Capitalism is such am ambiguous word. Crony corporatism? ABSOLUTELY anti-Christain. Free property and means of production? Totally Christian!
If that is the case, the original source of the interview is the Roman Catholic-operated Salt and Light Media Foundation, “a unique instrument of the New Evangelization,” in their words, endorsed by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Vatican Television Center, and many departments of the Vatican.To a degree I agree except that in L&C (language and communication) we were basically taught to consider the source;
So I certainly do clandestinely read profiles.
Fr. Thomas Rosica has a checkered past in his interviews. One of the most egregious was his fawning interview with former priest Gregory Baum. Mr. Baum supports many things contrary to the Church’s teaching, like contraception, homosexuality, abortion, the priesthood, etc, etc etc.
It appears that the posts of both the author of my quote and the object of his words have been deleted apparently by the moderator
I’ll give you a very good reason why health insurance plans will not be as effective when they are run by local units of government: Mobility. People rarely stay in the same place all their lives. They move, and it would be a shame to place an artificial barrier to this movement by having them loose their health insurance or remain trapped in their locality the rest of their lives. With your plan, all government health insurance plans would be local. If you get sick while living in Michigan, then you move to Arizona, do you expect Michigan to continue to provide your medical benefits long after you have left Michigan? Do you expect Arizona to take you on with your pre-existing condition, knowing full well they will definitely lose money on you? How does your plan solve this problem?
Thank you!!
Well first, there’s absolutely NO reason that insurance companies can’t sell across state lines. That’s a manufactured barrier-to-entry that protects larger insurance companies from the competition of smaller ones.
I’m not talking about private insurance companies. I’m talking about Medicare, or any universal health insurance program. And what I said about state-run insurance programs is even more true for private insurance companies. If you are insured by a small private insurance company in Michigan, there are plenty of good administrative reasons why this company would not want to cover you when you move to Arizona. The local Michigan company might not have the resources to work with the health care professionals in Arizona. Or the doctors in Arizona, who have never heard of this small Michigan company, are going to have a harder time processing claims for you.
Once you admit the role of federal regulations in requiring certain things be done with regard to health insurance you have just shot your subsidiarity argument in the foot.
Sorry, the job is already filled.I think it was a brilliant political move by Bernie Sanders.
Has he nominated a vice president yet?
To be fair though, criticism of capitalism does not necessarily mean that one is a socialist. Many on the far-right, particularly fascists, oppose capitalism, albeit for different reasons than inequality (such as perceived materialism and anti-nationalism). One could be for a mixed economy, for example, or perhaps for economic corporatism (incidentally common among fascists and authoritarian conservatives).
Fascists aren’t against capitalism, despite their rhetoric. Mixed economies and corporatist economies are not separate modes of production to capitalism, they’re just different forms of capitalist economies. Any economy with privately owned means of production and wage labour is capitalist.
Fascists aren’t far right. This is a myth the left has perpetuated to hide the reality of their views. Fascists are just a different flavor of socialism. They are far left. They allow private ownership of property, but they are the ones who control how it is run and what it does.
Assuming by “free property” you mean an unlimited right to accumulate property, you’ll have to tell that to St. John Chrysostom:
You can’t allow private ownership of property and be socialist. That’s a contradiction. By your own words fascists aren’t far-left.
If by “world” it is meant secular Western media, probably true.
It’s just a polticial ploy. Rush Limbaugh has insinuated more than once that the Pope is communist/socialist.
On the contrary, fascism is more or less an attempt to redefine socialism to be fitting for nationalistic purposes (hence National Socialism would literally imply something along the lines of social ownership for a nation, as opposed to humankind in general). The left-right spectrum is not a measurement of economics, but rather a measurement of views on equality; thus fascists are in fact far-right, because they represent a very anti-egalitarian political worldview, with its strong devotion to the national rebirth of an ethnic nation-state, and its fervent exaltation of the nation itself. It is not the mechanisms, but rather the goals of an ideology, that make it left-wing or right-wing (which is how Mao is considered far-left, but Hitler is considered far-right, for example, even though they were both totalitarians).
Nope. That’s a nonsensical scale that doesn’t differentiate between vastly different ideologies. The actual political scale runs the gamut of government power, from total anarchy and zero government, to socialism/communism. Fascism is next to these two because of they are all totalitarian and controlling, just differing in who owns the means of production, but in each the government is supreme.