I strongly disagree with the idea of transferring responsibility from an individual person to a non-person. The state is not a person. It is made up of people, but it is not a person (and the jokes/absurdly serious statements about corporations being people begin). Trying to push responsibility onto groups of people defined in arbitrary ways is a very clever method of deflecting personal responsibility. It is so naturally human to deflect responsibility, but this method allows for the maximum amount of self-deception. One can truly believe that they are not (or less) personally responsible because they are forcing everyone else to do the ‘right’ thing.

This is my alternate proposal:

The individual whose conscience is pricked at poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and disease bears a legitimate responsibility for resolving social issues. If a person claims that they have no responsibility for resolving large social issues, no person or government should make that individual use his resources to resolve those issues. But the person who admits that they feel a responsibility must deal with his own conscience regarding how he uses his resources. Neither the “general Welfare”, nor the “Blessings of Liberty” are well-served by forcing someone to use his resources to resolve issues he feels no responsibility to resolve. Conversely, the general Welfare and the Blessings of Liberty thrive when someone uses his resources, with no threat of force, to help resolve issues he feels responsibility to resolve.

My further proposal to the Christian:

There is no “divine mandate to do public justice” for the government (at least not in the Christian faith). The divine mandate is to the individual.
Furthermore, the individual Christian has a divine mandate not only to seek public justice (deserved reward) but to extend grace (undeserved reward) to the impoverished whether or not their poverty is a result of “personal indolence” and “private vice.” We have no reason to expect ethical behavior from the world and there is no divine mandate to withhold grace from unbelievers if we judge them to be deserving of the poverty/sickness that afflicts them.

In this same vein, it is wrong of us to take, by threat of force, the resources that others have earned for the purpose of using those resources to help ourselves, other people, or even the person from whom we are stealing. Instead, it is honest and fair to convince others to freely give their resources to help ourselves, other people, or the person whom you are convincing.

Not only is it wrong to take the resources of others, by threat of force, but it robs them of the possible happiness of helping others of their own accord, and falsely absolves them of the divine mandate to which they will eventually be held accountable.

Sorry, I thought you were bringing in a new topic of discussion. If I had simply re-read the article I would have known exactly what you are talking about. My humble apologies.

If this question is directed towards me, I must admit that I am not familiar with the question to which you are alluding. Can you elaborate?

If it neglects or oversteps the Constitution, we have a right to demand change in these instances. If it is not guilty of either of these two things we can still seek change, but we can not ask the government to neglect or overstep the bounds of the constitution whether we think it is for the “common good” (a phrase not found in the constitution) or not. We must amend the constitution first.

While Mike’s argument basing the role of government on the individual and the family is interesting, it is quite different from the reasoning that the writers of the Constitution gave. We are free to disagree with the writers of the Constitution, but unless one’s goal is to amend the Constitution, it isn’t particularly helpful to define the role of the state apart from the language of the Constitution.

For instance, the Constitution most certainly talks about general welfare (quite similar to common good). It occurs in the preamble, outlining one of the desired outcomes of a government based on this document. The only other place the phrase is used is in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I go back to the original text to show that the Constitution is pretty vague on what kinds of activities are or are not included in providing for the “general Welfare.” The argument over how this part of the text should be interpreted is at the center of all political issues that question the government’s role in taxing, spending, and legislating for the “general Welfare”

Here is a good place to start in understanding the background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#Limitations_on_taxing_power

2) State exists only as a function for the individual. No individual, no state. An individual exists only within the context of a family. No family, no individual. So State exists as a function of the family which creates and nurtures individuals. Social issues such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and disease cannot be solved independently solely by the individual. The individual left completely of his own resource cannot solve anything. He first needs his family. Next he needs opportunity within the social political environment to make use of his family’s guidance. A family cannot exist in a silo outside the greater social community. State bears a responsibility in providing an equitable framework for the common good of the state.