5 ms·

I don't quite get this view. Why shouldn't they expect the government to help them out? That's why we pay taxes and reject them isn't it?

dzdt 10y ago
They don't want to pay taxes for that. Given the choice, most evangelical Christians in America will pick lower taxes and reduced or eliminated government role in providing social services.
- fgandiya 10y ago
  Fair enough... But I still find it strange.
gozur88 10y ago
There is a lot of disagreement on this point. Personally, I don't have a problem with these kinds of programs, but it's charity. Nobody should expect it.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  TIL social services are considered "charity". Are roads charity? Schools? Police? Fire? Military protection? If not, then why the hell is healthcare?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Yes, social services are charity. What else could you possibly call payments that are made purely because the recipient has a need he can't meet? The other services you listed benefit everyone. Everyone uses police, fire, and military services even if it's not obvious.
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      How do I use fire services (if my property or the property I've used has never been threatened by fire) any less than I use public health by not contracting diseases from vaccinated people?
      - gozur88 10y ago
        The fire department makes a fire less likely - they inspect buildings and businesses to make sure fire codes are followed. Also, it's likely your property has never been threatened by fire because the fire department put out any fires that would have threatened you. In terms of public health, I wouldn't consider efforts to control communicable diseases to be charity, but that's not the example in the article.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        When your house has a fire, despite all efforts to prevent fires, the fire department comes and puts the fire out. Healthcare is no different. We don't say, "Better get a bucket and some water to go with those bootstraps."
        lawpoop 10y ago
        > they inspect buildings and businesses to make sure fire codes are followed. I don't understand how you can be for this but against public health care. If a business owner or landlord doesn't want their building to burn, wouldn't they install these fire-prevention measures themselves? Wouldn't they invite the fire marshall (or a market-accredited 3rd party fire inspector) on their own? Why do we need Big Government coming in and forcing these measures on owners of private property, at the barrel of a gun, no less? If you're saying that I benefit because the building I work at, or the store where I buy my groceries from doesn't burn down, don't I similarly benefit if my co-worker or vendor account manager doesn't get hospitalized or die from liver failure? I might not care about them personally, but losing them might hinder my ability to conduct business, as much as my place of work being shuttered due to fire. Or are people much more fungible than buildings?
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        In Texas they have a more lax fire code situation. The State Fire Marshall can use any code they like. They regularly inspect only state buildings. Others are inspected upon a complaint only. And they are overridden by any local body e.g. county Fire Marshall. That varies all over the map at the whim of local electorates.
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      Everyone doesn't use roads. We're basically just socializing UPS and Wal-Mart's infrastructure. The vast majority of road damage is caused by trucking. Should be paid for by the people who are trucking the goods, no? No one should wonder why the Waltons are so rich: the interstate system and welfare cover much of their logistics and payroll bill. And if you think everyone uses police, you've clearly not talked to many black people. Generally speaking, the police won't come in a timely fashion unless you live in certain neighborhoods which break along race lines.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        > Everyone doesn't use roads. Everyone who doesn't grow all of their own food uses roads, IMO.
        erikpukinskis 10y ago
        You can buy plenty of food in most areas without using the interstate system. We can quibble about what roads we want to focus on and to what extent people use, overuse, or underuse, but the point is different people use the resource to different extents and yet there is a flat tax.

dzdt 10y ago

They don't want to pay taxes for that. Given the choice, most evangelical Christians in America will pick lower taxes and reduced or eliminated government role in providing social services.

fgandiya 10y ago
Fair enough... But I still find it strange.

gozur88 10y ago

There is a lot of disagreement on this point. Personally, I don't have a problem with these kinds of programs, but it's charity. Nobody should expect it.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
TIL social services are considered "charity". Are roads charity? Schools? Police? Fire? Military protection? If not, then why the hell is healthcare?
- gozur88 10y ago
  Yes, social services are charity. What else could you possibly call payments that are made purely because the recipient has a need he can't meet? The other services you listed benefit everyone. Everyone uses police, fire, and military services even if it's not obvious.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    How do I use fire services (if my property or the property I've used has never been threatened by fire) any less than I use public health by not contracting diseases from vaccinated people?
    - gozur88 10y ago
      The fire department makes a fire less likely - they inspect buildings and businesses to make sure fire codes are followed. Also, it's likely your property has never been threatened by fire because the fire department put out any fires that would have threatened you. In terms of public health, I wouldn't consider efforts to control communicable diseases to be charity, but that's not the example in the article.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        When your house has a fire, despite all efforts to prevent fires, the fire department comes and puts the fire out. Healthcare is no different. We don't say, "Better get a bucket and some water to go with those bootstraps."
      - lawpoop 10y ago
        > they inspect buildings and businesses to make sure fire codes are followed. I don't understand how you can be for this but against public health care. If a business owner or landlord doesn't want their building to burn, wouldn't they install these fire-prevention measures themselves? Wouldn't they invite the fire marshall (or a market-accredited 3rd party fire inspector) on their own? Why do we need Big Government coming in and forcing these measures on owners of private property, at the barrel of a gun, no less? If you're saying that I benefit because the building I work at, or the store where I buy my groceries from doesn't burn down, don't I similarly benefit if my co-worker or vendor account manager doesn't get hospitalized or die from liver failure? I might not care about them personally, but losing them might hinder my ability to conduct business, as much as my place of work being shuttered due to fire. Or are people much more fungible than buildings?
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        In Texas they have a more lax fire code situation. The State Fire Marshall can use any code they like. They regularly inspect only state buildings. Others are inspected upon a complaint only. And they are overridden by any local body e.g. county Fire Marshall. That varies all over the map at the whim of local electorates.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    Everyone doesn't use roads. We're basically just socializing UPS and Wal-Mart's infrastructure. The vast majority of road damage is caused by trucking. Should be paid for by the people who are trucking the goods, no? No one should wonder why the Waltons are so rich: the interstate system and welfare cover much of their logistics and payroll bill. And if you think everyone uses police, you've clearly not talked to many black people. Generally speaking, the police won't come in a timely fashion unless you live in certain neighborhoods which break along race lines.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      > Everyone doesn't use roads. Everyone who doesn't grow all of their own food uses roads, IMO.
      - erikpukinskis 10y ago
        You can buy plenty of food in most areas without using the interstate system. We can quibble about what roads we want to focus on and to what extent people use, overuse, or underuse, but the point is different people use the resource to different extents and yet there is a flat tax.