Homeowners and neighborhoods under Biden

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarthaSo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also consider that if the wealthy people already living in the neighborhood don’t like the result of such a government action, they may just move away. Trying to coerce people to behave in a certain way may backfire.
 
Yeah, there’s a town in northern kentucky I have relatives in, used to be a real nice town. Now it’s a dump. Built all kinds of low income and section 8, crime rate went up, nothing is cared for or maintained. Just a dump.
 
So you don’t actually have evidence of what you said. I would say it’s common sense that they wouldn’t do those things, since they don’t have the money to pay for it. They’d seek to improve income before lifestyle.
 
Well, if you actually provide evidence I’ll give my due diligence and listen. If you don’t, that’s on you.
 
Odilon said:
Catholic teaching is not based on force, nor where people decide to live and who with. If a homeless man in the dead of winter needs a coat I am obliged to give him one, mine if need be - that is Catholic teaching. If a person is hungry and asks me for food I am obliged to feed him or her - that is Catholic teaching. No where in Catholic teaching is there a requirement for me to live amongst people whom I do not want to live with - it simply is not there.
Click to expand...
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
Integralism by Thomas Cream and Alan Fimister

Please read them. You’ll better understand the Catholic teaching on the authority if legitimate authority.
 
“High rates of mobility are by no means inconsistent with a system of stratification that concentrates power and privilege in a ruling elite. Indeed, the circulation of elites strengthens the principle of hierarchy, furnishing elites with fresh talent and legitimizing their ascendancy as a function of merit than of birth.” — Christopher Lasch.
 
You mean the one that set the groundwork for the Catholic labor movement?
 
If we’re recommending encyclicals, let’s also throw in Quadragesimo anno.
 
Did Jesus advocate for moving poor people into wealthy neighborhoods? I remember that he remarked how difficult it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom. Did he wish to put the poor equally at risk?
 
The point about privilege. If some are privileged others are by definition not so. The problem of poverty is more than just “work your way to the top!” That might work in a real free market but under the system of corporate oligopoly capitalism with a mutually reinforcing system of big organizations and big government, which feed off each other, creates unnatural stratifications that cannot simply be solved by “working your way to the top.”
 
So you think the powerful should use the apparatus of the state to make themselves more powerful because there’s a hierarchy in Heaven?
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
Odilon:
I am an advocate of full on liberty, where each of us chooses where to live and who we want to live around. The government forcing things down our throats is anarchism, government anarchism. Again, would a Joe Biden, or a Bill Mahar, or any of these Upper West Side liberals or an AOC want these people in their neighborhood? Not on your life.
Click to expand...
Libertarianism, anarchism. Call it what you like. Such positions are not reconciliable with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Libertarianism, properly understood, certainly is.
CCC 160 To be human, “man’s response to God by faith must be free, and. . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.” “God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. “For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom. . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself.”
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
Libertarianism, properly understood, certainly is.
Click to expand...
Um, your quote has nothing to do with political libertarianism. It has to do with religious freedom. I recommend the same two books I recommended earlier.

I also recommend the encyclicals mentioned earlier.
 
HarryStotle said:
Libertarianism, properly understood, certainly is.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, in the Church’s teaching, ownership has never been understood in a way that could constitute grounds for social conflict in labour. As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of “capital” in opposition to “labour”-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour, they cannot even be possessed for possession’s sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour, and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Church’s teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html

Sorry, you were saying libertarianism was compatible with Catholicism?
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Libertarianism, properly understood, certainly is.
Click to expand...
Um, your quote has nothing to do with political libertarianism. It has to do with religious freedom. I recommend the same two books I recommended earlier.

I also recommend the encyclicals mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
There are many forms of political libertarianism, but in general they all subscribe to a philosophical principle of liberty which aligns just fine with the paragraph from the CCC I quoted above.

From the libertarianism.org website.
A libertarian is committed to the principle that liberty is the most important political value. Liberty means being free to make your own choices about your own life, that what you do with your body and your property ought to be up to you. Other people must not forcibly interfere with your liberty, and you must not forcibly interfere with theirs.
Click to expand...
Now we could take issue with whether liberty is the “most important political value” or one of several important values. And I have argued against it being the determinative one in a thread on CAF.

As a principle to guide political life, it is NOT true to say Libertarianism is NOT reconcilable with Catholicism. Tom Woods is both Catholic and Libertarian and there are many others who could make the case.

Irreconcilable sets a very high threshold. I doubt it is defensible.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
Did Jesus advocate for moving poor people into wealthy neighborhoods? I remember that he remarked how difficult it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom. Did he wish to put the poor equally at risk?
Click to expand...
Did He advocate for shunning living next to certain other people simply because they were poor? Certainly not.

Which of the two ideas sounds more in line with His example who turned away the rich young man who was overly attached to his wealth? And that of the early.Chrostians who literally accorrding to Scripture, held everything, housing no doubt included, in common?
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Libertarianism, properly understood, certainly is.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, in the Church’s teaching, …
Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html

Sorry, you were saying libertarianism was compatible with Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Not seeing what you are trying to argue. The quote hasn’t anything to do with libertarianism, per se. And I am not about to read several encyclicals to make your point for you. You want to argue it? Go ahead and lay out a concise case.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Libertarianism, properly understood, certainly is.
Click to expand...
Um, your quote has nothing to do with political libertarianism. It has to do with religious freedom.
Click to expand...
Actually, it doesn’t ONLY have to do with religious freedom. It is stating that human freedom as a metaphysical and existential aspect of being human that cannot be infringed even where religious belief is concerned.

Not even God coerces belief because that would be contrary to what it means to be human, especially fully human.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top