to the usual mores and constructs that required civil behavior that did not engage in physical harm or verbal abuse.  We are clearly a divided country on a long list of issues, and the government more and more seems intent in closing that gap of division by enacting laws of social conformity and through an educational system of indoctrination.

And this is already having an impact on the educational choices families are making. Many families are looking to alternatives such a home schooling and church-based schools. There is an annual homeschooling growth rate of 2%-8%. By the end of last year as many as 9 million children were being homeschooled. For more statistics, etc. see: https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

If the government is considered ultimately responsible for the pre-college education of our youth, this has implications, as well, on how they are going to treat these alternative forms of education.  For if the U.S. Department of Education considers it their duty to not only set academic standards, but also social standards, then it's only a matter of time before greater control in that area will extend to home schooling and religious schools.  I'm not sure how they would do it in the former case, other than demanding documentation that certain instruction takes place with submitted reports/tests, etc.

So, I would obviously prefer less, not more control of the government in the area of education. 

[Dave Benke]

There's a combo of common sense and cultural acclimation that precedes or accompanies or follows coercion.  I saw a video on Tik-Tok last week taken from a meeting in Detroit in the 1960s.  A big crowd of angry people, many of them chain smoking - the room kind of wafting smoke all around the camera, and people shouting.  "Never.  Never!!!" "We ain't gonna put them xx things on no matter what and I don't care who says it's 'good' for me.  I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing even if I get a fine!"  Of course, these folks/guys were all screaming about seat belts in cars being an inappropriate governmental intrusion on their freedom. 

So those who didn't get killed or badly injured in a car crash probably died of lung cancer.  I forget now what the stats on that were, but the seat belt really dropped the number of auto accident deaths substantially.  I say that as one whose higher speed adolescent and young adult driving took place without much attention to seat belts, so - happy to be here.  Common sense accompanied coercion/fines.  Acclimation took place.

There were some outliers when it came to the polio vaccine as well, even though as a young child I remember the folks being prayerfully thankful for Dr. Salk.  Except for the true anti-vaxxers, common sense has prevailed alongside coercion/mandates from schools about vaccination charts.

So even in a more polarized time, what I think is happening is the combination of common sense and acclimation to the vaccine.  Clergy in particular can be of great assistance in that process.

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

So Caring for our natural resources when they are in danger is not the job of the government? And yes, the EPA was not necessary in 1789. Does that make it invalid today? In 1860, people died of phony medication. Does that make the FDA unnecessary today?

Where do you see me saying the EPA is not valid? I didn’t. I said it is perfectly possible to have a government without one. But it is just another example of your inability to follow what I say because you deal in absolutes and without distinctions between words like necessary, valid, beneficial, etc. none of which are synonyms.

Some people would rather govern themselves even if it means being governed poorly. Other people gladly sacrifice their freedoms to experts who know better. I would be healthier eating meals prescribed by the FDA. I’d rather be unhealthy and eat what I want. If someone proposed to ban the private purchase of food and have a government program provide nutritious meals to everyone, they have public health on their side. But liberty would rightly object.

[Dave Likeness]

In theory, the individual states have a department of education
and the local school districts have a board of education.  This is
suppose to be where the decisions on textbooks and teachers are
made.  Federal mandates were never intended to be part of the
process.  However, when federal money enters the picture so does
a certain amount of control.

If parents begin to see that the government is over-reaching into
areas of morality, then you will see a continued increase in home
schooling and church-based/private schools.   Hopefully, government
will not overplay its hand and interfere with encroaching guidelines
on sexuality and transgender discussions.  We are living in times when
traditional morality is no longer the norm.

[James S. Rustad]

If one doesn't like paying taxes, stop earning so much money. Move to a state that doesn't have sales tax.

And there we go.  If we were not so productive, the government would not take our money.  That's twisted.

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
Some people would rather govern themselves even if it means being governed poorly. Other people gladly sacrifice their freedoms to experts who know better. I would be healthier eating meals prescribed by the FDA. I’d rather be unhealthy and eat what I want. If someone proposed to ban the private purchase of food and have a government program provide nutritious meals to everyone, they have public health on their side. But liberty would rightly object.

Me:
And you claim I deal in extremes!
Some people want freedom to use cocaine and other deadly drugs.(In moderation of course.) Do you propose we just let them do it?
Some guys with a lot of money want to rip the top off mountains so they can get to the minerals underneath, and  to hell with the impact on the environment. Is that OK?
For some the entrance to those questions are yes, no, and maybe. That’s why our constitutional system of laws and checks and balances comes into play and collectively, in a way, we make decisions. Once, we collectively decided to ban beverage alcohol. Oops. Bad idea. So we collectively decided that we would no longer do that.

[Robert Johnson]

I would be healthier eating meals prescribed by the FDA.

That’s not clear. It is now pretty well understood that the traditional food pyramid that was promulgated for about half a century is terrible eating advice (way too many carbs).

www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-pyramid/

So in that case the government function was not only not necessary, it was harmful.

[Charles Austin]

And that old “food pyramid“ was partly fabricated by those selling certain food products. And at a time when we barely knew body chemistry and how nutrition truly works.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Schools are not a necessary function of government.

I know we have discussed and debated the idea of the public school system before.  In principle I am not against it.  My three children when to a public high school. A lot of good people teach at these schools, and a lot of good people send their children there.

But I am fearing that the public school system, as well as the public university system, is becoming more and more an extension of the government with regard to indoctrination of social mores and accepted social constructs. And I'm not referring to the usual mores and constructs that required civil behavior that did not engage in physical harm or verbal abuse.  We are clearly a divided country on a long list of issues, and the government more and more seems intent in closing that gap of division by enacting laws of social conformity and through an educational system of indoctrination.

And this is already having an impact on the educational choices families are making. Many families are looking to alternatives such a home schooling and church-based schools. There is an annual homeschooling growth rate of 2%-8%. By the end of last year as many as 9 million children were being homeschooled. For more statistics, etc. see: https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

If the government is considered ultimately responsible for the pre-college education of our youth, this has implications, as well, on how they are going to treat these alternative forms of education.  For if the U.S. Department of Education considers it their duty to not only set academic standards, but also social standards, then it's only a matter of time before greater control in that area will extend to home schooling and religious schools.  I'm not sure how they would do it in the former case, other than demanding documentation that certain instruction takes place with submitted reports/tests, etc.

So, I would obviously prefer less, not more control of the government in the area of education.

a liberal arts education will naturally tilt towards liberalism.