If conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, why do they think poor people should rely on charity instead of the government?

[Bill_7154]

And yet we are expected to believe that multi-millionaires, with the immense power that comes with their wealth, are to be trusted to act for the common good?

Or worse, we are expected to put our faith in a blind process by which “the market” produces a utilitarian “greatest good for the greatest number” even though the individual actors are selfish.

Nothing truly conservative about either point of view as far as I can see.

Edwin

Mult-millionairs (let’s say 500 million and up) who ALSO have a vested interest in controlling other people, and/or are immoral in that they are neutral or positive when it comes to them increasing their wealth at the expense of others. They own government. People do not get the opportunity to have a serious chance to get elected to positions of high status and influence in government without the backing of the rich.

So government is a puppet for rich people to force the masses to do what they want them to do, and to pay for it as well.

If a rich person had to compete without government assistance, they would have an advantage over non rich, but would not have a free army to force everyone to go along with their desires. And if they started charging too much for whatever it is they sell, it would open up an opportunity for someone else to compete. And there would be no government owned by them creating artificial barriers to entry, making harder for said person to compete.

Either you believe that the rich make the rules and run things or you don’t.

If you do, you either believe that they have government in their pocket or you don’t. If you don’t, please enlighten me how this is possible as I can not fathom this being possible.

 

[Bill_7154]

I hear this all the time these days, but it just makes no sense at all.

If you are denying that the government has the right to tax, then you’re at odds with the Christian tradition as well as with the traditions of most civilized human societies.

I don’t see how you can claim that taxation is “stealing” when used to help the poor and not “stealing” when used for some other purpose, like raising an army.

Now you may hold the view (deeply mistaken and immoral in my opinion, but consistent) that the government’s job is only to provide “security” and not to help the poor. But even if you think this, I don’t see how that difference makes taxation stealing in one case and not in the other.

Edwin

It is stealing in all cases. Do you think it’s possible to create and run programs that claim to ‘help the poor’ but do a bad job at it? Do you think that it’s possible to have programs that claim to help the poor but actually hurt them in the long run?

 

[Bill_7154]

The difference is choice. I have more freedom operating in a free market than I do in a system where the government has control over everything because I can choose who I do business with, who I avoid, where I spend my money, etc. It is harder to limit my civil liberties when I am not dependent on the government for survival. They have less leverage. Multi-millionaires can’t use the force of law to compel people to do what they want. Politicians do.

I don’t know if you meant to imply this or not, but can’t multi millionaires use the government to compel people to do what they want them to do?

 

[Bill_7154]

It falls in the difference between what is God’s and what is Ceasars.

Sinc Caritas (Charity) is one of the Theologic virtues that is infused upon us at our Baptism, it Charity is clearly God’s.

The State, being an unbaptized entity, cannot truely practice the virtue of Charity. The State, in performing the feeding of the poor, brings about no Grace in the world. In fact, as St. John Chrysostom noted, it can bring about moral harm.

The poor, in recieving assistance, feel and express no gratitute, as they are simply recieving what they are ‘owed’ by the State.

The rich, on the otherhand, feel resentment.

Can anyone deny that this is what is happening in the world? How can ingratitude and resentment be Charity? How does that bring about Grace in the world and the Salvation of Souls?, which is really our ultimate goal.

I for one, feel that +Chrysostom is correct. The only true way to create economic justice is through the changing of hearts. In other words, conversions of heart towards the Gospel of Christ as presented by the Church.

Beautiful post. Thank you for putting my thoughts into the framework that was created for me to lead my life by, the teachings of Christ.

 

[Della]

I don’t know if you meant to imply this or not, but can’t multi millionaires use the government to compel people to do what they want them to do?

If you haven’t read G. K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong With the World, I highly recommend it. He calls big business and big government “hudge and gudge” and talks about why each and/or both working together are bad for human life and happiness. :tiphat:

 

[Bill_7154]

I think liberals love to paint conservatives as darker; it makes them feel more superior.

I have been on the internet for some time arguing about the matters in this thread. Although I do not identify myself as ‘conservative’ most would say that my views are much more conservative than liberal.

What is interesting is that since I was raised in a terrible home, suffered PTSD, homelessness, poverty, etc (and am, despite my best efforts a working poor person- which I am greatful for, it is a great improvement over my childhood and my life as a young adult) when I attempt to engage a ‘liberal’ in a discussion/argument about these matters they virtually ALWAYS remove themself from the argument because they can’t use the guilt factor, they can’t lable me as selfish and greedy, etc…becuase I WAS one of the people they are arguing ‘need government help’ need more government help, etc and they can’t win a debate against me on it’s merits nor can they paint me as a selfish person who doesn’t want to help the poor, who doesn’t care about the poor, etc…

I have had probably 50-100 different discussions/debates with such liberals and each time I reveal that I was homeless after a terrible childhood full of abuse and neglect, a truely ‘needy’ person, they can’t use the bully stick on me…what seems like a favorite tool in such debates. And they stop the debate and go seek someone with more money or status than I so they can use emotional weapons to try and win the debate, reinforce their belief system, whatever…

It really makes me sad and I don’t understand why I have not been able to change people’s opinions based on my personal experience as a ‘poor’ and ‘needy’ person who was almost trapped in the snares of government entitlement programs, something that doesn’t help but hurts. I have no doubt that if I grew up in a family that lived off of the taxes of others that this would have been my fate once I escaped my family and turned to homeless shelters as a first step towards a better alternative to learn how to live.

 

[Bill_7154]

The Church teaches that the human will is “turned in on itself” so that without grace people’s capacities even for natural good are fundamentally wounded. That’s part of the rejection of Pelagianism.

People are fundamentally good in the sense that their nature, created by God, is good, and the divine image is ineradicable. Grace builds on nature. But concupiscence is a reality with which any Christian view of the social order must deal. And the more power and wealth a person has–and particular the more they are encouraged in acquisitive patterns of behavior–the harder it will be for them to resist indulging in the impulses of concupiscence in ways destructive both to their own souls and to the society at large.

One of the purposes of a just government is to restrain concupiscence–the tendency of the fallen will to act for its own good rather than that of God and the neighbor. “Conservatives” irrationally assume that this must take only punitive forms. But social welfare legislation is another form of restraining human sinfulness for the common good. The arguments that “taxation is theft” and that “charity cannot be forced” (when the latter is used to reject taxation for social-welfare purposes and other government-sponsored “charitable” initiatives") are thus fundamentally heretical as well as socially destructive.

Edwin

I"m not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that a tiny minority of individuals who generally come from wealth and priveledge, and who are granted tremendous power over the populace, backed by men with guns/armies/etc are going to be belevelent and not corrupt and greedy and I sould trust them?

 

[Bill_7154]

If you haven’t read G. K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong With the World, I highly recommend it. He calls big business and big government “hudge and gudge” and talks about why each and/or both working together are bad for human life and happiness. :tiphat:

Thanks for the book suggestion. It’s long been my belive that a limited number of very wealthy individuals sort of working together actually control the government and essentially the world.

I don’t know if you have ever heard of the Bilderberg Group, but I don’t think that it’s really possible to understand politics without knowing about this group and what they are about (there are different views, but I think that if one follows the money one gets to the truth about what the uber rich are about, how and where they make their profits). How can a group of a couple hundred uber rich people meet in secret every year for like 70 years or so and this not be significan news that everyone is aware of (unless the media wants to keep it out of the eyes and ears of the public).

I don’t believe they meet with a non-agenda. I think they care about helping themselves to more and more riches off of the backs of others. And use government as a tool to do it so they don’t even have to pay for their own agenda’s themselves, they can just seed it with some funds and then forces the masses to pay for the bulk of it, often getting themselves much more wealthy in the process.

 

[Della]

Thanks for the book suggestion. It’s long been my belive that a limited number of very wealthy individuals sort of working together actually control the government and essentially the world.

I don’t know if you have ever heard of the Bilderberg Group, but I don’t think that it’s really possible to understand politics without knowing about this group and what they are about (there are different views, but I think that if one follows the money one gets to the truth about what the uber rich are about, how and where they make their profits). How can a group of a couple hundred uber rich people meet in secret every year for like 70 years or so and this not be significan news that everyone is aware of (unless the media wants to keep it out of the eyes and ears of the public).

I don’t believe they meet with a non-agenda. I think they care about helping themselves to more and more riches off of the backs of others. And use government as a tool to do it so they don’t even have to pay for their own agenda’s themselves, they can just seed it with some funds and then forces the masses to pay for the bulk of it, often getting themselves much more wealthy in the process.

You’re welcome re the book recommendation. While those with wealth and influence certainly look after their own interests, as most people do–which is fine to a certain degree–as long as others are not made to suffer for it–I would not say that their sole interest is promoting their own interests. I had never heard of this organization before, but their reason for meeting is not a bad one, although like any ideal it can be corrupted, and no doubt has been by some.

This doesn’t bother me as much as what can actually be forced on us by government, as you say, at the point of a gun. It’s why I cannot buy into the whole “the government is the best caretaker” philosophy so beloved by the liberal left. But I’m no fan either of slave labor to big busines and the idea that only those who have a paying job are contributing and should be kept alive. Chesterton envisioned a world in which families owned their own property and had their own businesses which benefited their own communities. He called this “distributism”, meaning wealth is distributed among working families making their own money by their own efforts at farming and small businesses. He totally rejected the idea that everyone ought to get equal amounts of money even if they did nothing/little to earn it. In his view the man with a small business is the better, richer man than the CEO who sits at the top of a pyramid of workers who earn far less money so he can live in luxury.

 

[Bill_7154]

I had never heard of this organization before, but their reason for meeting is not a bad one, although like any ideal it can be corrupted, and no doubt has been by some.

.

If you have never heard of the group, how can you know what their reasons for meeting are? They keep it a secret and the media actively denied their existence for many, many years (while media moguls were part of the group, and continue to be, along with certain politicans from different countries).

 

[Della]

If you have never heard of the group, how can you know what their reasons for meeting are? They keep it a secret and the media actively denied their existence for many, many years (while media moguls were part of the group, and continue to be, along with certain politicans from different countries).

I googled the group to see who they are and what they are up to. I’m not saying there’s no reason for concern, but they’re not a secret organization, even if their meetings are. Still, it is worrrying that the media takes no notice of their doings, but with the media we have these days, that’s hardly surprising, is it?

 

[Bill_7154]

I googled the group to see who they are and what they are up to. I’m not saying there’s no reason for concern, but they’re not a secret organization, even if their meetings are. Still, it is worrrying that the media takes no notice of their doings, but with the media we have these days, that’s hardly surprising, is it?

They started out as a secret organization and existed that way as long as it was possible for them to do so.

What I’m suggesting is that media is directed to keep them out of the public eye, the media moguls who set policy. And no, that’s not surprising.

If 100 of the richest althletes from the USA and Europe were meeting in secret (the bilderberg’s started out in secret, the media initially actively denied their existance, then when too much light was shed on them through independent small internet type media it became impossible to ‘deny’ their existance) would it be news? Would poeple be suspicious they may be up to no good (like rigging sporting events for their own private profit for example)? I suspect they would be suspicious of that.

They are obvioulsy people capable of weilding great power and influence over the human race. I suspect some of them are interested in doing this. It is not my concern that they are uber rich. Nor would it be my intention to ‘steal’ their wealth from them. But I think it wise to be aware that such groups exist and I doubt if they are meeting to figure out the best way to help the world according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I am far more concerned about such groups than any political party. As far as I am concerned they have both parties in their pockets, so to speak.

 

[Bill_7154]

A few quotes from Bilderberg meetings:

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”

• Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

• David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting,

 

[Nate13]

A true socialist does expect that once the “wrong” economic and social structures are abolished, people will just naturally do what is good.

But of course labeling people who believe in some government intervention as “socialist” is just a straw man anyway.

The point is that arguing for government intervention to regulate the market and to help those who “lose” by the rules of the market is a proper expression of traditional, Augustinian Catholic orthodoxy, in which people are fallen beings characterized by concupiscence. Which is why the Catholic Church, while condemning socialism, has traditionally called for such intervention–and why those who oppose such intervention are tone-deaf to a vitally important part of orthodox Christian social teaching.

It’s a realistic one.

When it comes to prisons and military buildups, “conservatives” have a very dark picture of human nature. But when it comes to social programs, suddenly we can all depend on the natural goodness of humans to be nice to each other. This doesn’t compute, unless the assumption is that foreigners and poor people are bad, while rich Americans are naturally good. Which, ironically, is the mirror image of the Marxist view that locates evil in oppressive economic structures–but at least the Marxist view has some analogy to traditional Christian views of sinfulness, while the view that the rich are uniquely virtuous is simply a demonic inversion of Christian ethics.

Chesterton complained a hundred years ago about this wicked and foolish idea, but unfortunately it’s still with us–sometimes in the mouths of those who like to quote Chesterton.

Edwin

And yet again we see an example of accusing conservatives of believing in no government, right after you attempt to call my comments a straw man. My simple point in my statement above was that liberals see having more central government as moving closer to a “utopia” while conservatives view moving towards less central government as closer to a “utopia”. Its a difference of the perspective. I think something commonly overlooked by liberals in this though is that the less you expect of people, the less they expect of themselves especially when the lower expectation are sold as rights. “You don’t have a responsibility to house yourself, that is something which is owed to you by the government. Feeding your family? You have a right to have that provided to you by the government.” and on and on…

I don’t know about you but I believe as a country we should be united in pushing for people to take more responsibility for themselves not less and that should be the direction we continually push. Since you seemed to agree with the idea that the better people are the less government is needed, I assume you would then agree that true “progress” is not more government involvement as the progressive movement would contend but less.

 

[Bill_7154]

If someone wants to point the finger at someone who believes in having no government, point it at me. Of course I believe that if such a thing were to happen in today’s day and age, where we are not even civilized as a human race, chaos would immediately follow. I also believe that if government were to disappear chaos would also quickly follow.

But I would like to see a world where we humans continue to evolve into being more civilized (when people kill each other for fun or for emotional gratification or because another human tells them to, or for money- I believe we are far from civilized, just to point out a few obvious reasons).

But if we were to evolve into a human race where we truely loved our neighbors as ourselves and we truely worked together to help one another, and to hold one another accountable for our actions, with compassion, I believe that we could learn to govern ourselves as individuals, as families, and as communities. I don’t expect this to happen in my lifetime, or even in a thousand years.

But it concerns me that power over so many rests in the hands of so few. Concervative or Liberal, when a concentrated few uber wealthy elite run the world to me this is not a good thing.

I would like to see a world where we all lived in peace and we all respected one another and sought to do no harm to one another, and if one of us did, we owned up to it willingly and voluntarially, and sought to make ammends. If we could get to that point as humans I think the world would be a better place. And since I am a working poor person I could actually support my family rather than havng 1/2 my income going to government in the form of inflation and all of the various taxes, fees and fines that eat up my pay.

Of course this is unrealistic. But a lot of us believe in and want to see practices, or the ending of certain practices (be they in the form of laws or whatever) come to be that in todays day and age are un realistic. Does that mean you stop believing in them, stop wanting them to come to pass?

 

[Jimmygill88]

I knew, when I began reading this thread, that I was about to be ‘delighted’ by some reactionary right wing opinions. I have noted with distaste the cult of individualism apparent in some of the posts. Why the poor should have to depend on voulntary largesse is quite beyond me. I suppose it is rather more shocking because the attitude of some members is so reminiscent of medieval noblesse oblige. It seems to me that some correspondents differentiate between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. It was precisely this idea which gave us Parish Workhouses a la Oliver Twist. And I have no doubt that the most vocificerous correspondents regard themselves as the best judge of where their precious ‘tax dollars’ go

 

[Contarini]

I"m not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that a tiny minority of individuals who generally come from wealth and priveledge, and who are granted tremendous power over the populace, backed by men with guns/armies/etc are going to be belevelent and not corrupt and greedy and I sould trust them?

No. I’m saying that you shouldn’t.

And I’m saying that much “conservative” rhetoric about the evils of “big government” actually amounts to precisely this. It doesn’t actually point toward a world where power is more accountable, but where it is both less accountable and less benevolent–the worst of both worlds.

I have no reason to believe “conservatives” when they claim that they oppose big government–their actions give the lie to their quasi-libertarian rhetoric. I’m not sure libertarianism is the answer, but I can respect a consistent libertarian, and as a distributist I have a lot in common with libertarians. But in fact “small government” in the mouths of right-wing Republicans mostly just means “government that favors the rich over the poor and trusts the rich to do the right thing.”

People like Ron Paul who seriously want to dismantle the American Empire and return to genuine small government are worth taking seriously. Few other Republicans are, because they want a government big enough to do the things they think it should do (which is pretty big indeed), like intimidate potential enemies, protect American economic interests, and enforce moral standards, while misusing libertarian rhetoric in order to cut precisely those programs that attempt (however imperfectly) to carry out Biblical justice by protecting and defending the poor and needy against those who would exploit them.

Any Republican who supports the Patriot Act, for instance, is simply joking when he or she claims to oppose big government.Any Republican who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan–same thing. Abortion is different because that is a matter of defending the innocent, but still, the willingness of Republicans to use the federal government in this case contrasts with their unwillingness to use it to defend the weak and helpless in any other case. Again, this is where I find Ron Paul more interesting, because he wants to send even the abortion issue back to the states–I’m not sure I agree with him, but then I don’t particularly agree with libertarianism–I do find it honorable and consistent and I think it makes valid critiques of the bloated federal government.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If you haven’t read G. K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong With the World, I highly recommend it. He calls big business and big government “hudge and gudge” and talks about why each and/or both working together are bad for human life and happiness. :tiphat:

Precisely. I just reread that section not long ago.

Although to be fair, he speaks of socialism and not “big government” per se.

The Distributist program involved a good deal of government intervention, although when Chesterton laid out some of the details (as much as he ever did–he didn’t have a very detail-oriented mind) in Outline of Sanity he made the case that the redistribution of wealth to small owners could be done by fairly nonintrusive means.

The point against socialism (I can’t remember which was Hudge and which was Gudge) was that it aims at taking property away from people rather than letting more people have property. Chesterton, unlike modern right-wing Americans, was not opposed to the government acting to protect the poor.

I wish someone would propose a distributist program. But it isn’t happening. The Ryan plan clearly favors big business.

Edwin

 

[InJesusItrust]

I believe in private property rights. Taxes should be minimal because what they confiscate belongs to others. I hate both envy and greed.

 

[Contarini]

And yet again we see an example of accusing conservatives of believing in no government, right after you attempt to call my comments a straw man.

Nate, it is a common thing on this forum for people to claim that believing in any government intervention through taxation policy to help the poor amounts to socialism.

And if you don’t think that, then I’m not sure where socialism even comes into the discussion. If the dispute is simply about the level of government intervention that is needed and appropriate, why the polarizing rhetoric? Why use the word “socialism” at all?

But you’re right–I shouldn’t respond by confusing “conservatives” and libertarians. I don’t hear a consistent message from “conservatives”–that’s the problem. I hear them using rhetoric that implies libertarianism (like calling progressive taxation “theft”) without following through on the implications of a libertarian position. So I’m not sure what it is exactly I’m arguing with.

My simple point in my statement above was that liberals see having more central government as moving closer to a “utopia” while conservatives view moving towards less central government as closer to a “utopia”.

That’s helpful and describes well what I’m hearing from “conservatives.” That is to say, libertarianism is seen as the “utopia,” but some minimal government intervention is accepted as necessary.

But I think you have the “left” completely wrong. When I hear those who self-identify as liberals or leftists describe their utopia, it’s pretty anarchist. They see government differently–they see it as people working together. But if you define government in the “conservative” way, as coercive, centralized power, they certainly don’t want to increase that ad infinitum.

If there is one way in which (dropping the simplistic “dark” language) “conservatives” are Augustinian and liberals are not, it’s in the basic definition of government. American “conservatives” see government as restraint on human sinfulness–liberals see it as human beings working together, which is a more Aristotelian definition. The thing is, that this definition was adopted by Aquinas and is central to Catholic social teaching. So in being Augustinian on that point, “conservatives” are being less centrally Catholic than “liberals.”

But everyone recognizes that the Augustinian functions of government are necessary as things now are. Where I call foul on “conservatives,” and accuse them of not being truly conservative, is in their narrow definition of how government should function to restrain sin. Progressive taxation is government acting to restrain human concupiscence, in a fine Augustinian fashion.

I think something commonly overlooked by liberals in this though is that the less you expect of people, the less they expect of themselves

I guess that’s what Pharaoh was thinking when he told the Hebrews to make bricks without straw

The point is that this language about responsibility is all well and good as long as what you expect of people is reasonable. Of course government programs should be as little as possible about handouts and as much as possible about teaching people to fish. I would love to see them work more through and with non-governmental agencies–Bush’s faith-based initiatives were a step in the right direction, it seems to me, though I don’t think there was any good reason to exclude secular charitable programs (if he was simply removing prior discrimination against religious programs then that was a very good thing).

The bottom line is that simply trusting the rich to be charitable is not in line with Catholic teaching or with a realistic view of human nature. And that is the approach being pushed by many on this forum.

Edwin