Is it sinful to vote for Bernie Sanders?

[JoeFreedom]

Healthcare should not supercede basic human rights as a priority, but I have trouble hearing a Catholic call legitimate taxation a “theft of monies.”

Maybe unwisely spent monies you could argue, but the Church teaches that governmental authority is legitimate and that they don’t just have a right to tax, but that we have a moral obligation to pay taxes [CCC 2240].

Again, I’m not saying it’s unCatholic to oppose a policy, even a policy like universal health care. There may be perfectly just arguments to hold such a view. It does seem odd to imply taxation is unjust and immoral by likening it to theft. It seems like excessive liberalism that crept into the Church to say so.

Not all taxation is just. When the people decide to vote themselves favors and free stuff through the federal government to redistribute as they see fit, that is theft. As a Catholic, I believe that it is the individual who has the right, and the duty to provide for his fellow man, not for us to vote that we should have the government do it for us. I constantly hear (and cringe at) it’s okay for the government to take the wealth of those who have it because all of the people decided to vote for them to do it, so the federal government could give it those of less fortune.

Again, not the role of the federal government, and just as important, if we were to go by the logic that if enough people voted for something and that makes it right, we would no longer be a democratic republic, we would be a democracy. And you see, a democracy is mob-rule. If 51 people out of 100 vote to take your car because they don’t like you, well too bad, majority rules.

I prefer to live by individual responsibility to provide for my fellow man, not to be forced into redistributing it through the federal government, to be wasted in such an grossly negligent and inefficient manner, and used for things I am 100% against, such as Planned Parenthood.

 

[Wesrock]

I never said that democracy decides on morality. I’m just not of the opinion that public services (publicly funded, definitely not free) such as roads, schools, defense, social security, welfare, Medicare, etc are inherently immoral. Certainly money spent on abortion services is wrong, but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the idea of public healthcare. Public services need not be equated to advocating for central planning, either. People have the right to own property, decide what job to hold (so long as the job is not immoral), etc…

That’s probably a discussion for a different thread, though.

 

[Disciple_Leader]

JoeFreedom,
We are truly brothers!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not all taxation is just. When the people decide to vote themselves favors and free stuff through the federal government to redistribute as they see fit, that is theft. As a Catholic, I believe that it is the individual who has the right, and the duty to provide for his fellow man, not for us to vote that we should have the government do it for us. I constantly hear (and cringe at) it’s okay for the government to take the wealth of those who have it because all of the people decided to vote for them to do it, so the federal government could give it those of less fortune.

Again, not the role of the federal government, and just as important, if we were to go by the logic that if enough people voted for something and that makes it right, we would no longer be a democratic republic, we would be a democracy. And you see, a democracy is mob-rule. If 51 people out of 100 vote to take your car because they don’t like you, well too bad, majority rules.

I prefer to live by individual responsibility to provide for my fellow man, not to be forced into redistributing it through the federal government, to be wasted in such an grossly negligent and inefficient manner, and used for things I am 100% against, such as Planned Parenthood.

Switzerland is mob rule? Not at all, and it is a pure democracy. The lowest classes there live better than the US’s middle class. We should be so lucky.

 

[JoeFreedom]

I never said that democracy decides on morality. I’m just not of the opinion that public services (publicly funded, definitely not free) such as roads, schools, defense, social security, welfare, Medicare, etc are inherently immoral. Certainly money spent on abortion services is wrong, but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the idea of public healthcare. Public services need not be equated to advocating for central planning, either. People have the right to own property, decide what job to hold (so long as the job is not immoral), etc…

That’s probably a discussion for a different thread, though.

In some sense, it is indeed its own topic, but as it relates to Bernie Sanders, who wants a single-payer (read: government-owned, operated and regulated) healthcare system, it does relate. But agreed to let that debate be forged elsewhere.

 

[JoeFreedom]

JoeFreedom,
We are truly brothers!

Truly indeed. Thanks! Good to know wisdom of history and understanding of freedom and liberty in constitutional principles still prevail with some.

To the others:

I’m quite tired of people misunderstanding what the founding fathers intended for our country, and reshaping our values into some distorted set of a socialistic utopia. It’s been over 200 years since our founding and so much evil has pervaded into what was intended to be the freest society ever, yet people have voted themselves social services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare amid a enormous set of unelected regulatory bodies. All of these services on the surface to many liberals seem caring and well-intended, but when you dig deeper, they in fact take away the liberties of so many more people by removing their will to participate freely in the giving. My money is taken from me by my own government (I’ll remind everyone that WE the PEOPLE are the government, not our elected rule-o-crats), to put in some non-existent treasury box to be dolled out to me at some later time for my own safety under some arbitrary set of rules on how I can get it back, and you’re telling me I should be so lucky to live like the Sweeds? How about all of the money (billions if not trillions) that gets wasted through negligence and fraud because the government is simply not set up nor capable of running programs like this. These programs were meant to be established locally be free-willing people to participate through their God-given right exercise it.

Give me my money to do as I wish, whether evil or good. It sickens me that so many liberals are jealous of what others have and wish to take it so that they can give it to those less fortunate. They love to use other peoples’ money for good, but hate to have it taken from them. They loathe massive wealth, because to them, it is pure evil greed. But this evil greed they speak of has helped more people than they care to admit. Our country has fed countless millions, if not billions, and helped others of billions because many were willing to risk their own money to help create new products that could benefit others, not only by the products themselves, but by employing millions of people. It sickens me when I see young people like the 99%ers and the OWS crowd protesting “evil” corporations. Where do you get your iPhones and your iPods? Wouldn’t have that if Steve Jobs wasn’t willing to risk his own money to make Apple the company it is today, but people say, CEO’s shouldn’t make more then 10% of the top paid person. That’s lunacy, sheer lunacy. This is what Bernie Sanders wants. He wants to tax the rich into oblivion, so people will no longer risk their money, jobs will effectively cease because… you know what, nevermind, you’ll never get it, because all you need to do is look at Europe and see how wonderful socialism is…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

France’s healthcare system has been judged by many to be the best in the world, including the World Health Organization. Italy came in second. Spain seventh, Austria ninth. The US is ranked 37.

thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Most people in Europe have a much higher standard of living that we do in the US.

Granted, the UK has made a mess of things, but they don’t even consider themselves Europe.

 

[lynnvinc]

Let me get my complaints about him out of the way first.

He’s politically pro-choice. Annoyingly so since, to get enough voters to make a difference he has to appeal to the culture of death on that issue.

I think there is a difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-death,” tho leaving abortion legal does perhaps lead to more abortions than if it were illegal. It’s a difficult issue that people in their late 60s and older understood that making abortion legal and safe was a way to prevent death from illegal abortions. I personally knew a woman back in the 60s that nearly died from bleeding to death from an illegal abortion. And I knew and heard about plenty of women going in for illegal abortions (including my grandmother, who had one back around 1905). So for us oldsters it’s a more complicated issue, even tho I fought bitterly against making it legal in the early 70s.

I’m kind of concerned about how he will approach law enforcement in America. There is talk about the demilitarization of the police, which, in the face of increasing domestic terrorism is a silly idea. Disarming your own force and disarming the people is a grave matter in my opinion.

Many more people are killed by non-terrorists in the US. It is too bad that we have taken the 2nd amendment (which covered muskets and single-shot old-fashion pistols) to mean we can buy sub-machine guns and kill off a school-full of children or other soft targets just because we’re upset about something or other – or crazy. And the police are involved in killing lots of innocent people, as well.

OTOH, Sanders is actually “pro-gun” since he is from a rural, hunting state, and some Democrats for Clinton are using that against him

…Bernie Sanders is very Christlike on some more pressing matters. I say more pressing in the sense that a favorable outcome can actually be achieved. He, like Christ, gets a sort of righteous anger at the fact that healthcare is run like a business which only gives good care to the rich. He says healthcare is kind of like the right to life. I think he’s right. And, that is consistent with our Catholic view of abortion.

On to my question. I think Bernie Sanders is one of he most sincere candidates. That exhibits the virtue of honesty. I like his Christlike quality of being angered at injustice, too. I want to vote for him. My reasoning for thinking I can vote for him without sinning despite his view on abortion is that we can only take what we can. It is similar to the just war doctrine. A war might be just, but if there is no chance of winning the war, then it would be unjust to wage it. You’d just be wasting the lives of your own troops. So it is on issues like abortion and gay marriage. We aren’t going to win a Catholic view in politics. It’s just not going to happen. But Bernie Sanders seems to be the only one who is Christlike on issues of healthcare and education. Any thoughts?

I’m surely going to vote for him.

In my books it is a sin to vote for anyone who does not accept climate change and our need to mitigate it. Now refusing to accept and mitigate CC is truly pro-death…of a large chunk of humanity as the effects can continue for up to 100,000 years if we pursue a business-as-usual path and not mitigate it – plus lots of concomitant harms from local pollution as well - from fossil fuel extraction, processing, spills, combusting, and waste disposing and spills from that.

It’s true that we are all causing this problem (while only a portion of us are having abortions), and we ALL need to do what we can at the personal and household levels to mitigate CC, but as Pope Francis points out, we also need governments to help mitigate it.

I’m thinking it would be much easier to get Sanders to do a lot to reduce abortion (such as making life easier for pregnant women in distress), than to get the CC denialist candidates (all the Republicans) to do something to mitigate climate change AND to effectually reduce abortion, whether legal or illegal.

 

[marymary1975]

Bernie seems like a nice man, but I will not vote for him. I hope he is the democrat nominee because I like him over Hillary.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Wesrock]

I need to pray on this issue extensively. A president is responsible for SCOTUS appointments, and there are executive actions that could be made to reduce if not eliminate, certain horrors. So it’s not as if I can say “either way there will be no impact.”

I sincerely believe climate change is an important issue of our times, and largely agree with democratic socialist economic policies. But what of the weight of the issues? How do they balance on the scale? I feel I already know the answer.

 

[decatholic]

** Keen INSIGHT: When the government gives you something it means they took it from someone- plan and simple. Cut and Dry. Good Points Joe! decatholic** Not all taxation is just. When the people decide to vote themselves favors and free stuff through the federal government to redistribute as they see fit, that is theft. As a Catholic, I believe that it is the individual who has the right, and the duty to provide for his fellow man, not for us to vote that we should have the government do it for us. I constantly hear (and cringe at) it’s okay for the government to take the wealth of those who have it because all of the people decided to vote for them to do it, so the federal government could give it those of less fortune.

Again, not the role of the federal government, and just as important, if we were to go by the logic that if enough people voted for something and that makes it right, we would no longer be a democratic republic, we would be a democracy. And you see, a democracy is mob-rule. If 51 people out of 100 vote to take your car because they don’t like you, well too bad, majority rules.

I prefer to live by individual responsibility to provide for my fellow man, not to be forced into redistributing it through the federal government, to be wasted in such an grossly negligent and inefficient manner, and used for things I am 100% against, such as Planned Parenthood.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Keen INSIGHT: When the government gives you something it means they took it from someone- plan and simple. Cut and Dry. Good Points Joe! decatholic

Profits are made from the labour of others. Economic individualism doesn’t really make sense under capitalism, because individual labour doesn’t really exist (except in unique circumstances, of course) - most labour is socialised. Those who take the majority of the wealth produced from products aren’t those who produce the products - the actual workers receive much less than the value they produce. I don’t understand why taking profits produced from other people’s labour is less theft than taxation. There’s nothing wrong with everyone being able to take from a community which we’ve all contributed to, surely?

Charity is generally a farce, too. I’m not saying it can’t help individuals, but it doesn’t address the actual systematic issues that cause poverty. Oscar Wilde said “It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.” I don’t know if I agree completely, but it doesn’t really make a difference in the long-term, and it’s often quite funny when libertarians praise really insignificant acts of charity like a small business giving food to the homeless.

 

[decatholic]

Profits are made from the labour of others. Economic individualism doesn’t really make sense under capitalism, because individual labour doesn’t really exist (except in unique circumstances, of course) - most labour is socialised.
**This makes not sense to me.
**Those who take the majority of the wealth produced from products aren’t those who produce the products - **“Those” who benefit from manufactured products are rarely those who produce the products… and? **the actual workers receive much less than the value they produce. I don’t understand why taking profits produced from other people’s labour is less theft than taxation.
**You are correct- It seems you don’t understand. Profit is generated by Risk. Loss is generated by Risk. The individual who risks gets both. **
There’s nothing wrong with everyone being able to take from a community which we’ve all contributed to, surely? I don’t think anyone doesn’t purchase (not take) form a community. Equality is not a good thing. Read RERUM Novarium

Charity is generally a farce, too. I’m not saying it can’t help individuals, but it doesn’t address the actual systematic issues that cause poverty. Oscar Wilde said “It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.” I don’t know if I agree completely, but it doesn’t really make a difference in the long-term, and it’s often quite funny when libertarians praise really insignificant acts of charity like a small business giving food to the homeless.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

This makes not sense to me.

You claim that taxation is theft from individuals as it takes money from people against their will. When capitalists make their profits they take value that others have produced from them. Capitalists do not produce the products they sell.

“Those” who benefit from manufactured products are rarely those who produce the products… and?

Profit is value taken (stolen, perhaps?) from workers who actually produce the products. They’re paid much less than the value they actually produce from the products they make. You say taxation is theft, but a similar argument can be made for the way that capitalists gain their wealth.

You are correct- It seems you don’t understand. Profit is generated by Risk. Loss is generated by Risk. The individual who risks gets both.

That’s not true. Profit is generated by exploiting the labour of others. We have socialised labour (multiple people involved in the process of creating and distributing goods) but individual accumulation of wealth. Multiple people produce and sell things, but very few people get the rewards of that labour. Sure a capitalist may be at risk in some cases, but it’s not as if the employee isn’t either. They are the first to lose their job if things go badly, the first to have their wages cut or their hours changed.

I don’t think anyone doesn’t purchase (not take) form a community. Equality is not a good thing. Read RERUM Novarium

Why is equality not a good thing?

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of particular political parties or candidates are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.