A debate with friends much smarter than me (and the varied perspectives that come with it)

Original post by Lucas: Lucas is very afraid of an Obama presidency. From each according to his ability to each according to his need is not what America is about.

Responses:

Jess: Maybe. Maybe not. Although I'd say every form of civilization has some element of this. Regardless, his statement was not meant WITHIN America, but OUTSIDE of it. People need to know the context.The “Global Poverty Act of 2007" introduced by Obama & passed in the House of Representatives last Sept in order to to “fight global poverty.”Obama called the bill “a down payment on America’s moral obligation to the poor of the world.” He says: “I have always held that the principle guide to economic policy ought to be ‘FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.'” There's the catchphrase.“The bill is just a first step in transforming the world,” Obama continued. “... I hope to lead this country away from its exploitive past toward a new age of generosity. We will change our image from one of being the reaper of ill-gotten gains to that of global benefactor to the poor and dispossessed.” ..."Sounds Biblical, not socialist.
P.S. Hi Lucas...happy voting day...and I'm a registered Republican. :)

Bre: Actually, it sounds Biblical because it is. The phrase is derived from this verse: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)

Lucas: I have no doubt in my mind that Obama would advocate redistribution of income, the crux of that statement, both within and outside of the United States. There already is redistribution of income within America, as is evidenced by the progressive structure of the income tax code. Obama has already stated intent to increase the progressive nature of income taxes. I also do not disagree that the phrase is Biblical but I also believe that there is socialism within the Bible. Thus, the phrase is both Biblical and socialist.
My problem with the phrase is not with the derivation but with the content. Who determines "need"? An arbitrary governmental group? What happens if someone with "ability" no longer wants to give the fruits of that ability to the "greater good" and simply quits producing? Should the government have the authority to force that person to continue to produce? In my opinion, this country is not the reaper of ill gotten gains on the backs of the world's poor. This country is the richest in the history of the world because its people have incentives, getting rich being the most obvious, to produce the output that makes the country so well off. Whether one believes that getting rich is noble or to be strived for is up to that person but the results cannot be disputed. I believe that the rest of the world, countries rich and poor, is better off, not worse off, because of the existence of the United States and the freedoms and opportunities of its citizens.

Bre: Well, as a graduate student at a public university I am a beneficiary of redistribution in many ways. Primarily, because of my education, but also because of the roads I drive on, the mail I receive, the police force that protects me, the library where I check out books, etc are all the "product" of distribution. I choose to call this "infrastructure" and it serves all of us "according to our needs" through the redistribution of wealth acquired through taxation.
As far as the world being better off because of the presence of the US...that is definitely open to interpretation and a long discussion on the history of neo-liberalism among other things. I think we can both agree that the US functions better with a stable economy, informed and engaged citizens,opportunities for innovation, and a stable global network. The support of these endeavors generally comes from "redistribution" (taxes). Be careful not to equate redistribution with welfare, because it is more and we all benefit.

Jess: Bre, my original comment had a similar comment that taxation is one form of redistribution (until I had to cut it because the final quote wouldn't fit because of lengthiness). I agree completely. Suave semantics is the only difference between the two.Here in America, I too, am a graduate student at a public university, enjoying the benefits of cheap tuition. Oh, and I voted today...at a fire station...both available in part to the redistribution of wealth. But, not to belabor the pointSo, to shift the perspective, I want to recognize that the government already recognizes ability. Take SAT scores, for example. The mean SAT scores of students correlates perfectly to mean parental income, when broken down in increments and compared on an xy graph. Who writes the test? Dominant culture in America decides who has ability and who doesn't...already. So, if we're going to corner people into a life that has been decided for them...we might as well help them out...don't you think?

Lucas: "Suave Sematics"? I like it. I think I'll try to use it in conversation. Speaking of sematics, I would actually call taxation a tool for redistribution and not a form of it, whereas I would call welfare a form of redistribution. Again, just sematics. I would agree that there is redistribution that is beneficial, even necessary, particularily those items that the open market would not provide in the absence of government; streets, police, fire, military, etc. In my opinion, the primary factor that places people on the left to right spectrum that is American politics is the level to which people believe the government should be involved in their lives. I will readily admit that I believe the government should as small as possible and provide minimal services, a fairly extreme view, while those on the left side of the spectrum should believes the government should provide significantly more services: single payer health care for example.

Lucas: That said, I do not want an Obama presidency. That said, I do realize that any president will be just that, not an all powerful king, and that the established checks and balances as well as every politician's highest priority, re-election, will moderate their actions. Ultimately, I expect my life to be pretty much the same under Obama, McCain, or whomever else is in the post. Thanks for the debate!

Bre: It's been fun. I would normally agree with you on your government argument, but the last eight years have actually increased the government and the government's role in everyday life. I think the main distinction now is what _should_ be the government's role. I think you are right, the role of bureaucracy is to mediate the systems and changes in government.

Jess: I, though it sounds like not quite as "extreme" as you Lucas, agree with both of you and the less-is-more Republican ideal, when it comes to government...which is why I remain (at least for now) a registered Republican. However, I do feel like the government and bureaucracy that has been created in America is flawed. And, more government intervention is, in my opinion, the only way to get us back on track toward less government. This sounds counter-intuitive. So, an example:Public schools - The damage that No Child Left Behind has done is going to take goverment intervention to correct. The alternative of abandoning public schools and allowing for vouchers - "or less government" - would be catastrophic to the school system and its students and families...and all the way back up to the government.Regardless, I always respect a voter more for their understanding & reasons more than for the person they vote for! Good to talk to you guys! Go team. :)