President Bush has promised to veto another bill that, according to the press, would "allow federal funds to be spent on embryonic stem cell research". An important point in this debate is the fact that private organizations and state governments are free to spend as much as they like on embryonic stem cell research. Another important point about this debate is how it is framed. By and large, the debate assumes that federal funding is the default, and that Bush is banning federal funding. While this is true, it is equally true that federal funds come from taxation, and taxes are compulsory. So, it would be equally true to say that proponents of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research are in favor of threatening U.S. citizens with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to donate money to such research, even though the benefits of stem cell research have not been proven and many Americans find the research methods to be unethical. Currently, financial support for embryonic stem cell research is voluntary. It operates under the governance of freedom and the free market: altruists can donate as much money as they want in order to potentially find cures for various diseases, and capitalists can invest as much as they want in order to make profits on the sale of any potential cures.
Honestly, this logic can be applied to pretty much any government program. Any time the government spends money, it does so through compulsory taxes that are enforced by threat of further fines and/or imprisonment. And every dollar the government spends should have to pass through a series of questions: Is it necessary? Is it ethical? Is it effective? Is it right and proper that the government should levy taxes through compulsion, rather than allow free people to spend their money voluntarily? This is not to say that the government should not do anything, but rather that the government (and the people) do not hold government spending to a high enough standard. This is why we need more pork butchers in Congress, because our government needs to set higher standards for the money it spends.
6 comments:
This seems peculiar to me. This would be akin to complaining that a church spends too much of your tithe money on funding a children's ministry because you dislike kids. Trust me. I've tried. People just look at you funny.
I can't really see how the analogy fits. 1) Tithing is voluntary, whereas taxation is compulsory. If you feel your objection is valid and important, then you can go to a different church; leaving the country for another isn't really a very viable option. 2) Your objection has nothing to do with whether you think the ministry is ethical, effective, or should be considered a part of the church's function. I don't oppose stem cell research because I don't like Michael J. Fox, I oppose stem cell research because I'm morally opposed to taking one life to save another. If you opposed your church spending money on the children's ministry because they were teaching children derogatory terms for homosexuals, Jews, and Muslims; then the analogy would be fitting (and it would prove my point) because you would be arguing that the expenditure was unethical. If you opposed the church donating money to the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign because it didn't coincide with your understanding of the church's purpose, then your analogy would fit (and again, it would prove my point).
If you don't think that stem cell research is unethical, then you've got two options: you can try to convince me of your point of view, or you can try to convince the government to ignore me and trample my rights. The point of this post is impart an understanding that currently the proponents of federal funding are attempting to trample the rights of opponents.
In your example concerning a children's ministry, your rights deserve to be trampled because your objection is silly.
The suggestion that the parallel between tithing and taxation isn't strong is somewhat sad, don't you think? I suppose that I had assumed a stronger link between a church and it's congregation. But if your position is that church membership is fluid, then I suppose that my analogy doesn't fit.
I think that point of my comment was intended to jokingly note that your argument breaks down if you try to apply it to whatever it is that you don't approve of. Whether your argument is elegant or ridiculous (like mine was) isn't of any import, because an equally elegant argument could be made for the other side.
Chairman,
Even if church membership wasn't fluid, donations are still voluntary. Accountability exists.
I cannot imagine the hypothetical elegant argument you mention.
On an unrelated note, about the hip-hop comment you left, I've heard of a couple of West-Coast rappers that love Jesus, but I haven't checked them out yet. One group that has been doing it for a long minute is the "Gospel Gangstaz". They are straight West Coast, I believe one of them was a Crip and the other a Blood before they were transformed by God. Caveat Emptor on them, but I guarentee any Lecrae album will bring both beats and lyrics with the hotness.
Oneway - much appreciated recommendations on hip-hop.
With regard to tithing, I guess that things aren't explicitly clear, though I'm under the impression that it was law, originally. Or am I misreading the Old Testament?
As far as the elegant argument goes, one is the role of the government for large-scale activities and basic research. Much of the original argument comes from the thought that the free market allows for this sort of thing to happen. Much of the prosperity of this country has been built on its leading-edge basic research, which has been funded by the government. A very strong argument against the increasing rate of private funding of research is the shift from basic to applied research that is seen in this country. In years past, much of the superiority of our research has come from the emphasis on basic research (as opposed to Japan, which had been doing a lot of applied research, and is only more recently changing back to more basic research), as well as our attitude of relatively open borders for leading edge research. Basically, regardless of specific context, other organizations around the world are taking on this research. For us to leave it behind is a great risk.
As far as trampling rights, do we have the right to approve of how every tax dollar is spent?
I'm pretty sure this thread is exhausted, but I'm going to leave a comment anyway.
Regarding the parallel between tithing and taxation. While I certainly think that it's sad that not enough people tithe, I would certainly think it was much sadder if my church opened up an abortion clinic in the basement without so much as an objection from the congregation. If my church is openly sinning with the money it has, it's my right and duty as a congregant to demand change; and if the church organization continues to sin in spite of the rebuke, then I would feel obligated to seek another community lest I be held accountable for those same sins. I'm not talking about preferences, and I'm not talking about elegant arguments; I'm talking about serious ethical concerns. And serious ethical concerns should not be dismissed because someone thinks, "That's just my point of view, other people have other points of view."
"As far as trampling rights, do we have the right to approve of how every tax dollar is spent?"
If we don't have the right to approve or disapprove of a procedure that many believe, including myself, amounts to mass murder. We don't have the "right" to demand accountability, we have an OBLIGATION to demand accountability.
Post a Comment