Capitalism and Catholic

[PetraG]

Yes. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is also a good resource that came out during his pontificate:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[phil3]

They give nothing. They are paid extremely well. What thanks do I owe anyone for doing their job?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CD3Y3C8/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[o_mlly]

There aren’t just “two systems.”

What are the other ones?

I cannot believe that anybody here wants devil-take-the-hindmost capitalism …

Nor do I. But that is not my issue. The issue is which way of organizing society to deploy limited resources produces the most goods and services. Both systems rely on humans to make the decisions and, therefore, there will be mistakes. I propose, as history proves, that state capitalism’s failures are catastrophic while private capitalism’s are not.

Your issue, which is equally important, is not about how we decide the goods and services to be produced but how those goods and services will be distributed. When we divide up the pie, the smaller the pie, the less there is for everyone.

I also question the central government ability to equitably control distribution in order to take care of those whose have fallen on hard times. Where socialism seems to work as a distributive system is in country’s whose populations are both small and homogeneous. The reason, I suspect, is: I am my brother’s keeper, seems to apply.

We would be better off if the care of those who are in need fell first upon their family, their church, the local community and then the state if, and only if, the former are not able to provide for their own. The principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are both met under such a system.

Centralizing social welfare in country’s with large populations opposes subsidiarity and invites corruption of the system at both ends – puts large sums of money in the hands of politicians and encourages freeloaders at the receiving end.

 

[phil3]

I find phil’s comment about all but 5% of elected or appointed leaders corrupt to be offensive in the extreme.

If you find this offensive to the extreme, wow, maybe getting some perspective is in order.

 

[PetraG]

What are the other ones?

Look around the world. There are lots of systems that are some combination of social safety net, private initiative and government-funded projects. Even in the area of hydroelectric power, some of the dams are federally-owned and some are private or local projects. I don’t know if there are any purely-capitalistic developed nations or any purely-socialistic/communistic ones, either, any more, not even in China and Cuba.

That is the thing, too: If you define socialism so that it is synonymous with communism, you’ve changed what socialism actually is. The word is pretty useless if you reduce it to meaning the same thing as some other societal concept.

I propose, as history proves, that state capitalism’s failures are catastrophic while private capitalism’s are not.

We know what happened when the safety of garment manufacturing workers was left up to the employer: I am sure you have heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. My family left Pennsylvania around 1900 or so because of the reality of what working for the coal companies would have been for our future. The appalling working conditions, the poverty existence of workers and their families, and violence of mine guards have been documented. So no, the history of private capitalism is not free of “catastrophes,” not by a long shot! There are too many instances where it only manages to be somewhat better than chattel slavery in that the boss couldn’t literally sell you or your family to someone else.

Actually, the truth is that even chattel slavery was, well, capitalism. It was making another person into your property. People actually ran capitalist enterprises in our country that way. I don’t think it is any more fair to make out socialism to be communism than it is to make capitalism into an enterprise that will make workers into chattel when the opportunity presents itself.

Worker’s unions came into being and people risked their lives to bring them into being because of how bad things get when capitalism has no bridle on it. We cannot afford to forget that.

 

[PetraG]

The state has a moral obligation to interfere to ensure wealth does not become too concentrated, and also to hold those with wealth accountable to helping those in need.

What? The government has a moral obligation to limit how much private property someone can own? Where did that moral obligation come from? It is one thing to say that the government has the moral authority to levy taxes for the general welfare and to levy more from those with the greatest ability to pay, but that is WAY different than having a duty to limit the amount of wealth some party or other can legally accumulate.

 

[phil3]

No it doesnt. Wealth is less concentrated today than in the past. We have less poverty today than any other time in history. We are 100 years removed from 70% of western population living in poverty. We are 150 years removed from 90% of the population living in poverty. Look at those countries living in poverty. They are by and far authoritarian governments.

I am a Conservative Libertarian Catholic. I want to live in a country with less authoritarian government. I want a decentralized government. I want a government that is limited as to what it can do for(to) me.

 

[o_mlly]

Look around the world. There are lots of systems that are some combination …

A combination is not a different but merely a hybrid system.

If you define socialism so that it is synonymous with communism …

I didn’t.

So no, the history of private capitalism is not free of “catastrophes,” not by a long shot!

Nobody claimed it was. ???

I do not see in your arguments or anecdotes that what I posted is not true.

 

[PetraG]

I didn’t.

In that case, there are at least three systems: Communism, Socialism and Capitalism, right?

Nobody claimed it was. ???

I do not see in your arguments or anecdotes that what I posted is not true.

I’m sorry, but it is what I took you to mean when you posted:

I propose, as history proves, that state capitalism’s failures are catastrophic while private capitalism’s are not.

 

[PetraG]

What are taxes but a way to redistribute where money is held?

Taxes are legitimately a way for the government to raise money from citizens to fulfill the government’s duties towards them. That might be in the form of funding law enforcement or in the form of funding projects for the general welfare or in the form of providing a safety net to those who are at risk of lacking the necessities of life. It is legitimate for the government to levy more of the amount needed to fulfill its duties from those who have a greater ability to pay.

That is a lot different from: You have too much wealth. Hand it over so I can give what belongs to you to someone else. That is not morally legitimate.

 

[o_mlly]

In that case, there are at least three systems: Communism, Socialism and Capitalism, right?

I believe communism is more properly described as a political system.

I’m sorry, but it is what I took you to mean when you posted: I propose, as history proves, that state capitalism’s failures are catastrophic while private capitalism’s are not.

The referent in my post for failures was in the production of goods and services.

 

[PetraG]

The referent in my post for failures was in the production of goods and services.

OK, in that case I am only saying that there are projects that are better done or at least planned by, say, the Army Corps of Engineers, those projects weren’t all catastrophes by any means. In general, I agree with you that most projects are better decided by those venturing the capital with the government there to take measures needed so that greed does not lead to offenses against workers, the general welfare, and so on. That’s not always an easy balance, because wanting to turn a profit on a capital venture is of course no sin and there are always risk-and-benefit trade-offs. Nothing we do as humans is “completely safe” or free from the chance that there could be a disaster.

(There are of course catastrophic failures in business ventures, but people tend to mind less when those represent capital of those who decided it was a good venture rather than the capital of tax revenue not coming from the pockets of those doing the planning.)

 

[o_mlly]

There are of course catastrophic failures in business ventures, but people tend to mind less when those represent capital of those who decided it was a good venture rather than the capital of tax revenue not coming from the pockets of those doing the planning.

Agreed. Most third-party payer schemes, as are all tax funded ventures, turn out bad.

 

[phil3]

I wrote all of this

No it doesnt. Wealth is less concentrated today than in the past. We have less poverty today than any other time in history. We are 100 years removed from 70% of western population living in poverty. We are 150 years removed from 90% of the population living in poverty. Look at those countries living in poverty. They are by and far authoritarian governments.

I am a Conservative Libertarian Catholic. I want to live in a country with less authoritarian government. I want a decentralized government. I want a government that is limited as to what it can do for(to) me.

And all you got from it was

Libertarianism is wholly incompatible with Christianity.

Can you prove this?

Here is why I believe I can be Catholic and Libertarian.

Summa of the Libertarian Catholic - The Libertarian Catholic

Our purpose in life is to be saints, promoting a civilization of truth and love (pro veritatis amorisque humanitate) but we understand that virtue cannot be forced—all moral action requires free will. As such, we hold that government must be restricted... Continue Reading →

thelibertariancatholic.com

https://freeisbeautiful.com/

What is a “Tea Party Catholic”?

www.catholicworldreport.com

 

[VonDerTann]

Phil, you know absolutely nothing about what you’re saying.

Many mayors, councilmen, etc., serve without compensation - or they are entitled to a stipend and they refuse it.

Many others who run for elected office are retired from other careers or do so for reasons unknown to you.

That is equally true for those who are appointed to various state and local positions.

I’ll change the subject when you admit you pulled that “5% aren’t corrupt” out of your ear and you actually know NOTHING about this subject.

 

[StudentMI]

Here is a well written article by a former Catholic libertarian.

Edward Feser: The road from libertarianism

 

[phil3]

typing in caps doesnt make your right,

 

[phil3]

I am a current libertarian catholic. I posted the links as to why.

 

[VonDerTann]

And pulling things out of your ear doesn’t make you right.

I respectfully repeat my question: do you admit you pulled the “5% aren’t corrupt” out of your ear and you really don’t know anything about this?

 

[phil3]

You know what elected and appointed officials I am taking about, I even posted a link. Read the book, learn something.

No I didnt pull it out of my ear. Do people really believe the people elected to congress for decades are really doing out of the goodness of their hearts? How many enter congress with little net worth but leave worth millions? How many President entered the white house with little money and two or three years after they leave office they are worth millions and millions?