I’m literally quoting from the Catechism
Where do you see that something must not be given to someone for free? That is the real question. I am not arguing that government must give people free stuff. Others may have tried to make that point, but not me. I only claim that government may give people free stuff - such after Hurricane Katrina. Lots of people got free stuff and they did not have to work for it. And as has already been pointed out, people get free benefits from a library. There is no essential difference between the library giving everyone in town access to the Internet computers for free and government giving all children access to a hot lunch and giving all people in town a hot dinner. The free lunches in school are not just for those kids who can’t provide. It is for everyone. And the free access to the Internet computers at the library are not just for the destitute. They are for everyone - including successful businessmen. My wife used to work in a public library and she said the lawyers were some of the most frequent users of her reference research services. These people are already getting free stuff.
That’s for the society to determine over time. Interesting to note that the countries where people report the greatest “happiness” (there is apparently some index for measuring this) are not countries with very low taxes. Various government provided services are quite highly valued.
What it would do is what finds most favour with the citizenry who vote. That may not ensure the ideal, but it’s a fairly effective control.
Would you include things like setting minimum wages?
It happens all the time. If I am poor and don’t work, I receive unemployment benefits with no regard for the tax I’ve paid in the past. That’s for free. I can still use the public library and parks. For free.
The meaning of “earned it” may change considerably in the future.
I do, unless you hold 100% as a standard. It is not that complicated a read. For those who do find it difficult, or have not read it through carefully, that is okay, as long as they understand that having an opinion about something the do not know makes little sense.
Okay, there are two points here. May vs. must and then how much.
The thread is on Democrats, which is not the same as big government.
the church must be right-wing because the policies listed are not approved of by the church?
no, it isn’t, it isn’t as simple as what you typed
state versus federal, you have very few pro-life Democrats in Congress
yet, you seem to be arguing against the church stand on SSM, etc. that I listed above
These things may be free to you or free to you for a time but they are not completely free. Someone pays. Businesses pay unemployement tax so that unemployement can be paid out. FUTA - Federal Unemployment Tax Act. I can completely attest that unemployment can be a financial burden on small businesses, so while one is getting something free, another person is paying or might be hurting. I also know professional “unemployed” people.
It is not a must in the sense that any government must offer a basic income. But it is a must in the sense that after a government decides something, until that decision is changed, it does become a must. But this sense of “must” is not necessarily a bad thing. When government decides that cars will drive on the right side of the street, then it becomes a must that people must drive on the right side of the street. If society wants to change it they can always go through the legal channels and change it.
Why is it a different topic? Are the services provided by a library so fundamentally different than everyone using their UBI to pay for fiber optic Internet to the own homes? (In terms of violating Catholic teaching only).
That is true. Any pragmatic decision can be made badly, resulting in an unjust outcome.
That was not questioned. The fairness of how taxation is collected and public resources are employed are also important considerations.
By and large, that’s not questioned either. What will constitute work, or sufficient work, in the future may change. Technology may lead us to a place where there is simply not the need for the manpower required in the past. But people must have the resources to live and participate in society.
My point is that someone somewhere pays a tax so someone can use a free resource, while the someone using that resource may not be paying a tax for said resource. It is part of the question regarding fairness in taxes. Many times when someone collects unemployment, a businesses unemployment tax may rise.
You could be right. It would be a very unhealthy society if that is the case, though I have heard some say it could go the opposite way and we lose our technology and need manpower. Unfortunately our society would have a difficult time.
You express a legal theory that is utterly foreign to me. Courts clarify man made edicts ( laws, constitution, precedents, etc.) by reconciling inconsistencies and safe guarding justice. It may be that the Court acted improperly by giving a new law, but it would be wrong to take Court action as normally producing new law.
It is private as long as the mother breathes for the child. When the child breathes on his own, the private relationship has given way to a public one.
Is that the meaning of private? This too is I think an invention of man.
When people are put on a respirator, do they lose the status of being a person, and all rights due? In other words, can the hospital decide to execute them, as a private matter, since they are breathing for him?
And bring in a regular supply of customers for restaurants and other businesses in the area, and jobs for the people who build the stadium, and jobs for the people who sell concessions at the stadium, and a regular supply of customers for satellite parking facilities, and so on. Not everything is so simplistic as some would have us believe.