Religion & Law

William Van Ornum, over at America, shares this post, called "Capitalism and the Welfare State", in which he engages this interesting question, which was raised by Jim Manzi at National Review a few days ago:

"How can capitalism and democracy become less inimical--or even partners with--the kind of Catholic social justice pioneered by Leo XII and now extended by B16 in his call for universal health coverage?"

First, hats off to Van Ornum, Manzi, America, and National Review for this cross-political-camps exchange, which seems to me to have potential.  Next, what do people think of Van Ornum's statement that:

Jim Manzi does us all a favor, first by clearly stating the four major activities of a welfare state, then by unbundling the five elements that undergird the working welfare state. He argues that welfare programs provide a safety net; they incorporate varying levels of risk; they may require prudent behavior on the part of beneficiaries; they may redistribute wealth beyond the theoretical dimensions of an Adam Smith capitalism; and they may provide goods and services directly to recipients.

A careful reading of Manzi, I suspect, can help us to a common ground discussion rather than either/or arguments based on dogmatism or restatements of past ideologies. What do you think? Some possible questions for discussion: How much of a safety net should the state provide in pensions? Should state sponsored healthcare cover the smallers things or just emergencies? How do we determine who deserves welfare payments? What consitutes an adequate level of investment in public education?