Children just must not go hungry

Originally posted by @thinkofone
"...to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me"

" to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."

"treat people the same way you want them to treat you"

"LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"

From a Biblical point of view, these references are very pertinent. But there are two questions I am interested in:

[1] Do these apply to the actions of Christian individuals [or those working in Christian groups on a voluntary basis] or to (secular) governments constituted from, and with authority over, heterogeneous peoples?

[2] To what extent should society/government intervene?

Originally posted by @fmf
From a Biblical point of view, these references are very pertinent. But there are two questions I am interested in:

[1] Do these apply to the actions of Christian individuals [or those working in Christian groups on a voluntary basis] or to (secular) governments constituted from, and with authority over, heterogeneous peoples?

[2] To what [b]extent should society/government intervene?[/b]

1) There's no reason that they shouldn't apply to both. The main point is that there are those who need help and it should be freely given.

2) They should intervene to the extent that help is needed.

In the US there's no reason other than greed, that people aren't provided food, shelter, medical care, etc.

It's really pretty simple.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
1) There's no reason that they shouldn't apply to both. The main point is that there are those who need help and it should be freely given.

Voluntarily, as with charity, or compulsorily through taxation and legally binding government measures?

Originally posted by @fmf
Voluntarily, as with charity, or compulsorily through taxation and legally binding government measures?

Whatever it takes. Clearly it isn't getting done through strictly voluntary means.

It's really pretty simple.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
2) They should intervene to the extent that help is needed.

In the US there's no reason other than greed, that people aren't provided food, shelter, medical care, etc.

With what restrictions placed on expenditure and entitlement? I am interested in the moral dimension of setting limits on what is done and setting the level of burden that is placed upon the other citizens who do not require help with food, shelter, medical care in the way that people in poverty do.

Originally posted by @fmf
With what restrictions placed on expenditure and entitlement? I am interested in the moral dimension of setting limits on what is done and setting the level of burden that is placed upon the other citizens who do not require help with food, shelter, medical care in the way that people in poverty do.

Whatever it takes. Clearly it isn't getting done through strictly voluntary means.

It's really pretty simple.

"Entitlement". Now that's part of the propaganda machine.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Whatever it takes. Clearly it isn't getting done through strictly voluntary means.

It's really pretty simple.

Setting some sort of definition of, or limit on, "whatever it takes" is not simple in the real world. Not at all. So what I'd find interesting is a discussion of the moral angle on deciding the extent of the government intervention.

Originally posted by @fmf
Setting some sort of definition of, or limit on, "whatever it takes" is not simple in the real world. Not at all. So what I'd find interesting is a discussion of the moral angle on deciding the extent of the government intervention.

Actually it is simple. You're making it more difficult than it is.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Actually it is simple. You're making it more difficult than it is.

What level of taxation, for example, would be morally justifiable? What things could people be compelled to do in a morally sound way in order to do "whatever it takes"? What programmes should be cut, and what is the moral dimension to doing that?

Originally posted by @fmf
What level of taxation, for example, would be morally justifiable? What things could people be compelled to do in a morally sound way in order to do "whatever it takes"? What programmes should be cut, and what is the moral dimension to doing that?

Whatever it takes. It's REALLY pretty simple. You're making it more difficult than it is.

Whatever level of taxation that it takes.

Whatever is necessary to do "whatever it takes".

Why should any programs be cut?

In the US there's no reason other than greed, that people aren't provided food, shelter, medical care, etc.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Whatever level of taxation that it takes.

What would be a morally justifiable upper limit, in terms of a percentage of income and/or wealth?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Why should any programs be cut?

Because of the limits on government resources.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Whatever is necessary to do "whatever it takes".

Presumably, you would not accept the government compelling citizens, for example, to accommodate homeless people in their private homes or to give away their land or other property. So "whatever it takes" needs to be defined.

Originally posted by @fmf
What would be a morally justifiable upper limit, in terms of a percentage of income and/or wealth?

It's REALLY pretty simple. You're making it more difficult than it is.

In the US there's no reason other than greed, that people aren't provided food, shelter, medical care, etc.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because of the limits on government resources.

It's REALLY pretty simple. You're making it more difficult than it is.

In the US there's no reason other than greed, that people aren't provided food, shelter, medical care, etc.