That entire chapter is well-written and echoes/defends what I've said here in this post, primarily by pointing out that social contract theory on a large-scale, such as federal or even state/province, is not a truly social cooperative as is other forms of collectivizing. I've often wondered why large-scale attempts to implement what we can anachronistically read back into Acts 2 as “successful socialism” where the believers all shared equally and “no one had need” are unsuccessful. After pondering and evaluating, it has to do with the fact that it was voluntary, not compulsory. Smaller groups of collective action intended to change that within their reach is not unethical or unbiblical. In fact, it is deeply biblical and rooted in kingdom change.

Kevin that is exactly what it is . Many conservatives have done the same , . Its why I sometimes feel out of touch with many of my fellow conservatives who use religion to justify less spending and smaller government . I agree its my philosophy for the most part to keep government smaller and out of our hair, and I do belive larger government has the stronger potential to limit our religious freedom and all freedoms at times. , but it is my partisan belief . The hypocrisy I find with the religious left goes beyond the right from a outside view looking at them both . Here you have the left saying to the right since when are you able to speak for God , then they do it plus demonize the right . As I said , I believe we have accomplished great things in our past in this country , because freedom and freedom from government control have allowed us to be all we can be . That advantage has greatly increasded our standard of living for all people , including if not mainly the poor . Compared to many nations , our poor have it much better and have more safety nets then many nations .

I judge our commitment to the poor by how many people do not need government help. That to be is just common sense .

The “social contract” argument is not an argument. It has no internal logic, and cannot be consistently applied. That is why it is so dangerous. One can argue from “social contract” to apply any ethical code they choose.

Valerie would never argue that we have a social contract that requires us to buy me new windows, so the social contract is not all encompassing. As such, it is an intellectually lazy substitute for a principled defense of a real policy change on healthcare.

Which begs a question. Valerie, presumably, wants the best for this country, and wants to advance the best ideas therefore. So what gives?

It seems to me that the “social contract” business is simply a way to reconcile faith to partisan objectives. Am I wrong?

Doctors make money from health care , teachers make money from educating , politicians make money from taking money from one person and giving it to the other . Read the other day Barny Frank has an estate over a million bucks . Not to bemoan anyone from making money , but it seems he makes money using healthcare, , good money, and has better health care , and benys then the average American . Plus the Insurance company pays taxes , Barny lives off their taxes .

Teachers and Doctors are alright , two out of three ain't bad I guess.

If we had taken the redistribution route 200 years ago , we would not be talking about redistributing now , we would be telling people to expect less then what they had last year . Thats the real sin of socialism , communism, or redistribution , all people suffer in the long run , especially the poor . It sounds very nice to tell a child to have what you want and need , but it is so much more loving to teach the child how to get what they want and need because only God has the trust people should rely on . Government is not evil , but the love of government can become a false idol .