[arrosenberg]

> I think most tax grumbling comes from taxes rising (and, arguably, still not rising enough) to pay for bigger and bigger programs with an increasingly tenuous relationship to law or order.

The Constitution addresses this confusion in its' preamble. The role of the government includes law and maintaining order, but it extends further -

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[AnthonyMouse]

A perfectly valid way of reading "promote the general welfare" is as a constraint on the government, i.e. it shouldn't do anything not consistent with that premise, not that it's empowered to do anything that is. The latter would be inconsistent with the overall architecture of the constitution as setting out a government of enumerated powers.

But the preamble to the constitution isn't legally binding anyway.

[arrosenberg]

Even if you read it that way, it's not really a constraint. If I believe socialized healthcare improves the general welfare, then even your reading implies that it's something the government should be allowed to do. Maybe you don't think that should be it's overriding purpose, but I don't see how it constrains. If they wanted to be more specific, they could have been.

> But the preamble to the constitution isn't legally binding anyway.

No one said it was, but the intent of the framers, at least, is very clear - the government should do things that promote the general welfare, not merely establishing rule of law and enforcing civil order.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If I believe socialized healthcare improves the general welfare, then even your reading implies that it's something the government should be allowed to do.

It implies that it isn't something the government would be separately prohibited from doing, if they were otherwise allowed to do it.

Consider how the First Amendment works. The constitution explicitly gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". But if they tried to pass a law saying that you couldn't quote a politician to demonstrate that politician's hypocrisy or mendacity as a violation of the politician's copyright in their own words, that law would be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.

A binding requirement for the government to "promote the general welfare" should likewise e.g. prohibit the government from issuing no-bid contracts to politicians' cronies for the operation of Post Offices, even though the government is explicitly authorized to operate Post Offices, because corruption doesn't promote the general welfare.

If you wanted the government to have the power to operate a healthcare system then you should have to amend the constitution to grant that power to Congress, since they didn't have it originally. Or have your socialized healthcare system(s) operated by the states.