Catholic/Christian source on economics - is it socialism or capitalism

[mlchance]

He said tax collectors and prostitutes are getting into the kingdom before me?

Kind of humbling, huh?



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[goofyjim]

He said tax collectors and prostitutes are getting into the kingdom before me?

Only if you’re going to act judgemental as the Pharisees did. The point of my statement was that we can all have a different personal relationship with Jesus while remaining sinners. I have said it time and time again. I don’t see any saints on these forums. And noone here has Jesus or His Father completely figured out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kind of humbling, huh?



– Mark L. Chance.

I don’t mind tax collectors going to heaven.

I wish they’d all go.

Today.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Only if you’re going to act judgemental as the Pharisees did. The point of my statement was that we can all have a different personal relationship with Jesus while remaining sinners. I have said it time and time again. I don’t see any saints on these forums. And noone here has Jesus or His Father completely figured out.

Except you, right?

 

[goofyjim]

Except you, right?

Never said that. But I suppose you are allowed to put words in other’s mouths while noone else is. I continue to be a sinner. But I do have a personal relationship with Jesus. And the one I see is not the same as the one you might see. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Never said that. But I suppose you are allowed to put words in other’s mouths while noone else is. I continue to be a sinner. But I do have a personal relationship with Jesus. And the one I see is not the same as the one you might see. Nothing wrong with that.

Jim, you took the thread 90 degrees off topic with a sermon to the rest of us. When you do that, you should be prepared for people to comment on your sermon.

 

[bilop]

Also, I’m handicapped by not knowing exactly what you see as violations of the commandment against theft. For instance, some extreme proponents of capitalism think that “progressive” or “redistributive” taxation (i.e., taxing the rich in order to fund programs to help the poor or encourage small businesses) is theft. I’m not interested in arguing whether such an approach is practically helpful. Perhaps it isn’t. What I am willing to defend is that it is not theft. If the government decides that such measures promote the common good, they have the right to enact them and are not acting unjustly by doing so. Do you disagree?Edwin

I would say that the government does NOT have the right to enact a policy simply b/c it is viewed to be in the “common good”.

What defines “common good”? In a democratic system, it is what benefits 51% of the voting population. The people have no right to vote themselves other peoples property to fufill their own desires.

The government should limit itself to providing “public goods”, things people can not provide effectively for themselves. Things like National Defense, Courts, Police, local roads, etc.

The government should not be in the business of deciding who should have how much wealth. Most government programs could be very well handled privately.

Social Security should be replaced by private savings, even if the government mandates some savings so people do not throw themselves on the charity of others.

Education would be much better provided by private schools; your average catholic school costs abou 1/3 as much as a public school and achieves better results.

Health insurance should be bought privately.

And on, and on…

God Bless

 

[goofyjim]

Jim, you took the thread 90 degrees off topic with a sermon to the rest of us. When you do that, you should be prepared for people to comment on your sermon.

I was commenting on your slight against tax collectors. That is not taking the thread off topic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was commenting on your slight against tax collectors. That is not taking the thread off topic.

What slight – they are what they are, which is pretty low.

How go back and read the Gospels. Jesus didn’t associate with taxcollectors and prostitutes because taxcollectors and prostitutes are good. He associated with them to show **anyone **can be saved.

And those he saved gave up tax collecting and prostitution. Those who remained tax collectors and prostitutes were not saved.

 

[goofyjim]

What slight – they are what they are, which is pretty low.

How go back and read the Gospels. Jesus didn’t associate with taxcollectors and prostitutes because taxcollectors and prostitutes are good. He associated with them to show **anyone **can be saved.

And those he saved gave up tax collecting and prostitution. Those who remained tax collectors and prostitutes were not saved.

Prostitution may be a sin. Tax collecting is not. He told them not to collect more than what they were supposed to by law. Or am I reading a different gospel than you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Prostitution may be a sin. Tax collecting is not. He told them not to collect more than what they were supposed to by law. Or am I reading a different gospel than you?

So why are tax collectors lumped with prostitutes?

Hint: Go read up on how Roman tax collectors worked, and get back to us.

 

[goofyjim]

So why are tax collectors lumped with prostitutes?

Hint: Go read up on how Roman tax collectors worked, and get back to us.

I am aware of how they worked but it is not the actual collecting of a tax that is a sin. Remember when Jesus said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God? Doesn’t sound like he was opposed to an equitable tax system or condemning all tax collectors, just the crooked ones. Some just collect the proper amount and give it to the government without extorting more.

 

[goofyjim]

Vern, if you are going to oppose taxes how do you suggest we pay for these stupid wars we keep getting into?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am aware of how they worked but it is not the actual collecting of a tax that is a sin. Remember when Jesus said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God? Doesn’t sound like he was opposed to an equitable tax system or condemning all tax collectors, just the crooked ones.

You miss the point of that passage – it was an attempt to trick Him into saying, “Don’t pay the tax,” which would have been a crime and He could have been charged with rebellion. He didn’t say He approved of taxes – He simply did not advocate rebellion.

Some just collect the proper amount and give it to the government without extorting more.

Then you’re not aware of how the Roman tax collectors worked.

The tax collectors were private companies which bid for the job – the contract going to the company which bid highest. The individual tax collectors – who could call on Roman soldiers for “muscle” – then collected more than they bid. The difference was their profit!!

 

[Contarini]

I would say that the government does NOT have the right to enact a policy simply b/c it is viewed to be in the “common good”.

Then on what basis does the government have the right to do anything?

What defines “common good”? In a democratic system, it is what benefits 51% of the voting population.

But fortunately the United States still does not have a pure democracy, in spite of the efforts of some (in my view) misguided people. There is still a Bill of Rights, a Supreme Court, a somewhat indirect electoral method, two houses of Congress, etc.

The government should limit itself to providing “public goods”, things people can not provide effectively for themselves. Things like National Defense, Courts, Police, local roads, etc.

That is what I would define as the “common good.” But who is to say that a road is a “public good” and assistance to the poor isn’t? Most societies–at least most Christian societies–have considered assistance to the poor to be a public duty, however it is administered. And on the other hand there have been those who have argued that a free republic has no need for a standing army, which is only necessary in an imperialistic tyranny intent on waging wars of foreign aggression. A police force is also not self-evident. One could have neighborhood watches, posses, etc.

I’m not arguing that these positions are correct. I’m simply saying that it is not self-evident what “public goods” are. These decisions have to be made by societies using lawful and orderly procedures. One society may decide that a standing army is necessary; another may decide that it is unnecessary for defense and is in fact a menace to liberty. One society may fund road-building through taxation; another may rely on tolls and voluntary organizations. The same with providing for the poor. All just societies must do this. But how it is done is a different matter. The principle of subsidiarity dictates that if it can be done effectively at the local level it should not be the business of state or federal government. But the “if” is the question–it has to be resolved through pragmatic, prudential judgments. (I think a much better argument can be made on *moral *grounds against a standing army than against government programs to help the poor.)

The government should not be in the business of deciding who should have how much wealth.

I don’t see why this is any less the business of the government than anything else. If–to take an extreme example–one person owned all the property in the country, and every other citizen was economically dependent on that person, I think that would be a highly undesirable situation. The government would be justified in taking actions to prevent this from happening (obviously if it happened the government would be in that person’s pocket, so it would be too late to do anything). Now you may believe that the free market would never let this happen. That may be true, but it’s a pragmatic consideration. The point is that if it were likely to happen it would be the government’s business to prevent it from happening, because it would clearly be contrary to the common good. Inequalities of wealth therefore *are *the government’s business. I agree entirely that the government should not intervene except where clearly necessary, and should intervene in the least coercive way possible (i.e., outright seizure and redistribution of property is an absolute last resort).

Most government programs could be very well handled privately.

That may very well be true. And if so, then they should be. I am not a good enough economist to comment on most of your suggestions, but I tend to agree with regard to education. At least, I would like to see decisions about education made at a local and voluntary level, including decisions about what kind of “world view” should form the basis of education in a given school. I gather that you would eliminate public *funding *for education, and I would be inclined to oppose that. But again, whenever a question becomes economic I tend to bow out, because I really don’t have a good handle on economics. But I do have strong opinions about the moral and social principles that should underlie economic decisions.

Edwin

 

[Al_Masetti]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilop
I would say that the government does NOT have the right to enact a policy simply b/c it is viewed to be in the “common good”.

Contarini: Then on what basis does the government have the right to do anything?

---

The U.S. Constitution is a very brief document. Read it.

It is very specific. Especially read the 10th Amendment. Extremely important.

There will be questions. Read the Federalist Papers. They explain a LOT of the thinking that went into the specifics of the thinking that went into the writing of the Constitution.

 

[goofyjim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilop
I would say that the government does NOT have the right to enact a policy simply b/c it is viewed to be in the “common good”.

Contarini: Then on what basis does the government have the right to do anything?

---

The U.S. Constitution is a very brief document. Read it.

It is very specific. Especially read the 10th Amendment. Extremely important.

There will be questions. Read the Federalist Papers. They explain a LOT of the thinking that went into the specifics of the thinking that went into the writing of the Constitution.

The Constitution may have started off brief but it was meant to grow with time instead of being a static document.

 

[mlchance]

The Constitution may have started off brief but it was meant to grow with time instead of being a static document.

And the process by which is grows is described in the Constitution when it talks about amendments. The Constitution is not a “living document” whose innate meanings change to suit the fancies of the times as interpreted by a majority of justices on federal courts.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Constitution may have started off brief but it was meant to grow with time instead of being a static document.

It was meant to be adaptable through the amendment process. Not through being constantly re-interpreted.

 

[goofyjim]

And the process by which is grows is described in the Constitution when it talks about amendments. The Constitution is not a “living document” whose innate meanings change to suit the fancies of the times as interpreted by a majority of justices on federal courts.

– Mark L. Chance.

But if it changes through amendments by the will of the people it is still a living document and does not stay the brief one as mentioned. I do agree justices should not be interpreting the change in either direction.