Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
deMontfort said:
That’s parsing words looking for a loophole.
Click to expand...
No, it is just being precise with definitions. Some have argued that Obamacare is socialism but medicare is not. That is a clear case of not having precise definitions.
 
No, that’s looking for loopholes. Something unscrupulous lefties spend most of their time doing.
 
A good example is lefties play fast and loose with the term “Fascism”, but the moment somebody mentions Socialism, Communism, or any of the other incarnations of Marxism, the lefties start parsing words and demanding “precise definitions”.

BTW, the lefty definition of “Fascism” is typically something like “anyone who isn’t a Marxist”.
 
deMontfort said:
No, that’s looking for loopholes. Something unscrupulous lefties spend most of their time doing.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that I am a lefty? If you are, then just come out and say it. For you to argue that demanding precise definitions is somehow unscrupulous is one of the most bizarre arguments I have ever seen.
 
Still trying to justify looking for loopholes. And wasting my time. Conversation over.
 
deMontfort said:
BTW, the lefty definition of “Fascism” is typically something like “anyone who isn’t a Marxist”.
Click to expand...
Actually, its a little bit more precise than this- A Fascist is “anyone who isn’t my brand of marxist”. Stalin and Trotsky referred to each other as fascists.
 
That’s very true. That went on until Stalin used the usual Marxist way of settling spats by having Trotsky axe murdered.
 
deMontfort said:
That went on until Stalin used the usual Marxist way of settling spats by having Trotsky axe murdered.
Click to expand...
Mr. Trotsky was a Marxist too, I’m sure he would have done the same to Mr. Stalin if he had gotten the chance.
 
deMontfort said:
Still trying to justify looking for loopholes. And wasting my time. Conversation over.
Click to expand...
I think you need to back off from the mind reading. You need to stop bearing false witness. I am neither a lefty nor am I unscrupulous. It is clear from your posts that you are completely unable to have an intelligent conversation so I think you will be doing everyone a favor by refraining from posting here. As to whether or not I am looking for a loophole, I have no idea why I would want a loophole. I am sure you have no idea either. But before you make accusations, I would make sure you have your facts straight. Otherwise, you are adding nothing to the conversation by making completely unsubstantiated allegations.
 
I told you the conversation was over. Any further posts by you addressed to me WILL be flagged for harassment.
 
Flagged for harassment. So as not to clog up the thread, anyone reading this may assume that each and every time he addresses a post to me, it WILL WITHOUT FAIL be flagged for harassment.
 
deMontfort said:
Flagged for harassment. So as not to clog up the thread, anyone reading this may assume that each and every time he addresses a post to me, it WILL WITHOUT FAIL be flagged for harassment.
Click to expand...
Once again, the solution is simple, if you don’t want me to respond, then just ignore my posts.
 
Augustinian said:
“socialism” is a pretty broad target, it differs in degree as well as style “national” vs. “international” socialism.
Click to expand...
I would agree that socialism is a broad target. Unfortunately if we are going to determine what is to be condemned by the Church as socialism we need a precise definition of socialism. For example, there are those who condemn many government programs as socialism, for example, medicare for all has been criticized by some as a socialist program. However, it is clear that government provided medical care does not clearly fall into the definition of socialism, because many countries have it and the Church has not condemned it. That does not mean that government run healthcare is a prudent thing to do, it just means that it has not been condemned by the Church.
 
All this talk of socialism but hardly ever anything about free market stench. Following in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis also asked for forgiveness for the colonial crimes against the native people “during the so-called conquest of America.” He lashed out against “new colonialism” which takes the form of corporations, lenders, free trade treaties “and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor.” (quoted)….In light of unregulated free markets that run rough shod over working poor, Pope Francis has called unfettered capitalism the “dung of the devil”…in his famous MO of never mincing words. And yes, the church as early as rerum Novarum agrees but lets just say the encyclicals are written a bit more classically proper, shall we say…😆
 
“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized.

That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism , even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
  • Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931
 
Last edited:
And doesn’t this just end up costing America money anyway?
Eg:paying court judges to hear the cases of the illegal immigrants and also costs for their imprisonment.
 
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
deMontfort:
Because there’s too many people in this world who would rather be equally destitute than unequally wealthy. Very sad.
Click to expand...
That is the definition of envy.
Click to expand...
I would argue that envy, like greed is one of those overused terms that is often bandied about without much thought. It seems that if one is in favor of any government program that has any redistribution to it, one is accused on envy. The exception seems to be Medicare, somehow one can demand that others sacrifice for his Medicare and nobody will bring up envy. Go figure.
 
Turning to capitalism and in the context of affirming the efficiency of “the free market,” John Paul writes:
We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called “real socialism” leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development.1
Click to expand...
Again, he asks whether “capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society?” John Paul’s answer is:
The answer is obviously complex. If by capitalism is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a business economy, market economy, or simply free economy . But if by capitalism is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.2 A re-iteration of Rerum Novarum, which celebrates it’s centennial in Centesimus…!!!
Click to expand...

I believe the Church’s reasoning regarding socialism and the reduction of man to the cog in a wheel of many, based more of a denial due to atheism then economics…BUT I also believe the Church’s teaching on capitalism as seen above.

WE have the rock of ages in depth look, and it’s far superior to todays worship of unregulated capitalism (the golden calf of our times) which time and time again Catholic’s choose “cafeteria” style teaching vs the whole enchilada.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top