Distributism and the welfare state

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle…I have missed you. Hope you have been well. Nice to hear from you again.

Thanks. I have been spending more time in subforum 67.

It’s pretty hard to enforce anti-suicide laws after the fact.

That’s true, but most of the laws that prevent you from hurting yourself are not about suicide. And they are quite enforceable. I suppose in a completely free society, children should not be prevented by law from buying cigarettes. Or if they are prevented, it would only be by their parents. But I think society has a valid interest and the ability to restrict such sales, even for kids whose parents are irresponsible enough not to care what their kids are doing. And even those who are responsible can’t be watching their kids all the time, so they rely on those laws to help them do their job as parents. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say laws against hurting yourself.

Sure, laws that don’t allow us to hurt ourselves can be objective and equally enforced but they are pretty stupid in most cases and only exist as “feel good” measures for legislators.

Would you include the laws I just cited above in that category?

Perhaps…but could it be that outlawing things like tobacco will never happen because over-zealous legislators still remember the repeal of a stupid Constitutional Amendment that was supposed to save us from ourselves…???

That is probably true. The legislators were listening to a vocal minority. But in cases where the call for restrictions is coming from a majority of the people, it has a better chance of being enforceable.

I am sure there are a few…However the vast majority of kids are dumping their “free lunches” into the dumpsters.

I know there have been some protests of dumping full trays in the garbage, but I have not been able to find any reliable statistics that would support the assertion that the “vast majority” of kids are dumping their free lunches in the dumpster. Do you have a source for that?

I’m sure you don’t mean ALL Americans…

I don’t know what you mean by that. I refuted your statement that Americans know what is right and wrong and don’t need big brother telling them. I think they do need big brother telling them that they may not rob banks. Not all of them, of course. But enough of them to make is necessary to have such a law.

It can hardly be construed as “taking from one and giving to another”. Providing for the common defense is a SERVICE provided by the government that benefits all equally.

Not equally. A large corporation like General Electric does not pay any income tax. Yet they benefit much more from the protection of the military, not to mention the protection of their business from crime. Whereas a typical middle to low income individual pays some income tax and gets much less of a benefit than General Electric. That sounds like taking from one and giving to another.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Thanks. I have been spending more time in subforum 67.

Whoa…!! “subforum 67” sounds like something that the FBI may be monitoring. Be cool!

That’s true, but most of the laws that prevent you from hurting yourself are not about suicide. And they are quite enforceable. I suppose in a completely free society, children should not be prevented by law from buying cigarettes. Or if they are prevented, it would only be by their parents. But I think society has a valid interest and the ability to restrict such sales, even for kids whose parents are irresponsible enough not to care what their kids are doing. And even those who are responsible can’t be watching their kids all the time, so they rely on those laws to help them do their job as parents. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say laws against hurting yourself.
Would you include the laws I just cited above in that category?

Society has the right to enable government to protect us. But many “protection laws” are ridiculous. Labeling warnings on products (required by law) can be more of a source of amusement than a caution.

The thought of more and more parents relying on laws to help them do their job as parents…is hideous. As for cigarettes…I was told not to smoke. I didn’t know if there was a legal age limit…It didn’t matter…I didn’t smoke. Still don’t. Same with my children…they were told not to smoke. They didn’t. I am not unusual. Just a concerned parent. I know many others. We don’t need laws to “help us do our job as parents.”

Lyndon B. Johnson, of all people said:

“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”

I know there have been some protests of dumping full trays in the garbage, but I have not been able to find any reliable statistics that would support the assertion that the “vast majority” of kids are dumping their free lunches in the dumpster. Do you have a source for that?

No it wasn’t a protest. It was a study done by schools that were heavily involved in the federal school lunch programs. They began to notice an increase in garbage. It was traced to the cafeterias where they found students dumping their free lunches and buying junk food from vending machines. Remember these kids are the ones whose parents are content to let the government feed their kids.

I will find the source and post it.

I don’t know what you mean by that. I refuted your statement that Americans know what is right and wrong and don’t need big brother telling them. I think they do need big brother telling them that they may not rob banks. Not all of them, of course. But enough of them to make is necessary to have such a law.

You did not refute my statement…but you did now.
I agree " Not all of them, of course.(Americans) But enough of them to make it necessary to have such a law."

Robbing banks is crime not “protection from ourselves”.

Not equally. A large corporation like General Electric does not pay any income tax. Yet they benefit much more from the protection of the military, not to mention the protection of their business from crime. Whereas a typical middle to low income individual pays some income tax and gets much less of a benefit than General Electric. That sounds like taking from one and giving to another.

True General Electric pays little or no Income Tax. There are a multitude of other taxes General Electric does pay (in the BILLIONS) But no Income tax. General Electric dutifully FILES it’s tax return and then LEGALLY takes a whole bunch of LEGAL deductions that reduce or eliminate it’s tax burden.

Large corporations and individuals receive the same military protection equally.

Fire and police protection is a different matter. In most instances industrial plants have their own fire and security departments…at their own expense. They pay more local taxes than individuals do and do not receive the same protection.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Whoa…!! “subforum 67” sounds like something that the FBI may be monitoring. Be cool!

This is subforum 108 (Social Justice). I just got used to accessing these subforums by the URL number. 67=World News.

Society has the right to enable government to protect us. But many “protection laws” are ridiculous. Labeling warnings on products (required by law) can be more of a source of amusement than a caution.

So it looks like you agree that deciding which of these laws are unnecessary is a matter of prudential judgement, not a matter of principle. Because if it were a matter of principle, you would have to be against all laws that protect. I can agree with you that many such regulations are more amusing than useful. But my prudential judgement is that laws against selling cigarettes to kids are among the useful ones.

The thought of more and more parents relying on laws to help them do their job as parents…is hideous.

It is not a matter of parents abdicating their responsibility. Rather it is a case of laws that enforce a protection that the parents are unable to enforce without shadowing their kids every hour of the day. Even if I gave my kids instruction in the strongest possible way, I would still want laws that help that enforcement when I am not around. If nothing else, I don’t want my kids seeing other kids smoking just because their parents are more lax. Peer pressure is a significant factor competing with parental guidance. That’s why I think we do need laws helping some aspects (certainly not all aspects) of our job as parents.

True General Electric pays little or no Income Tax. There are a multitude of other taxes General Electric does pay (in the BILLIONS) But no Income tax. General Electric dutifully FILES it’s tax return and then LEGALLY takes a whole bunch of LEGAL deductions that reduce or eliminate it’s tax burden.

I never said it was illegal what GE does.

Large corporations and individuals receive the same military protection equally.

Another example of unequal benefits is when people decide that the particular actions being taken by the military are not to their benefit. They may be wrong in this decision, and our government provides a means for people to make their wishes known. Yet there were many people during the Vietnam War who strongly believed that the actions the military was taking was not necessary protection. To those people is sure feels like their taxes are being taken from them and given to a wasted unnecessary project. This is not much different from people today feeling that taxes taken from them to subsidize solar energy development is taking from them and giving to others. The only difference is that subsidizing solar energy is not in the constitution, while funding the military is. However that difference alone does not excuse military action from being an instance of taking from some and giving to others.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So it looks like you agree that deciding which of these laws are unnecessary is a matter of prudential judgement, not a matter of principle. Because if it were a matter of principle, you would have to be against all laws that protect. I can agree with you that many such regulations are more amusing than useful. But my prudential judgement is that laws against selling cigarettes to kids are among the useful ones.

We agree…

I would add that prudential judgement calls for laws against the selling of marijuana cigarettes to anyone.

It is not a matter of parents abdicating their responsibility. Rather it is a case of laws that enforce a protection that the parents are unable to enforce without shadowing their kids every hour of the day. Even if I gave my kids instruction in the strongest possible way, I would still want laws that help that enforcement when I am not around. If nothing else, I don’t want my kids seeing other kids smoking just because their parents are more lax. Peer pressure is a significant factor competing with parental guidance. That’s why I think we do need laws helping some aspects (certainly not all aspects) of our job as parents.

What we have here is, what I call, a “trans-generational plateau differential”. In other words I say:…“back-in-the-good-old-days…(insert any subject)…blah blah.” So here goes.

When my generation was young we obeyed and respected our parents. Dads worked and Moms stayed home. We did not have constant parental supervision. We were sent “out to play” and came home for dinner when the street lights went on. We were told what was right and what was wrong…at home and that was reenforced at school. Every “Mom” in the neighborhood had as much authority as our Mom. Parents knew their kids were pretty much under control any where they went. Did kids get into trouble?..sure and we “learned a lesson.” Were there really bad kids?..yes. And they became the example for us not to imitate.

It may not truly be a matter of parents abdicating their responsibility today…but from my perspective it appears to be just that.

I never said it was illegal what GE does.

But you intimated that they were doing something wrong…

Another example of unequal benefits is when people decide that the particular actions being taken by the military are not to their benefit. They may be wrong in this decision, and our government provides a means for people to make their wishes known. Yet there were many people during the Vietnam War who strongly believed that the actions the military was taking was not necessary protection. To those people is sure feels like their taxes are being taken from them and given to a wasted unnecessary project. This is not much different from people today feeling that taxes taken from them to subsidize solar energy development is taking from them and giving to others. The only difference is that subsidizing solar energy is not in the constitution, while funding the military is. However that difference alone does not excuse military action from being an instance of taking from some and giving to others.

A military is the primary legitimate function of a government. It is the first order of protection. I could argue that a military could be the only function of government and society would flourish on its own rational intelligence. But that is for a different thread.
The point here is that a military is necessary and more importantly, authorized by our Constitution. Its function is to protect ALL Americans.

Remember that unpopular conflicts like Vietnam or the Gulf Wars were decisions of the elected officials who control our military. It is very important to understand the nature of those we elect because it is they who use or abuse the power of our military.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What we have here is, what I call, a “trans-generational plateau differential”. In other words I say:…“back-in-the-good-old-days…(insert any subject)…blah blah.” So here goes.

When my generation was young we obeyed and respected our parents. Dads worked and Moms stayed home. We did not have constant parental supervision. We were sent “out to play” and came home for dinner when the street lights went on. We were told what was right and what was wrong…at home and that was reenforced at school. Every “Mom” in the neighborhood had as much authority as our Mom. Parents knew their kids were pretty much under control any where they went. Did kids get into trouble?..sure and we “learned a lesson.” Were there really bad kids?..yes. And they became the example for us not to imitate.

My childhood was in the 1950’s, so I remember those days too.

A military is the primary legitimate function of a government. It is the first order of protection. I could argue that a military could be the only function of government and society would flourish on its own rational intelligence. But that is for a different thread.
The point here is that a military is necessary and more importantly, authorized by our Constitution. Its function is to protect ALL Americans.

That is one of its functions. But it also can go on adventures that reasonable people could believe are not strictly for the protection of all Americans. And when it engages in such activities, you can excuse those reasonable people for feeling like the taxes they paid to support that military are being wasted (i.e. given to someone else for no benefit to those taxpayers).

Remember that unpopular conflicts like Vietnam or the Gulf Wars were decisions of the elected officials who control our military. It is very important to understand the nature of those we elect because it is they who use or abuse the power of our military.

The same argument can be made about subsidizing solar energy research. The argument would go like this:

Remember that controversial efforts like (–insert pet peeve subsidy here–) are decisions of the elected officials who control our federal budget. It is very important to understand the nature of those we elect because it is they who use or abuse the power of our budgetary process.

 

[Dryden77]

Hello all, this is my first thread on this forum! I always look up different political topics to see the differing opinions that you guys have. An economic system that is highly supported by many Catholics is Distributism. So far I like what I’ve read about it, but I am curious as to what role the welfare state/social programs would play in a distributist society? I’m not seeking an argument, I am just curious.

God bless,
Christian

I think that church leaders should confine their pronouncements on economics to the most narrow and specific moral issues and stay away from lending their approval to, and associating the church with, an entire economic system.

Distributism is a fantasy – and not even a pleasant one. It calls to mind an era when people were far poorer than they are today. Moreover, and more importantly, the system wouldn’t work, at least in terms of allowing for the degree of economic complexity and efficiency our whole way of life now relies on. It would set us back decades, if not centuries.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That is one of its functions. But it also can go on adventures that reasonable people could believe are not strictly for the protection of all Americans. And when it engages in such activities, you can excuse those reasonable people for feeling like the taxes they paid to support that military are being wasted (i.e. given to someone else for no benefit to those taxpayers).

That is the ONLY function of our military. If it goes on adventures and does things it was not authorized to do (including humanitarian adventurers) it is violating the Constitution…or even worse it is being used improperly by those in power. As long as we have civilian control of the military those we elect are responsible for the use or misuse of the military…not the taxpayer support. You can’t blame the military if it is used by elected officials improperly…blame those elected idiots.

The same argument can be made about subsidizing solar energy research. The argument would go like this:

Remember that controversial efforts like (–insert pet peeve subsidy here–) are decisions of the elected officials who control our federal budget. It is very important to understand the nature of those we elect because it is they who use or abuse the power of our budgetary process.

There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing congress to spend money on solar research or any other type of “research” for that matter.

Simply put…the government cannot do what it is not authorized to do. (.) (Period)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is the ONLY function of our military. If it goes on adventures and does things it was not authorized to do (including humanitarian adventurers) it is violating the Constitution…or even worse it is being used improperly by those in power. As long as we have civilian control of the military those we elect are responsible for the use or misuse of the military…not the taxpayer support. You can’t blame the military if it is used by elected officials improperly…blame those elected idiots.

Regardless of who is to blame, the fact is that such abuse happens. And when it does happen, it is as Ridgerunner said in post #96 an instance of the government taking from one and giving to another, to which you are now seeming to agree.

 

[Portrait]

If, indeed, Christians provided adequately for those who cannot help themselves, then it would be my position the government has no business providing it. And if Christians did not do so privately, then the city, county, state all before the federal government. That’s what “subsidiarity” is.

snip/

Dear Ridgerunner,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Indeed, and herein lies the biggest problem as regards a country without a Welfare State safety net to provide for the most basic needs of the mentally afflicted and chronically sick - food, shelter, warmth and medical care. Their only hope of survival is when working people are given to occasional bouts of generosity and throw them a few crumbs of unforced charitable giving. In between such times of chartable giving they are at risk of severe ill-health, starvation, homelessness, as well as unprovoked acts of violence. That our fellow-men, made in the image of God, are permitted to live such wretched lives is unacceptable in a civilised and economically prosperous country. Let us be perfectly clear here, we are speaking not of the able and capable who can work and hold down a job, but of the mentally afflicted and chronically unwell who cannot work and hold down a job. As a society an obligation is laid upon us to provide for such people, via the Welfare State, so as to ensure that they can live their lives with some degree of dignity and are* regularly* cared for week in and week out. Moreover, we cannot always assume that they have family and friends who will or can meet their many needs - sometimes these poor souls have been abandoned by their families/friends and branded as ‘skivers’ or ‘feckless’.

Thanks be unto God, dear friend, here in Britain we do have a Welfare State at the present time, which ensures that the working poor, unemployed and chronically sick do not suffer utter destitution or a premature death through neglect. Moreover, the existence of a Welfare State is not contrary to Catholic Social doctrine, but rather supports it in that a country *regularly *provides for the needs of the most vulnerable members of society, ensuring that that their essential needs - food, shelter, warmth and medical care - are continually met, not just occasionally by some goodwill. Again, it is just plain silly, as regards the chronically sick, speaking about the Welfare State safety net usurping the natural rights, responsibilities and initiative of the individual. For these are people who are neither able nor capable of working or holding down a job for any length of time.

What I find so utterly astounding, dear friend, is that some American’s bizarrely believe that taxation for Social Security is a form of theft because it is ‘forced’. However, what is so jolly unfathomable is that they seem to accept paying some tax for goods and services, but not for Social Security benefits for the chronically sick and jobless, who they harshly and disdainfully dismiss as “getting a free ride from the system”. However, this means that they shamefully place a greater value on goods/services than they do on their fellow-man made in God’s image. How very sad and disturbing that those who profess the holy religion of Christ can embrace such a hard and un-Christian viewpoint. Is this where a Capitalist and Darwinian sort of survival of the fittest mindset ultimately lead us?

As I previously stated, dear friend, many of those suffering chronically ill-health (mental or physical) are neither able nor capable of holding down a job, thus it is jolly unreasonable and callous to expect them to take initiative, take risks and pay their way in life. In a civilised society we have no option but to provide for these poor souls, via a proportion of government taxation, so as to ensure that they are provided for regularly and properly. The alternative is to abandon them and just hope that they will survive indignity and neglect through occasional charitable handouts. Whilst I would in wise deny the role of goodwill charitable giving, this is really only going that extra mile and can never be substitute for public service. In any event, at a time when even charities are starved of cash, we could not rely upon such giving to continually meet the needs of all of a nation’s sick and vulnerable, week in and week out. For example, they simply could not pay all the exorbitant private sector rents or utility bills for every individual sick person. Consequently, the sick would be evicted from their homes and left to die of neglect on the streets. Sorry, but most people with a modicum of basic humanity would not wish to live in a society where some rest and enjoy full stomachs and adequate housing, whilst the streets outside of our homes are full of the destitute and chronically sick. What sort of heartless society is that?

We should never begrudge a portion of our taxes being redistributed for the needs of the vulnerable and acutely sick in our midst - we are our brother’s keeper and thus we do have responsibilities to others in society and government exists to enforce those responsibilities so as to make sure or civilised society remains civil.

“Every person has an inalienable right to life, to food, and shelter, suitable work and pay, and other requirements for human decency. A just society can be protected only when these human rights are met. A basic test of the moral and social well-being of any society is the condition of its most vulnerable members” (Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions, June 1998 statement issued by the American bishops).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Regardless of who is to blame, the fact is that such abuse happens. And when it does happen, it is as Ridgerunner said in post #96 an instance of the government taking from one and giving to another, to which you are now seeming to agree.

NO Leaf. I do not agree and Ridgerunner is wrong.

If a government is AUTHORIZED (by Constitution or by the consent of those governed) to collect taxes from productive, working people and support non working and non productive people…that is “taking from one and giving to another”…BUT it is AUTHORIZED…so I can’t complain. It would be a legitimate function of that socialized government.

If a government is established and AUTHORIZED to provide for the “common good” it MUST provide services EQUALLY to all. Therefore the rich man receives the same police and fire protection as the poor man. The military protects both rich and poor from foreign invaders. IF elected politicians grant favors in the form of unequal services or benefits to some people or corporations at the expense of others (taking from one and giving to another) those politicians are violating the Constitution or laws that established that government. If the military is used for anything other than the common defense…some politician is violating the Constitution or laws that established that government.

We really cannot punish a politician for being an idiot and making mistakes, but we can certainly vote him out of office and hopefully learn not to make another voting mistake ourselves.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

[If a government is **AUTHORIZED

(by Constitution or by the consent of those governed) to collect taxes from productive, working people and support non working and non productive people…that is “taking from one and giving to another”…BUT it is AUTHORIZED…so I can’t complain. It would be a legitimate function of that socialized government.
Does your phrase “by the consent of those governed” include legislation passed by representatives elected by a majority of the citizens? If you are going to require that the consent be unanimous, then there can never be any consent of the governed in a country of more than about 5000 people, because with 5000 people or more, you are always going to find somebody who will disagree with any given proposal. And if you allow for legislation passed by majority-elected representatives, then it is entirely possible that such a majority may decide to spend your tax money on something that you consider a waste.

But as I said before, the fact that something is legally authorized does not ensure it won’t be a case of taking from some and giving to others.

If a government is established and AUTHORIZED to provide for the “common good” it MUST provide services EQUALLY to all.

“Must”? Really? Or else what? What is to prevent a government from providing services in an unequal way?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Leaf…your logic and reason are (almost) flawless.

Does your phrase “by the consent of those governed” include legislation passed by representatives elected by a majority of the citizens? If you are going to require that the consent be unanimous, then there can never be any consent of the governed in a country of more than about 5000 people, because with 5000 people or more, you are always going to find somebody who will disagree with any given proposal. And if you allow for legislation passed by majority-elected representatives, then it is entirely possible that such a majority may decide to spend your tax money on something that you consider a waste.

I use the term “by the consent of those governed” in reference to the establishment of a government.

However I find no reason why it cannot also refer to the democratic election of representatives. That being the case…you are right. Except in my circle of friends it only takes three to have a disagreement.

While it is true that a majority of elected legislators can pass laws that the minority does not agree with…we have a Constitution to protect the rights of all…including the minority.

Our Constitution makes it very clear what the government (includes elected representatives) can or cannot do. A unanimous vote of the entire congress, with presidential approval cannot establish a national religion in the United States. ( Or could it? Or should it?)

But as I said before, the fact that something is legally authorized does not ensure it won’t be a case of taking from some and giving to others.

Again you are right. It happens all the time. Laws are wrongly applied. Laws are given a wide interpretation. It has become politically positive to skirt laws and authorizations for the benefit of some who will now vote in a particular way.

“Must”? Really? Or else what? What is to prevent a government from providing services in an unequal way?

Our Constitution…unless you want to toss it out. Our country was founded on the principle of “Lex Rex” not “Rex Lex”. Here the law “should” be king. Government just can’t do whatever it wants.

Here’s the danger:

We have had several presidents who have “ruled” by executive order. Some of these orders openly violate the Constitution…but the presidents get away with it…because a portion of the people agree with these actions. The trouble is that the next president can over rule his predecessor’s orders and issue his own. Now these new orders could be a greater violation of the Constitution and affect the majority of the population…but since every president gets away with a little more…some day we could have a tyrant. Now if he turns out to be a nice pro business, Conservative tyrant, that would be fine with me…but I would see my liberal friends going bonkers.

Bottom line…you are right. It happens. It is not supposed to happen but it does. Our government cannot do whatever it wants to do…positive or negative.