Charity at gun point

[carn]

To put it more in practical context:
sozialhilfe24.de/hartz-iv-4-alg-ii-2/angemessene-wohnung.html
relevant part:
“45m� sind für eine, 60m� für zwei Personen angemessen. Jede weitere in der Wohnung lebende Person kann einen zusätzlichen Wohnraum von 15m� beanspruchen; das gilt allerdings nicht für Kinder im Babyalter.”
autotranslates into:
“45mï ¿ ½ are for one, 60mï ¿ ½ for two persons appropriately. Every other person living in the apartment can claim an additional living space from 15mï ¿ ½; however, this does not count to children at the baby age.”

45 squaremeters for 1 person means bath, kitchen, living room and another room. 15 sqm for every additional person means every additional person has a room for himself.

So its not imagined that German state collects tax at threat of imprisonement with enforcement by the police at worst to ensure every person lives at least in a 1 person-per-room flat.

Since i lived for the past 15 years or so (depending on the definition of baby age) in smaller apartments and do not see a problem there, i cannot understand why this is morally acceptable. Can this in light of church teaching be morally acceptable and with the fact in mind, that people do not voluntary give money for this?

(I know im stupid, i just should have asked the state for money, then i wouldnt have reasons to complain.)

 

[philial]

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.

I’m not sure that your personal lack of aspiration is the yardstick by which a civilized society measures itself.

You’re happy for a mother to share a room with her son, or a father with his daughter? Fine when they’re babes, but then they hit puberty…

 

[carn]

I’m not sure that your personal lack of aspiration is the yardstick by which a civilized society measures itself.

You’re happy for a mother to share a room with her son, or a father with his daughter? Fine when they’re babes, but then they hit puberty…

And there is realiable data confirming a correlation between apartment size and sexual abuse large enough to justify taking others property at threat of imprisonement?

Im highly sceptical that there is a correlation and certainly other factors are far more important. And you missed that currently its kitchen+bath+rooms=number of persons+living room. So obviously they can have beds in different rooms even with 1 room less.

And beside not only are people at threat of imprisonement forced to provide a 3 room apartment for a son and daughter but also for a couple, whether married or not. And still for singles 2 room apartments are paid for by threat of imprisonement.
So though it could be a valid point, i still miss any reasoning why that justifies taking money by force. After all, no one is in dire need simply because he has no living room. Remember, those police officers will draw guns if someone resist tax enforcement.

I cannot see any reason, why it would be moral on a personal level to take someones money, so that another person no longer suffers from not having a living room.

 

[philial]

Remember, those police officers will draw guns if someone resist tax enforcement.

I cannot see any reason, why it would be moral on a personal level to take someones money, so that another person no longer suffers from not having a living room.

Not on this side of the pond

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘moral on a personal level’. Do you think Government are personlly targetting you? A bit over the top, surely?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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.

It is justified to use armed robbery for what you consider to be a utilitarian goal?

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to follow along here. If that is the standard, then I think we’re in for a world of hurt, because anyone who decides their cause is for “the common good” can commit armed robbery to achieve their ends.

Since we work to achieve numerous services non-violently already, it should be asked: why do roads require coercive means? Even if it is true that roads must be funded in a coercive manner, ought we not at least try to achieve this goal peacefully?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Not on this side of the pond

I wonder whether you are interpreting the phrase too literally. Certainly, the U.K. government uses violence/threat of violence to enforce its rules, a subset of those rules are tax law… which ultimately form the basis for the entire government. Such a threat exists whether or not one is in harmony with the goals of the government.

 

[St_Francis]

To put it more in practical context:
sozialhilfe24.de/hartz-iv-4-alg-ii-2/angemessene-wohnung.html
relevant part:
…

45 squaremeters for 1 person means bath, kitchen, living room and another room. 15 sqm for every additional person means every additional person has a room for himself.

So its not imagined that German state collects tax at threat of imprisonement with enforcement by the police at worst to ensure every person lives at least in a 1 person-per-room flat.

Since i lived for the past 15 years or so (depending on the definition of baby age) in smaller apartments and do not see a problem there, i cannot understand why this is morally acceptable. Can this in light of church teaching be morally acceptable and with the fact in mind, that people do not voluntary give money for it.

(I know im stupid, i just should have asked the state for money, then i wouldnt have reasons to complain.)

This is apparently what the politicians voted in by the Germans have decided. I don’t know why, but the only thing that you can really do about it is to do somerhing in Germany.

The first thing I would try to find out is the purpose of the law, like if this is related to families? That they are saying this is what a family needs: at least a good sized living room, regular kitchen, and separate bedrooms of this size-- would two sisters be able to share a bedroom that was bigger?–

It could be that people were renting done-over small sub-standard basements to families as flats with high rents because the state would pay for the rent?

Could this possibly be more like zoning to keep people from living 9 to a three-bedroom flat? Which was then transmuted into standards for which people could get government aid for their rent?

I ask because a lot of US cities and towns have regulations like that. Bedrooms have to be a certain size for the number of occupants so there will be enough air (because it’s safer to have the door closed in case of fire, of which we apparently have a lot more of than Europe due to the higher amount of wood used in construction).

 

[Groundhog_Day]

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 is hard to imagine reforming the Church. This is why the Protestant reformation was necessary. This is why the CC is not allowed to own land in some countries. The CC supported Mussolini and Hitler. There is not even enough shame or self awareness to understand what the Vatican symbolizes to the world. Don’t ask the CC for advice about materialism or charity. It is fundamentally a political institution.

 

[Nate13]

Look up the encyclical Rerum Novarum written by Pope Leo XIII to get a take from the Church on what a political system should look like. He and G.K Chesterton were proponents of Distributism.

 

[carn]

Not on this side of the pond

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘moral on a personal level’. Do you think Government are personlly targetting you? A bit over the top, surely?

No,with personal i meant, that an individual should not act that way.

If you find someone starving and the only possible source of food is in possesion of your neighbor, it is morally allowed to take the food from him, except if you threaten his life doing so.

If you find someone in lack of a living room (but having a room for himself to sllep in, kitchen, bath) and the only possible wealth source to allow this person to have a living room is in possesion of your neighbor, it is not allowed to take the wealth from him, even if it would not have any serious negative effect on your neighbor.
(Or do i miss something here?)

Now the state certainly does the first and i do not see a problem there.But he also does the second.

@VeritasLuxMea
Obviously if you can convince the neighbor to help instead of forcing him, that is preferable.
But:
“If that is the standard, then I think we’re in for a world of hurt, because anyone who decides their cause is for “the common good” can commit armed robbery to achieve their ends.”

But exactly that is among the powers of the German state. One only has rights to use ones property if it is not used adversly to the common good. What the common good is decided by majority vote.
So an individual is not allowed to force the neighbor to provide the means for a living room for a third person lacking one. But the state can do so, simply by assuming that its harmful to the common good that your neighbor (and any other person in similar circumstances) is unwilling to provide his wealth to that third person and take it from him by taxation.

I want to understand regarding catholic teaching if and why the state is allowed to do such thing, that no individual would be allowed to do, and what would be the limits if there are any.

@Nate113
It seems that the church think, that the state should take care of the poor. Thats nice to say and ok until one realizes that poor can mean a lot of things, since people thought up the concept of relative poverty. The state of the poor of Leo XIII. time have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the poor in germany today.
In 19th century poor people were starving and dying from all manner of serious diseases. Today poor in Germany are to relevant part overweight due to eating to much crisps and watching too much TV and are in bad health because they do not go to see doctors although they do not have to pay anythingor do not listen to their advice (e.g. eat less crisps). Their children are in bad health and bad in school because the parents lack the will to properly take care of them. (That is not true of every person on welfare in Germany but for all i know its true for many hundred thousands.)
And yet no other glorious idea is suggested but more redistribution.And it seems the church is fine with that. And that i do not understand, because redistribution to ensure a roof over the head, something to eat and regular visits to a doctor, of course.
But what is the justification beyond that?

A christian should certainly consider to give charity beyond that. But the state enforces charity at gunpoint and thats a vast difference from voluntarily giving something. And just because a majority wants it, does not make it moral.

@St Francis
This is not about the question, whether one shoulddo anything about this distribution except maybe voting. Its the question whether and to what extent its moral and how that could be decided.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

I am not a spetialitst of it. I sell the fish as it was sold to me.
Are you sure of what you defend?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

So you defend the State out of Charity (solidarity or whatever, social service…)?

 

[carn]

So you defend the State out of Charity (solidarity or whatever, social service…)?

No, i just say that the graveness of the condition of the poor during the great depression was serious enough, that it would have justified to some extent confiscating or taxing property, if it would also have been effective at solving the problems.

Today it seems the situation is far less serious, so the question is, why conficating or taxing is justified. On top of it, further redistributing might not even help. But if the initial situation is not grave enough to justify further enforced charity, the question whether it would solve the problems is secondary.

Whenever you do an act that at least in itself would be immoral and justify it due to the circumstances, it should both be effective and not out of proportion.

E.g. someone is gravely injured and you think you need now a car to save him. You steal the next car you find. Its certainly justified if you save his life that way. In case it was already too late and stealing the car did not help, you should not have stolen the car, but you have acted without error depending on whether you could have realized, that stealing the car will not help. (That is the great depression situation, the state acts to save life although he might have done wrong.It could have been justified.)

If someone misses a basketball match unless you steal for him a car now, its never justified independent upon whether stealing the car helps him reaching the match in time. (Thats often the situation today the state acts for not nothing but something far less serious. It might not be justified at all.)

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis
This is not about the question, whether one shoulddo anything about this distribution except maybe voting. Its the question whether and to what extent its moral and how that could be decided.

I suggested several possible reasons that the government has taken this step, which would make this situation moral. Other than that, it’s really hard to see what’s going on since you have only provided a little information.

You seem entirely ok with the principle of the government paying for poor people’s food, for the government to pay for people’s health care; Why do you have a problem with this?

 

[GEddie]

I suggested several possible reasons that the government has taken this step, which would make this situation moral. Other than that, it’s really hard to see what’s going on since you have only provided a little information.

You seem entirely ok with the principle of the government paying for poor people’s food, for the government to pay for people’s health care; Why do you have a problem with this?

Possibly because while food and medicine are bare necessities of life, comfortable living space is considered nonessential; and some resent being forced to buy nonessentials for “The Poor”?

ICXC NIKA

 

[AntalKalnoky]

No, i just say that the graveness of the condition of the poor during the great depression was serious enough, that it would have justified to some extent confiscating or taxing property, if it would also have been effective at solving the problems.

Today it seems the situation is far less serious, so the question is, why conficating or taxing is justified. On top of it, further redistributing might not even help. But if the initial situation is not grave enough to justify further enforced charity, the question whether it would solve the problems is secondary.

Whenever you do an act that at least in itself would be immoral and justify it due to the circumstances, it should both be effective and not out of proportion.

E.g. someone is gravely injured and you think you need now a car to save him. You steal the next car you find. Its certainly justified if you save his life that way. In case it was already too late and stealing the car did not help, you should not have stolen the car, but you have acted without error depending on whether you could have realized, that stealing the car will not help. (That is the great depression situation, the state acts to save life although he might have done wrong.It could have been justified.)

If someone misses a basketball match unless you steal for him a car now, its never justified independent upon whether stealing the car helps him reaching the match in time. (Thats often the situation today the state acts for not nothing but something far less serious. It might not be justified at all.)

Taxes were NOT begun for Charity. Taxes/Fees were Begun to pay for Security: Armies, Sheriffs, Judges, Jails, but Especially WARS: Civil, Spanish American, First, etc., etc. There was Zero Govt help for Any Poor, until Millions faced Starvation, Bankruptcy, etc in the Great Deppression. Also Taxes do NOT take proprty at ‘gunpoint’. Thry are Laws passed by Congress and Legislatures, etc. Stealing Cars to take Injured to Hospital Results in Arrest for Crime; Ambulances and EMT are Government, Taxes paid. Taxi or friend to take Basketball player to Game. Why call Taxes “Confiscation”? Is it not Citizenship Respponsibility to Pay Taxes for Government SERVICES? Who pays Police, teachers? Christ said “Pay unto Ceasar That which IS Ceasar’s…”

 

[GEddie]

Taxes were NOT begun for Charity. Taxes/Fees were Begun to pay for Security: Armies, Sheriffs, Judges, Jails, but Especially WARS: Civil, Spanish American, First, etc., etc. There was Zero Govt help for Any Poor, until Millions faced Starvation, Bankruptcy, etc in the Great Deppression. Also Taxes do NOT take proprty at ‘gunpoint’. Thry are Laws passed by Congress and Legislatures, etc.

Oh, if you try not paying, you’ll see a gun in your face soon enough.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Oh, if you try not paying, you’ll see a gun in your face soon enough.

FALSE; Unnecessary Use of Dangerous Weapon can cause the Policeman to be Fired. Usually it’s a couple BIG Deoputies/Marshalls, with Tazers for any Big Disagreements. Not True?
Where do you get your ideas from?

 

[carn]

Possibly because while food and medicine are bare necessities of life, comfortable living space is considered nonessential; and some resent being forced to buy nonessentials for “The Poor”?

ICXC NIKA

Thats the point. Thanks for the short version.

 

[carn]

FALSE; Unnecessary Use of Dangerous Weapon can cause the Policeman to be Fired. Usually it’s a couple BIG Deoputies/Marshalls, with Tazers for any Big Disagreements. Not True?
Where do you get your ideas from?

spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-28983-7.html

Photo series from the search of the home of someone suspect of tax evasion, who was also arrested. Those nice 3 officers with “Polizei” on their back will al have guns at their hips. Why do you think attorneys gathering evidence for crimes regarding tax are accompanied by officers with guns?
Why do officers who want to arrest someone carry a gun with them?
Because there is no chance they might draw them?

Yes, the person in question was arrested for cheating taxes, which also would have been used for vertainly legitimate purposes. But the point is as soon as you are ready to use guns to ensure taxes are collected you should have spend the money wisely, because you threaten peopls life to get the money.

And according to german law the worst cases of tax crimes carry a penalty of up to 10 years. According to german police law in cases of crimes with maximum penalty larger than 5 years, police is allowed to use their guns to prevent the crime or to arrest the suspect, if other options are not avaible. (Though they are not allowed to shoot to kill, but shooting just too harm sometimes fails.)