Genesis of social justice

[royal_archer]

The jobs follow cheap labor and the lack of overhead on laborers.

The jobs left New England to the south to mexico to china etc. etc.

The high cost of business to not pollute, pay for infrastructure, decent wages etc. is a strawman, the class that sold the factories kept everything and added more to what they said they couldn’t afford to pay their workers.

For instance, when most people were getting fully paid health insurance through their jobs,** the country was booming** and wages for manufacturing were high, but the wealth was shared .

Now its not shared and what is the result? Well its great if you work at Goldman , but it sucks if you live in TX or SC and don’t have a high paying job.

Peace

If what you mean by the coutry was booming is that there was high employment and high worker productivity, you are absolutely right. American workers have the skills to justify a higher wage if they are willing to make a serious effort to their work. When people slack off, the ecconomy suffers.

 

[royal_archer]

Maybe the country was booming and so people could afford to fully pay for health benefits. Even then people decried the rich. This is really a tired old saw. Even then the costs were less. Mandated health coverage of items many never use is a big problem with healthcare costs. For instance Why do I have to pay for Mamogram coverage? I am a man, I won’t get one.

The costs of doing business I am talking about are the unfunded mandates that gov’t imposes upon business. The high taxes, the regulations, the greenhouse gas lies, the EPA run amuck over some insigificant snail no one knew existed, etc… With all that business has to put up with I don’t understand who would want to own one in America.

You wouldn’t need a mamogram but your wife would. It was the plan (going back to Genesis now) for men and women to be married. Think of the significant reduction in the costs of welfare if couples always maried and stayed maried.

 

[royal_archer]

What are you talking about? When was wealth “shared” and in what way?

It has been since the first day Ug traded a piece of a captured animal to Gug in exchange for a couple extra bananas that Gug retrieved from a tree. The freee market is all about sharing wealth. Sharing is voluntary, stealing is involuntary.

 

[royal_archer]

I think social justice ought to be geared toward providing equal opertunity. If you don’t want to take it, that’s your problem. Kinda of like leading a horse to water, if he doesn’t want to drink, then it his fault for being thirsty.

Great quote:thumbsup:

 

[John_Pascendi]

Excellent…so true. My dad used to tell me…“John,If you see a man who is hungry,give him a sandwich quickly…then later after he has finished,give him a hoe and some seed and let him grow his own!”.Charity is a holy practice but one must never allow it to become a tool of causing the recepient to expect aid when he/she can also lend a helping hand. I bring food,(collected by the local boy scouts) to two ole vets…both bacholers,in their early 80s and also had their homes repaired by special services…but they worked all their lives and are alone in the world…they look dreadful,long white hair and breads and if one makes it to the local market for an item,as he turns to leave the store,the owner sprays the area with dis-enfectant. A mean thing to do but …what the heck. but for the grace of God …etc…Pas

 

[sedonaman]

… The freee market is all about sharing wealth. Sharing is voluntary, stealing is involuntary.

Other than those who want the government to tax “A” and give it to “B”, ostensibly to attain a more “just” society, who is making an argument that stealing is required to achieve social justice? Obviously, if someone has something you’d like, you have to offer him something you have that he is willing to accept in exchange. I don’t call that “sharing”; I call it buying and selling. “Sharing” means I have something you need, and I give you some of it.

In an attempt to sound noble and gain the moral high ground, you are using words to mean something they don’t.

 

[sedonaman]

When I got off of active duty and came back to the states.I assumed that a VA loan would be my best option. It turned out that an FHA guaranteed loan was even cheaper (even with mortgage insurance) It is disapointing how veterans get lesser bennefits than those who are underemployed.

So what else is new? The government owed John Paul Jones back pay at the end of the War for Independence. It didn’t retire this debt until it paid his heirs in 1848, over 50 years after he died.

Nor is this unique to the United States. The British have a little ditty written by Rudyard Kipling “Johnny” is their equivalent of a GI]:For it’s Johnny this, an’ Johnny that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Savior of 'is country” when the guns begin to shoot.

 

[cdeterma]

Other than those who want the government to tax “A” and give it to “B”, ostensibly to attain a more “just” society, who is making an argument that stealing is required to achieve social justice? Obviously, if someone has something you’d like, you have to offer him something you have that he is willing to accept in exchange. I don’t call that “sharing”; I call it buying and selling. “Sharing” means I have something you need, and I give you some of it.

In an attempt to sound noble and gain the moral high ground, you are using words to mean something they don’t.

I think most of us who earn our living feel that using the government to confiscate a portion of my wealth in order to give it to someone else is theft. And those who advocate it are thieves. When a local church teaches that this is necessary to the Christian Life we become offended.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Cdeterma,

I think you have misapplied the statement. The local church is not taking - or taxing - or stealing … as can be viewed that our government is doing (ready for a Value Added Tax?! ) to provide for the failures of failed bankers and fraud practicing mortgage individuals.

In Matthew 25, Christ is asking both those on his right and left when did they feed the hungry and clothe the naked adn visit the imprisoned? If we want eternal life, we ar required to follow Christ - and providing for the needs of others is simply not an option. The issue, however is taxing others for the boondoggles fancied by others as a ‘must do’. No one is immune from stupidities and misapplied funds - the US Catholic Bishops may be an excellent example of good intentions run amuck.

Ultimately, we are confronted by Christ’s question - and, we had better have a good answer… if we seek to be with Him in heaven…

God bless

Tom

I think most of us who earn our living feel that using the government to confiscate a portion of my wealth in order to give it to someone else is theft. And those who advocate it are thieves. When a local church teaches that this is necessary to the Christian Life we become offended.

 

[sedonaman]

I think most of us who earn our living feel that using the government to confiscate a portion of my wealth in order to give it to someone else is theft. And those who advocate it are thieves. When a local church teaches that this is necessary to the Christian Life we become offended.

I’ve attended mass every Sunday for over 60 years, and in many churches, and have yet to hear a homily where this was said.

 

[Tigg]

I think most of us who earn our living feel that using the government to confiscate a portion of my wealth in order to give it to someone else is theft. And those who advocate it are thieves.

Well, Pope Leo XIII agrees with you:

To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, **for they would rob the lawful possessor, **distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

When a local church teaches that this is necessary to the Christian Life we become offended.

And many organizations operating under the banner of social justice are doing precisely this today. They would hope to bury us in guilt for not providing sufficiently for the poor and strive to place them on a pedestal as somehow being more deserving than the wage earner. This is pure lib theology, promoted during their heyday of the 60’s, and is false teaching.

 

[cdeterma]

I’ve attended mass every Sunday for over 60 years, and in many churches, and have yet to hear a homily where this was said.

This was said to me in an RCIA class, " Social Justice demands that as wealth accumulates in a community, we must have community leaders that find ways to redistribute that wealth."

( as in my first post on page one)

 

[cdeterma]

I am also reading my local diocese position on social justice. In it they quote a speach made to the UN in 1979 by Pope John Paul II. There are 18 “rights” outlined in that speach. Here is the link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

I have a problem with a few of them. Namely, the right to sufficient and necessary means, the right to education, the right to a just wage, and the right to emigrate. In order to have these things as rights it becomes a duty for some else to act in order to provide them. In effect declaring these rights makes slaves out whoever has the means to provide them. This is not Justice.

I would say you have a right to ask for help in obtaining necessary means, you the right to knowledge but must educate yourself, you have a right to negotiate whatever wage you are willing to work for, you have the right to leave any country but need to ask permission to enter another, otherwiase you violate the right to free assocation of others.

 

[sedonaman]

This was said to me in an RCIA class, " Social Justice demands that as wealth accumulates in a community, we must have community leaders that find ways to redistribute that wealth."

( as in my first post on page one)

Sounds like it was the teacher’s personal opinion. Did he indicate how much his excess * was that he was re-distributing ?*

 

[rickAnthony]

WHICH “Social Justice” are we discussing? “Social Justice” produced by personal choice? Or “Social Justice” produced by governmental action? The former is Christian Charity. The latter is coercion, at best, and oppression when it becomes pervasive.

 

[sedonaman]

WHICH “Social Justice” are we discussing? “Social Justice” produced by personal choice? Or “Social Justice” produced by governmental action? The former is Christian Charity. The latter is coercion, at best, and oppression when it becomes pervasive.

This is the question the advocates here have resisted. According to them, either you are for their kind of “social justice” [government forced redistribution] or you are against what Jesus taught.

I just posted a quote in the thread on movie quotes and it seems appropriate here:

Henry Drummond [Spencer Tracy]: “God speaks to you?!”

Matthew Harrison Brady [Frederick March]: “Yes!!!”

Drummond: “And you act accordingly?!!!”

Brady: “Yes!!!”

Drummond: “Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska!!! The Gospel according to Brady! God speaks to Brady, and Brady tells the world! Brady, Brady, Brady, Almighty! Is that the way of things? God tells Brady what is good; to be against Brady is to be against God!!!”

Brady: “No! Every man is a free agent!”

Drummond: “Then what is Bertram Cates doing in the Hillsboro jail?”

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Cdeterma,

Not to put too fine a point on it… but, most “rights” I am familiar with come with corresponding “responsibilities”. There are some exceptions… for example, the unborn child really does have a “right” to live and not be aborted at the whim of the mother - even though the US Supremes denied this “right” in Roe v Wade and subsequent pro-abortion rulings.

But, for the most part, if you make a demand based upon your perception of a “right” you are usually expected to do something in order to comply with obtaining that “right”. If you want to exercise your “right” to vote, you have the “responsibility” to comply with voting laws.

There is something about your “right” to punch ends where my nose begins. Without any stretch of the imagination, these “rights” without corresponding “responsibilities” is like looking at only one side of a coin. And, this is really a distorted view…at least in my opinion.

I am also reading my local diocese position on social justice. In it they quote a speach made to the UN in 1979 by Pope John Paul II. There are 18 “rights” outlined in that speach. Here is the link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

I have a problem with a few of them. Namely, the right to sufficient and necessary means, the right to education, the right to a just wage, and the right to emigrate. In order to have these things as rights it becomes a duty for some else to act in order to provide them. In effect declaring these rights makes slaves out whoever has the means to provide them. This is not Justice.

I would say you have a right to ask for help in obtaining necessary means, you the right to knowledge but must educate yourself, you have a right to negotiate whatever wage you are willing to work for, you have the right to leave any country but need to ask permission to enter another, otherwiase you violate the right to free assocation of others.

 

[royal_archer]

Hi, Cdeterma,

I think you have misapplied the statement. The local church is not taking - or taxing - or stealing … as can be viewed that our government is doing (ready for a Value Added Tax?! ) to provide for the failures of failed bankers and fraud practicing mortgage individuals.

In Matthew 25, Christ is asking both those on his right and left when did they feed the hungry and clothe the naked adn visit the imprisoned? If we want eternal life, we ar required to follow Christ - and providing for the needs of others is simply not an option. The issue, however is taxing others for the boondoggles fancied by others as a ‘must do’. No one is immune from stupidities and misapplied funds - the US Catholic Bishops may be an excellent example of good intentions run amuck.

Ultimately, we are confronted by Christ’s question - and, we had better have a good answer… if we seek to be with Him in heaven…

God bless

Tom

The more effective way of meeting that intent is to provide charity directly to the needy, not through an innefficient middle man that uses the money to buy votes, and pad the pockets of campaign contributors.

Also supporting taxation is not YOU helping the poor, it is YOU engaging in theft.

 

[royal_archer]

This was said to me in an RCIA class, " Social Justice demands that as wealth accumulates in a community, we must have community leaders that find ways to redistribute that wealth."

( as in my first post on page one)

And an effective way to do that is to allow free commerce so that those in need have every opportunity to earn their fair share. However the government does like to take these opportunities away.

 

[royal_archer]

I am also reading my local diocese position on social justice. In it they quote a speach made to the UN in 1979 by Pope John Paul II. There are 18 “rights” outlined in that speach. Here is the link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

I have a problem with a few of them. Namely, the right to sufficient and necessary means, the right to education, the right to a just wage, and the right to emigrate. In order to have these things as rights it becomes a duty for some else to act in order to provide them. In effect declaring these rights makes slaves out whoever has the means to provide them. This is not Justice.

I would say you have a right to ask for help in obtaining necessary means, you the right to knowledge but must educate yourself, you have a right to negotiate whatever wage you are willing to work for, you have the right to leave any country but need to ask permission to enter another, otherwiase you violate the right to free assocation of others.

And of course "9) the right to free choice of a state in life and the right to establish a family (marriage); "

So why aren’t the social justice advocates advocating that single moms and single women in need be forced to marry men of means who are having a hard time finding a spouse.

I’m not advocating it, just pointing out the natural consequence of the logic they are using.