Charity at gun point

[carn]

Currently in a lot of countries it is standard, that a parliament majority can decide that some type of spending is for the common good. The state will thenspend money towards that end.

More specifically often this spending follows the idea that some injustice persists, for example some people life in relative poverty, and that capitalism on its own will not reduce the injustice and therefore the state has to act.

Reading caritas in veritate it seems, that the church is fine with this.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

There is only one problem i cannot understand. The state does not spend his own money nor does he spend much money others acquired illegaly, but he spends mostly money of poeple who own it legally. And not only that, he forces those people to pay the money at the threat of imprisonement and if such people would resist such court decisions, the police will enforce it, which in the most extreme situation might include drawing a gun.

So its charity at gun point.

Now there are a few situations in which this would be obviously justified, for example if someones life depends on getting water now and the only person with sufficient water beyond needs for himself is unwilling to share his water, then using force to take it would be justified.

But the vast majority of social spending of the state is not of that type. Most of that spending is not life saving but only aims at reducing hardship. E.g. someone has a flat to live in, but its rather cramped, two persons per room, and he cannot afford a flat so its only 1 person per room. Someone has a large enough flat but asks for more rent than the person can afford. Is anyone allowed to force him to ask for renting only what the poor person can pay? Is anyone allowed to force a third person to give his money, so the poor person can afford the house?

According to my current personal opinion no, because when you force and threaten someone to do something, it is only allowed if carrying out the threat might be justified. And using lethal force against someone, who has done nothing wrong, because its the only way to ensure that a family can live in a 1person-per-room flat instead of a 2-person-per-room flat, does not seem justified.

According to the state i live in (Germany) it is justified that the state threatens people with imprisonement and lethal force to ensure that people live in 1-person-per-room flats, as this is what is normally provided to persons without own income and the state collects taxes for this and enforces this tax collection with threat of imprisonement. (Interestingly, on individual level the laws are strictly limiting forcing other people to do something in situations of serious danger.)

What is the churchs position?

in the above link, it is clearly stated that Justice requires to allow people to have what is theirs. But at the same time “redistribution” is used often, which in normal political meaning implies taking property of lawful owners simply because the state deems they own too much.

I cannot understand how forcing someone at gun point to share his wealth for charity could be justified, except for serious poverty and life-threatening situations. It will not help saving his soul as for that he would have to voluntary give. And taking something from the owner without his consent is theft it its without justification.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Right, I see where you’re going with this.

Starting off with my personal take: if taxation is the threat of violence on innocent parties, then it necessarily violates the greatest commandment. Therefore, the entirety of the State is obsolete. Not just the social programs, the whole darn thing. This was, I believe the take of Leo Tolstoy. If it wasn’t, it’s certainly my own take.

As to the Church’s position on politics, it looks rather haphazard to me. I remember some years ago, Pope John Paul II made some remarks about how, “capitalism can go too far, communism can go too far.”

I remember thinking, “That’s it? That’s all we have got here? Surely our Holy Father and the Church have a more nuanced view on politics than the stereotypical view of the average teenager!”

 

[St_Francis]

It’s a balance. As I understand it, the Church gives the responsibility for ensuring that the poor are cared for onto the government. I see provision for the poor as being an individual and community resposibility, with help from higher levels when needed.

So to a certain extent the government has the possibility of enforcing these types of laws, where something is taken under threat of force and given to the poor. However, prudence would suggest that this be limited because there are other things to be taken into account, ie, if all the money were taken from the rich and given to the poor, certain virtues might be inhibited. And of course the Church opposes pure socialism or communism.

In the question about the flats, forcing landlords to rent for less than market value causes people to get out of the business altogether. Then there are fewer flats for rent and the market value goes up. (See Sowell on rent control.) So simply forcing low rates on landlords can backfire.

In the US, we have Section 8, in which the government pays part of the rent. This leads to other problems, but at least spreads the cost over the whole community rather than lumping it on the landlords.

As to your last question about redistribution, well, God gave all of mankind the earth. People are supposed to share and not hoard what they have. St Thomas Aquinas writes about this and calls it distributive justice, and the Popes started writing about it in the 1800s with Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, written when the Industrial Revolution was going on–I don’t know if there is a German equivalent, but think Oliver Twist.

One thing it took me a while to figure oit is that when the Church seems to contradict Herself, She is actually giving us boundaries on either side, like a parent teaching a child to drive. When the parent says, go over to the left, they don’t mean over into the other lane, and when they say shift to the right, they don’t mean go off the road. The car, and our society, is supposed to stay in the middle.

 

[carn]

In the question about the flats, forcing landlords to rent for less than market value causes people to get out of the business altogether.

But the qeustion about flatsmust start earlier, why is living in a flat with 2 persons per room, when a flat allowing 1 person per room but too expensive wouldbe avaible, actually a situation of injustice of such a large scale, that the threat of lethal force could be justified if its effective?

That there are good reasons to think, that rent control always backfires, only changes, that the threat of lethal force is not effective. It does not answer, why the threat of lethal force could or could not be allowable at all in such circumstances.

As to your last question about redistribution, well, God gave all of mankind the earth. People are supposed to share and not hoard what they have. St Thomas Aquinas writes about this and calls it distributive justice,

People are supposed to share. Why is forcing them to share justified if the situation is not life-threatening or in other ways serious?

And remember, when Thomas lived or in the 19th century the poor starved without enough charity. So charity then was nearly entirely a live and death question. Today in Germany nobody starves due to the impossiblity of acquiring enough food. (Some starve because their parents do not give them enough, but thats obviously something different.)

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Currently in a lot of countries it is standard, that a parliament majority can decide that some type of spending is for the common good. The state will thenspend money towards that end.

More specifically often this spending follows the idea that some injustice persists, for example some people life in relative poverty, and that capitalism on its own will not reduce the injustice and therefore the state has to act.

Reading caritas in veritate it seems, that the church is fine with this.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

There is only one problem i cannot understand. The state does not spend his own money nor does he spend much money others acquired illegaly, but he spends mostly money of poeple who own it legally. And not only that, he forces those people to pay the money at the threat of imprisonement and if such people would resist such court decisions, the police will enforce it, which in the most extreme situation might include drawing a gun.

So its charity at gun point.

Now there are a few situations in which this would be obviously justified, for example if someones life depends on getting water now and the only person with sufficient water beyond needs for himself is unwilling to share his water, then using force to take it would be justified.

But the vast majority of social spending of the state is not of that type. Most of that spending is not life saving but only aims at reducing hardship. E.g. someone has a flat to live in, but its rather cramped, two persons per room, and he cannot afford a flat so its only 1 person per room. Someone has a large enough flat but asks for more rent than the person can afford. Is anyone allowed to force him to ask for renting only what the poor person can pay? Is anyone allowed to force a third person to give his money, so the poor person can afford the house?

According to my current personal opinion no, because when you force and threaten someone to do something, it is only allowed if carrying out the threat might be justified. And using lethal force against someone, who has done nothing wrong, because its the only way to ensure that a family can live in a 1person-per-room flat instead of a 2-person-per-room flat, does not seem justified.

According to the state i live in (Germany) it is justified that the state threatens people with imprisonement and lethal force to ensure that people live in 1-person-per-room flats, as this is what is normally provided to persons without own income and the state collects taxes for this and enforces this tax collection with threat of imprisonement. (Interestingly, on individual level the laws are strictly limiting forcing other people to do something in situations of serious danger.)

What is the churchs position?

in the above link, it is clearly stated that Justice requires to allow people to have what is theirs. But at the same time “redistribution” is used often, which in normal political meaning implies taking property of lawful owners simply because the state deems they own too much.

I cannot understand how forcing someone at gun point to share his wealth for charity could be justified, except for serious poverty and life-threatening situations. It will not help saving his soul as for that he would have to voluntary give. And taking something from the owner without his consent is theft it its without justification.

It seemed that private charities could not do the job when the task was immense likt in hte Great Depression. So, the State intervened for the good of all.

But some people take advantage of this to their own egotistic purposes.

 

[Hastrman]

It seemed that private charities could not do the job when the task was immense likt in hte Great Depression. So, the State intervened for the good of all.

But some people take advantage of this to their own egotistic purposes.

Mythology, not history.

Because the state—Roosevelt’s policies, specifically—are nearly-universally considered by modern economists to have extended the Depression by at least five years. If private charities had picked up the slack, and then private investing had been allowed to resume at its natural pace, it wouldn’t have taken World War II to drag the US out of the Depression.

Keynes is, for all intents and purposes, as dead as Lamarck. It’s time everyone just acknowledged that.

 

[carn]

It seemed that private charities could not do the job when the task was immense likt in hte Great Depression. So, the State intervened for the good of all.

But some people take advantage of this to their own egotistic purposes.

Independent on whether or not the state was a cause of the length of the depression (@Hastrman ), during the great depression people had far more serious problems than whether they live 1 or 2 persons per room. (I suspect that the average american prior the depression was at least in cities living with 2 persons per room.)

And therefore the situation is again not comparable as life-threatening situations justify forced redistribution to some extent.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Here is how we will be judged by Jesus the Christ: as you do unto the least of these my brothers, you do unto me. That’s all you need to worry about.

 

[carn]

Here is how we will be judged by Jesus the Christ: as you do unto the least of these my brothers, you do unto me. That’s all you need to worry about.

I do Jesus, who probably lived in a 3 person per room house/flat (that per person means rooms excluding kitchen, bath, toilette and storage room in cellar or attic) and grew up with neighbors who lived in 3-6 person per room house/flat, injustice, when he lives in a 2 person per room flat and cannot live in my 1 person per room flat because the rent i ask for is too high?

Could be so, i would just like a confirmation and explanation.

And if so, its the job of the state to force me at gunpoint to stop commiting that injustice?

 

[St_Francis]

But the qeustion about flatsmust start earlier, why is living in a flat with 2 persons per room, when a flat allowing 1 person per room but too expensive wouldbe avaible, actually a situation of injustice of such a large scale, that the threat of lethal force could be justified if its effective?

That there are good reasons to think, that rent control always backfires, only changes, that the threat of lethal force is not effective. It does not answer, why the threat of lethal force could or could not be allowable at all in such circumstances.

I’m not saying the government is right or wrong in this situation (altho I personally think think they are being silly: suppose a married retired couple chooses a one-room flat with a wonderful view over a two-room flat that’s rather plain.)

But what I am saying is that there is a lot of room for moral decisions in the Church, because there are so many different situatiins. We can’t really expect the Church to rule on whether or not it’s ok for governments to define the correct number of rooms per people or whether they are correct in their assessment–that is between the government and its people.

People are supposed to share. Why is forcing them to share justified if the situation is not life-threatening or in other ways serious?

And remember, when Thomas lived or in the 19th century the poor starved without enough charity. So charity then was nearly entirely a live and death question. Today in Germany nobody starves due to the impossiblity of acquiring enough food. (Some starve because their parents do not give them enough, but thats obviously something different.)

And why is it that no one starves in Germany? Is it because the government takes money from people under the threat of force and redistributes it?

 

[carn]

But what I am saying is that there is a lot of room for moral decisions in the Church, because there are so many different situatiins. We can’t really expect the Church to rule on whether or not it’s ok for governments to define the correct number of rooms per people or whether they are correct in their assessment–that is between the government and its people.

But the church should offer guidelines regarding the use of force. And from that it should be possible to derive an opinion, whether or not use of force is morally acceptable regarding specific situations.

See it this way, when voters decide to vote in a party more inclined to distribution, they are effectively enabling the state to use force in more circumstances than beforehand. If that includes the use of force for reasons not justified (e.g. in above flat situation assuming that force is at least questionable) they are acting morally wrong. That is only avoidable if there is some guideline to decide, whats enough redistribution.

And why is it that no one starves in Germany? Is it because the government takes money from people under the threat of force and redistributes it?

Yes.

But starvation is gone from Germany since about 60 years and nobody thinks or claims that there is any risk anyone in Germany might face starvation due too absolute lack of resources. All welfare discussions remaining are about whether the difference between poor, average and high income families is too large and whether welfare is high enough so that the poor have more than 50 or 60% of average income. (As average income is rather high, this for example could mean 1 room per person flats)

 

[Newbie2]

The Church’s positon boils down to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”



Actually, most taxation in American is wasted through fraud, corruption and theft. There would be plenty of money to provide for the poor and disadvantaged.

I guess one of the questions that the OP is asking is “to what standard of living are we as Catholic Christians obliged to support our fellow man?”, which is an excellent question.

 

[St_Francis]

But the church should offer guidelines regarding the use of force. And from that it should be possible to derive an opinion, whether or not use of force is morally acceptable regarding specific situations.

See it this way, when voters decide to vote in a party more inclined to distribution, they are effectively enabling the state to use force in more circumstances than beforehand. If that includes the use of force for reasons not justified (e.g. in above flat situation assuming that force is at least questionable) they are acting morally wrong. That is only avoidable if there is some guideline to decide, whats enough redistribution.

Yes, the Church does give guidelines regarding morality, but not for prudence. Prudence is what is in the hands of the people and their government.

The government cannot morally force you to do something immoral, like the Chinese government forcing women to use birth control or have abortions.

But as to the rest, yes, the government has the authority to impose in ways which do not violate morality.

But starvation is gone from Germany since about 60 years and nobody thinks or claims that there is any risk anyone in Germany might face starvation due too absolute lack of resources. All welfare discussions remaining are about whether the difference between poor, average and high income families is too large and whether welfare is high enough so that the poor have more than 50 or 60% of average income. (As average income is rather high, this for example could mean 1 room per person flats)

You do not seem to be against the German government’s taking money from the rich to give to the poor, but you are against this issue with the flats? What is the difference which causes you to be for one and not the other?

 

[philial]

The Church’s positon boils down to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”



Actually, most taxation in American is wasted through fraud, corruption and theft. There would be plenty of money to provide for the poor and disadvantaged.

I guess one of the questions that the OP is asking is “to what standard of living are we as Catholic Christians obliged to support our fellow man?”, which is an excellent question.

And the answer to that is ‘love thy neighbour as thyself.’

 

[carn]

And the answer to that is ‘love thy neighbour as thyself.’

Then i, as i consider living 2 person per room perfectly acceptable if i do not earn enough to afford more (and have lived long under that circumstances), have to conclude that what the state does is in part armed robbery.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Mythology, not history.

Because the state—Roosevelt’s policies, specifically—are nearly-universally considered by modern economists to have extended the Depression by at least five years. If private charities had picked up the slack, and then private investing had been allowed to resume at its natural pace, it wouldn’t have taken World War II to drag the US out of the Depression.

Keynes is, for all intents and purposes, as dead as Lamarck. It’s time everyone just acknowledged that.

Totally Wrong Propaganda Lines of the Richest few Propagandists. (1) Where was Any Wealth for “Charity” during The Great World Deppression? (2) That Began on 100% “Free Market” No Regulations, Zero enforcemt Stock Market Speculation; With Identical, Less severe Results of the 1980’s and 2001 Radical Shift of National Priorities. Clinton Presidency Reversed the Massive Defikcits into Record, Ideal Financial and Business Profits, FULL USA Employment in 1990’s. (3) ** Why was Public, OUR Tax Money of By Government needed to Save the Financial Sector Collapse of 1930’s, 10/87, 1990’s, 2007 GW Bush Public Money? ** (4) Why have Those Big Money Financials **NOT Paid the TAX Money Back TO Government, **, even In Minimal Taxes, for starts, instead Of Billion Dollar False bonuses? (5) Kensian Economics are Universally Acknowledged As The Best Way, Except by Richest Money Propagandist spins. [SIGN]Christ, His Catholic Church have Focused on “Social” (Public) RESPONSIBILITIES, by Everyone, for 1970 Years. For the Universal GOOD. [/SIGN] PS: Reaganomics Never had “4.5% Unemployment”; Only Clinton Got 4.5% Really, By Proper Balances Pro-Business. Clinton Rsised 28 Types of Taxes modestly! Reagan “4.5% Unemployment” is Severe Lie! So Typically. Please prove otherwise. Vivat Jesu, Antal, Fiscal Conservative, Living Social Responsibility,

 

[carn]

Totally Wrong Propaganda Lines of the Richest few Propagandists. (1) Where was Any Wealth for “Charity” during The Great World Deppression? (2) That Began on 100% “Free Market” No Regulations, Zero enforcemt Stock Market Speculation; With Identical, Less severe Results of the 1980’s and 2001 Radical Shift of National Priorities. Clinton Presidency Reversed the Massive Defikcits into Record, Ideal Financial and Business Profits, FULL USA Employment in 1990’s. (3) ** Why was Public, OUR Tax Money of By Government ** needed to Save the Financial Sector Collapse of 1930’s, 10/87, 1990’s, 2007 GW Bush Public Money? (4) Why have Those Big Money Financials NOT Paid the TAX Money Back, even In Minimal Taxes, for starts, instead Of Billion Dollar False bonuses? (5) Kensian Economics are Universally Acknowledged As The Best Way, Except by Richest Money Propagandist spins. [SIGN]Christ, His Catholic Church have Focused on “Social” (Public) RESPONSIBILITIES, by Everyone, for 1970 Years. For the Universal GOOD. [/SIGN]

Please stay at topic.
For the question under what circumstances enforcing charity at gunpoint is justified, it is irrelevant whether Keynes is correct or not.

 

[Hastrman]

Apparently some doubt that Roosevelt prolonged the depression.

Read it and weep.



Matta tsumaranaimono wo kitteshimatta.

 

[GEddie]

Some things for the common good require taxation. For example, roads benefit everybody, including those who do not drive, because the goods necessary for life are transported over them. It is justified to use taxes to build and maintain them.

Some form of social “safety net” can also be justified. Sure, it is a matter of “taking from the rich to give to the poor”, but European history has shown, when “the poor” are pushed too hard, at some point pitchforks and shotguns make their appearance and folks start getting killed. It is in everybody’s interest that that point is not reached again.

So lamentably, “the state” is not obsolete. The issue is up to what point it’s demands are reasonable. And the Church in her wisdom has left that between the individual state and it’s citizens.

ICXC NIKA

 

[carn]

Some things for the common good require taxation. For example, roads benefit everybody, including those who do not drive, because the goods necessary for life are transported over them. It is justified to use taxes to build and maintain them.

Without decent roads the reaction time for emergency care increases and for this alone a transportation network of some sort is justified and it is justified to take the needed money by force, as it saves lives.

Some form of social “safety net” can also be justified.

Obviously, nobody should starve.

Sure, it is a matter of “taking from the rich to give to the poor”, but European history has shown, when “the poor” are pushed too hard, at some point pitchforks and shotguns make their appearance and folks start getting killed. It is in everybody’s interest that that point is not reached again.

So because some people will revert to robbery and murder if according to their impression they do not receive enough material goods, it is morally justified to take the wealth necessary for bribing them to stay calm from someone threatening lethal force?