The pro-choice movement’s design flaw, part 3

Just came across this from Matt Walsh at The Blaze:

I can’t help but notice a potential correlation between [the Democrats] eagerness to murder the next generation and their inability to win elections. There is an argument to be made, at least, that you can’t cultivate future voters by ripping them to pieces and selling them for parts…

He goes on to defend this assertion, then makes another important point as well:

…how can we [pro-life Christians] be so selfish, bigoted, and hateful if we’re the ones trying to convince you to stop killing your children? Pro-life Christians would benefit the least from the abolition of abortion, yet we are the only ones calling for it to be abolished. If we really hate black people, why are we trying to see to it that more black people are permitted to enter the world? If we really hate women, why are we advocating for a policy that would result in more of them existing? If we really hate you, why are we arguing in favor of something that may ultimately help your political objectives more than it helps ours?

If we were truly hateful and bigoted (and politically savvy) we would celebrate your abortions more than you do. Every time another abortion clinic opened in the inner city, we would be there to cut the ribbon and throw a parade. Instead, we’re there to protest and pray. Why is that? Why are we trying to help you and save your children if we are so filled with hate?

Read the whole thing:

Other posts in this series:

What will conservatives be able to conserve if HRC wins?

#NeverTrumpers are in a panic over Trump’s highly inappropriate remarks that he made 11 years ago. Some who previously supported him are backing away from him.
I don’t understand what these conservatives think they will be conserving if HRC wins. Can someone enlighten me? I can’t accept criticism of Trump from social liberals like Jonah Goldberg. Anybody who supports the redefinition of marriage has zero moral ground to criticize Trump’s sexual statements. Regardless of Goldberg’s views on abortion, the redefinition of marriage entrenches abortion and fractured families. Somehow this fact escaped him, which indicates a lack of careful thought on his part. This is not acceptable given his position and education. I wouldn’t try to talk him out of being personally prolife, but he is not qualified to speak on behalf of the prolife cause. This is because he has not understood how sexual “liberation” connects abortion and same-sex marriage (and a lot of other social issues). 
Maybe there’s somebody else who can convince me that there is an excellent chance HRC won’t do irreparable damage to conservatism. She’s going to install justices at the federal level that will govern policy for at least 30 years. We’re all too old to be much impacted by that (probably), but I have children and a grandchild (and more grandchildren coming, someday, God willing) and they are all going to be greatly impacted by it.
I didn’t ask for Trump, I didn’t want Trump, I didn’t vote for Trump. But he’s not HRC. Unlike HRC, there is no guarantee that he will entrench every single social policy we hate, plus enact more. In fact, he appears to be moving in a direction we can support. What gives? Dear God, 4-8 more years of Dem control of the executive branch? #NeverTrump people are OK with that? I’d rather tarnish my reputation among liberals and some conservatives by voting for Trump than look at my grand daughter and **know** I contributed to liberal social policies and immigration issues being entrenched by not voting for him.
#NeverTrumpers: the policies I care about stand a better chance under Trump than under HRC, don’t they? What is it you are hoping to conserve under an HRC administration? 

Why abortion and capital punishment are not equal

A friend on Facebook posted a link to this homily that was given by a priest in the Diocese of Phoenix, at the Saints Simon and Jude Cathedral last Sunday. It is so good. I’ve talked before about the importance of making proper distinctions. That’s what he does.

If you haven’t already, you will come across liberal Catholics who maintain that abortion isn’t any more important than other “life” issues such as capital punishment, helping the poor, education, etc. This priest demolishes that notion with an interesting and revealing thought experiment. He makes it very clear which political party we need to support in November without mentioning any names. Well worth the 20 minutes.

Evaluating the State as a vehicle for poverty alleviation

Please read my post from yesterday if you haven’t yet. It will help you understand the argument I make today.

Here is a diagram I made based on the essay I linked yesterday. Notice how far removed the recipients are from the donors (taxpayers). Also notice the accountability loop:

Did Jesus intend for donors (taxpayers) and recipients to be so far removed from each other?

Is Jesus happy with this system? I don’t know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. The verses in the New Testament indicate that we are to give to the poor directly–that is the plain reading of the texts. Why did he phrase it like that? Was it so that we would be close to the poor, to look at them, to touch them, breathe the same air they breath, see how they live? I think so. In the state-sponsored system, we see how far removed donors and recipients are from each other.

Somebody might counter that this is OK because it is an agency relationship. If so, I disagree. This isn’t a true agency relationship, since it is based on fear/coerced “giving” and the principal (taxpayer) does not have direct control over the agent (the state). For example, try not paying the portion of your taxes that would otherwise go to the poor. Tell the IRS that you will donate that money to a worthy charity instead. See how much control you have (as the principal) over the agent (the IRS). It is actually the other way around. The agent controls the relationship. That is fine as far as it goes (Romans 13:1-7), but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that this is a true agency. It isn’t.

philemon-1-14So our state-sponsored poverty alleviation system is not an agency, it is based on fear or coercion, it lacks accountability to the donor (taxpayer), it separates donors from recipients, it fosters moral hazard/rent-seeking behaviors, it thwarts intact family formation, and creates occasions for temptations to various kinds of sin (for the donors/taxpayers, the administrators, and the transfer recipients). A lot of people like this system, even those who are not transfer recipients. I wonder how they get around all of the problems I mentioned. Do the the ends justify the means in this case?

The Modern State as an Occasion of Sin

You may have seen Facebook meme’s like these:




These are not arguments, only conclusions. I think it is important to understand the underlying argument being made with those kinds of memes. This is the best treatment I’ve seen, especially since it is thoroughly Catholic:

The Modern State as an Occasion of Sin: a Public Choice Analysis of the Welfare State

My thoughts/summary:

By endorsing the state-sponsored method of poverty alleviation, we are creating two types of temptations discussed in the essay (the welfare administrator’s temptation to make capricious decisions in the allocation of tax dollars, and the payment-receiver’s temptation to use deception and/or opportunistic behavior to participate in the program). We have also created a system that is not directly accountable to the people who fund it. The state serves as a wedge between the donors (taxpayers) and the recipients, effectively keeping them apart from each other. This method of poverty alleviation lacks a direct way to be controlled by donors (taxpayers). It is not rightly viewed as an agency relationship for two reasons: 1) donors are required to fund the program. 2) Lacking competence to discover or create morality, this method creates a moral hazard (or rent-seeking) problem. Because of these issues, this method fosters resentment in the donors (taxpayers). Taxpayers are required to fund this method, but there is no corresponding requirement for recipients to be accountable to the taxpayers for how the money was spent.

Continued tomorrow.