Extreme poverty needs to be eradicated from the face of the planet!

[openmind77]

The error here is that Jesus does not teach that “government” has a “mission” to “take care” of people.

The teachings of Jesus can be known and interpreted correctly only through His Catholic Church, Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium.

Consult post #208 which emphasises the principle of solidarity from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991, and includes:
“…the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

I did not say the government has a mission from Jesus.

I said **you **have a mission from Jesus to take care of all your brothers and sisters.

Once you accept that mission, you should not have any objection to anyone including the government attempting to fulfill that mission. (regardless of what Pope Paul or anyone else says - Jesus’s injunctions override **everyone **else).

 

[Jozefo]

I think we are going off topic a bit. However, if you live in the US, you are bound by its constitution and whatever laws the Congress passes (if you don’t agree with the laws, you can take it to court).

Regardless of legality, the whole point of Jesus’s ministry was to teach people that you are indeed your brother’s keeper.

If you do believe in these teachings of Jesus, then you should really not have any objections to your government fulfilling this mission of taking care of your brothers (and sisters).

Sorry if I’m going off topic, but I think it’s important. Consent is essential for lawful government. In the western culture, this has been the case for thousands of years. Even God asks for consent:

Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Also, the Constitution is not binding on anyone but public servants, and states. The idea that citizens are bound by it is gross error, and exposed by the simple fact that no one is asked to consent. Well, they are asked, but it’s hidden. At any rate, the US has less power than God, and God needs consent.

 

[openmind77]

Sorry if I’m going off topic, but I think it’s important. Consent is essential for lawful government. In the western culture, this has been the case for thousands of years. Even God asks for consent:

Also, the Constitution is not binding on anyone but public servants, and states. The idea that citizens are bound by it is gross error, and exposed by the simple fact that no one is asked to consent. Well, they are asked, but it’s hidden. At any rate, the US has less power than God, and God needs consent.

Constitution is not binding on anyone but public servants, and states? You must be joking - are you sure you live in the US? Try breaking some federal law and telling that to the police. But really if you want to discuss this, please start another thread.

 

[Jozefo]

Constitution is not binding on anyone but public servants, and states? You must joking - are you sure you live in the US? Try breaking some federal law and telling that to the police. But really if you want to discuss this, please start another thread.

It’s actually the main issue underlying this entire thread. The bone of contention has been how government ought to work toward eradicating poverty. But government isn’t authorized to do anything without people’s consent.

I see the problem this way: so many people have handed off their sovereignty to their public servants, they no longer hold the levers of power in society. This led to government changing the way money is created, which in turn led to increasing poverty and social anxiety.

The key to solving it, is citizens exercising their sovereign prerogative, and evicting their wicked public servants. Then, and only then, can they shut off the unholy money creation scheme that grips every single one of us by the throat.

Now the Constitution binds government, not citizens. This is very basic civics in the US from only a generation or two ago. Today it’s simply not taught. It’s our own fault, because again, we are the sovereigns. Government has no duty to teach us about our sovereignty.

 

[openmind77]

The error here is that Jesus does not teach that “government” has a “mission” to “take care” of people.

The teachings of Jesus can be known and interpreted correctly only through His Catholic Church, Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium.

Consult post #208 which emphasises the principle of solidarity from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991, and includes:
“…the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying that it is not Jesus’s teaching’s that we should take care of our brother’s and sister’s? That we are in fact not our brother’s keepers? That this is merely a personal choice? That each Christian should decide for himself whether he cares about other people or not?

Basically as long as you are not interfering with other people, you are being a good follower of Jesus?

If you know that someone is starving, it is really not your responsibility as long as it was not you who was the cause of his starvation?

 

[Abu]

openmind 77 #256
(regardless of what Pope Paul or anyone else says - Jesus’s injunctions override everyone else).

Yet another error in trying to pit Jesus against His Church, in teaching faith and morals through His Magisterium on the question of the principle of subsidiarity and the role of the State within that reality, rather than paying obeisance to “openmind77’s” feelings.

The role of government is expressly limited and no one may legitimately challenge Christ’s Church on that. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The reality from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis."

 

[openmind77]

Yet another error in trying to pit Jesus against His Church, in teaching faith and morals through His Magisterium on the question of the principle of subsidiarity and the role of the State within that reality, rather than paying obeisance to “openmind77’s” feelings.

The role of government is expressly limited and no one may legitimately challenge Christ’s Church on that. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The reality from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities

I don’t think you should bother about my feelings at all. But as long as you do believe that Jesus wants you to help those who are needy, then you should not have any objections to how this is achieved (by the government or by some other agency).

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #262
But as long as you do believe that Jesus wants you to help those who are needy, then you should not have any objections to how this is achieved (by the government or by some other agency).

It is precisely because Jesus warns, through His Church’s teaching, that the principle of subsidiarity is vital, that real Catholics insist on that principle. The state of societies in general has been greatly weakened through governments intervening in spheres and to extents, regardless of such principles, and clearly enunciated by the acknowledged Saint John Paul II (posts # 254, 2610), which is why needed aid must be provided by communities so established and not supplanted by the State.

 

[openmind77]

It is precisely because Jesus warns, through His Church’s teaching, that the principle of subsidiarity is vital, that real Catholics insist on that principle. The state of societies in general has been greatly weakened through governments intervening in spheres and to extents, regardless of such principles, and clearly enunciated by the acknowledged Saint John Paul II (posts # 254, 2610), which is why needed aid must be provided by communities so established and not supplanted by the State.

If communities could actually deliver this - a reasonable life of human dignity for everyone, there would be no reason for the state to do it.

But the fact is that the communities have failed to deliver this for the last hundred years. I really could not care less and neither would Jesus, how everyone gets fed two meals a day, as long as they do. But the fact is that that millions, maybe over a billion go hungry today.

Actually I don’t know of any such warning by Jesus about not letting people be helped by the state in their basic needs.

 

[Reep]

So, we should do away with all taxes now?

No. Only those taxes collected under a threat of violence must be done away with. By example, I offer the Holy See, which seems able to collect sufficient voluntary contributions without threatening, jailing or killing anyone. It is the mark of an illegitimate state–a state that fails to respect and protect people’s rights–that it can only obtain obedience by the use of violence.

Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. . . .

~ Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 1930​

And don’t bother arguing that the “rights” in question are the right to “food, shelter and a computer.” Any state that begins the game by “using force or violence” has already lost its “moral legitimacy.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Are you saying that the ‘rich’ countries should give to the ‘poor’ countries when the leaders of the poor countries are living with more then everything they want or need? Maybe you would like to explain to the people in the Middle East (or India or China) that they are not victims of crimes against humanity because they are being shot/blown up,/eaten and not starved?

Countries need to work together to end extreme poverty. Once a plan is in place, yes, rich countries need to help the poor ones. You have this today, for example, the US sending tons of money to Egypt, but the ultimate motives are in oil interests and not ending extreme poverty per se. (Evil dictators need to be overthrown.)

But you also have corporations that can be encouraged to operate factories in poor countries and stimulate the economy.

There’s a huge amount of human capital in poor countries that can be cultivated and used to promote a worldwide economy. Everyone would eventually reap the rewards in one way or another.

 

[Robert_Sock]

No. Only those taxes collected under a threat of violence must be done away with. By example, I offer the Holy See, which seems able to collect sufficient voluntary contributions without threatening, jailing or killing anyone. It is the mark of an illegitimate state–a state that fails to respect and protect people’s rights–that it can only obtain obedience by the use of violence.

Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. . . .

~ Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 1930​

And don’t bother arguing that the “rights” in question are the right to “food, shelter and a computer.” Any state that begins the game by “using force or violence” has already lost its “moral legitimacy.”

I’m confused. Where are taxes being collected under the threat of violence? I never heard of this happening. Or, are you saying that any tax increase will result in some type of revolt by the people, in which case the government must bow down to those leading the revolt?

And, yes, people do have a right to the basic necessities, but again, most of this can be solved by the creation of decent-paying jobs. The standard of living can increase for everyone, not just the rich.

 

[Jozefo]

I’m confused. Where are taxes being collected under the threat of violence? I never heard of this happening. Or, are you saying that any tax increase will result in some type of revolt by the people, in which case the government must bow down to those leading the revolt?

And, yes, people do have a right to the basic necessities, but again, most of this can be solved by the creation of decent-paying jobs. The standard of living can increase for everyone, not just the rich.

You do realize that if you owe taxes, and don’t pay them, eventually they’ll come and take you to the gray bar hotel, right?

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #264
Actually I don’t know of any such warning by Jesus about not letting people be helped by the state in their basic needs.

The repetitive error of not knowing, and the only reason we can know what Jesus taught is through His Church which gave us the New Testament and has His authority to teach without error. So the principle of subsidiarity, as shown as taught by His Church, is the criterion and, as shown, this recognises and insists that the State should assist with the private organizations where necessary.

Jesus did not teach specifically against contraception; He did not teach against IVF and other modern evils and gave us His Church to so do.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You do realize that if you owe taxes, and don’t pay them, eventually they’ll come and take you to the gray bar hotel, right?

Yes, but that is all legal. Given one is not in poverty, only a renegade would refuse to pay taxes that are due.

Romans
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

 

[openmind77]

The repetitive error of not knowing, and the only reason we can know what Jesus taught is through His Church which gave us the New Testament and has His authority to teach without error. So the principle of subsidiarity, as shown as taught by His Church, is the criterion and, as shown, this recognises and insists that the State should assist with the private organizations where necessary.

Jesus did not teach specifically against contraception; He did not teach against IVF and other modern evils and gave us His Church to so do.

We definitely know what Jesus taught about helping the needy. Unlike the topic of contraception, there are plenty of quotes from Jesus himself about helping the poor and needy. In these words he did not limit in any way how this help should be given.

I am not saying the state should be major player in helping the needy. But if that is what it takes to keep thousands or millions from starvation or homelessness, so be it. I would rather people were actually fed while we are debating who should lead this effort. (Actually I think the new Pope will settle this unfortunate side tracking of what should be our actual goal - deliver help to those in need, not worry unnecessarily about how it is done. Just give him a few more months).

 

[Jozefo]

Yes, but that is all legal. Given one is not in poverty, only a renegade would refuse to pay taxes that are due.

Romans
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

Legal or not, it’s still under threat of force.

Now from Romans, you cite Scripture to impose authority that in America does not exist except by consent. We are not underlings being ruled by other men without our consent. Indeed, it’s supposed to be the other way around. They serve us; we do not serve them.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Legal or not, it’s still under threat of force.

Committing murder also involves a possible threat of force by the government. So what? Does it mean the use of force is somehow unjustified?

Now from Romans, you cite Scripture to impose authority that in America does not exist except by consent. We are not underlings being ruled by other men without our consent. Indeed, it’s supposed to be the other way around. They serve us; we do not serve them.

The government serves us, the people at large, by imposing laws and the use of force in some cases to enforce those laws. We are thus obligated to obey the laws, including our paying taxes. Lawbreakers are renegades, gone astray.

Do you agree?

 

[Jozefo]

Committing murder also involves a possible threat of force by the government. So what? Does it mean the use of force is somehow unjustified?

The government serves us, the people at large, by imposing laws and the use of force in some cases to enforce those laws. We are thus obligated to obey the laws, including our paying taxes. Lawbreakers are renegades, gone astray.

Do you agree?

I disagree. Only just laws are to be obeyed. Unjust laws ought to be disobeyed, for that is the lawful prerogative of a free person. The tax laws in force today are unjust in my opinion.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I disagree. Only just laws are to be obeyed. Unjust laws ought to be disobeyed, for that is the lawful prerogative of a free person. The tax laws in force today are unjust in my opinion.

And who is anyone to say a law is unjust? Can I expect to get away with first-degree murder simply by saying that the laws against it are unjust? Break a law and pay the consequences. The quote from Romans is most relevant here! Your statements are like those of a renegade!

If you feel that the tax laws of today are unjust, why do you follow them? Your reasoning suggests that you have a moral obligation to rebel!