Is the redistribution of wealth and resources just to alleviate poverty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KathleenGee said:
John Paul II considered the free market with a strong moral voice the best economic system.
Click to expand...
If society can insure that the well-to-do are of high moral standing, then I agree. It’s when people of poor morals seep to the top that such a Capitalistic economy will fail.

LOVE! ❤️
 
KathleenGee said:
John Paul II considered the free market with a strong moral voice the best economic system.

I am now beginning to read GK Chesterton’s series on ‘Distributism’ that falls within Catholic social teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes, currently we have the “strong moral voice” of Credit Suisse, the private owners of the Federal Reserve, the infiltration of corporate executives, eg Monsanto, in every branch of government and its committees, the Rothschild central banks, many corporate policies that are nothing short of sociopathic and which result in human, envronmental and economic havoc, and a litany of etcs. Economic missionaryism, anyone? What is your plan to convert the worldwide desperation of greed to Catholic social teaching? I mean, to begin with, people don’t even know how money works, and what an abysmal scam the fractional reserve system is. Maybe we could start there? What do you think? Right now capitalism looks like a system operating on the absurd notion that a very few individuals, who are unimaginably insulated from the realities of life for the rest of the world, know best what is good for us and are making serious efforts to cure the worlds ills through accumulating more wealth.
 
The voice of people comes through when they don’t want food raised that goes against nature or is cruel. But they have some extreme voices as well.

I think the Catholic Church is the only true moral voice that is all encompassing and avoids excess, remaining in moderation.

So I am going to start reading G K Chesteron…his books on distributism look quite good.

I also liked hearing his commentaries awhile back on EWTN…That modern life has gotten us so busy and reactive that we have now been broken from the reality of our own beings…we are totalitarian in that we cannot come together, we are passive and indifferent…and he ended saying all people could talk about openly was the weather.

Now we have controversies on the weather and even that cannot be discussed civilly.
 
KathleenGee said:
The voice of people comes through when they don’t want food raised that goes against nature or is cruel. But they have some extreme voices as well.

I think the Catholic Church is the only true moral voice that is all encompassing and avoids excess, remaining in moderation.

So I am going to start reading G K Chesteron…his books on distributism look quite good.

I also liked hearing his commentaries awhile back on EWTN…That modern life has gotten us so busy and reactive that we have now been broken from the reality of our own beings…we are totalitarian in that we cannot come together, we are passive and indifferent…and he ended saying all people could talk about openly was the weather.

Now we have controversies on the weather and even that cannot be discussed civilly.
Click to expand...
Hi Kathleen:

Chesterton can be very interesting. But remember he had no practical knowledge of economics. He was a lay theologian.
 
I’m afraid that too many are obsessed with the notion of fairness. It seems to be a result from Greek philosophy. Life is not fair. God is not fair. Redistribution of wealth is not fair. For God’s sake, stop complaining that it isn’t fair. God never said it should be fair. He commanded that we give alms. He didn’t say anything about “deserving” our help. He just said to give to the poor. The idea that God’s commandment stops at an artificially drawn national border is laughable.
Alms should help provide a better level of housing, nutrition and health for the whole community. Taxation for government assistance to provide this help should not be criticized but applauded by real Christians. Only those who would not of their own volition give alms complain about such programs. These may call themselves Christian, but they are not.
I’ll stop here. Enough.
 
Sochi said:
Right now capitalism looks like a system operating on the absurd notion that a very few individuals, who are unimaginably insulated from the realities of life for the rest of the world, know best what is good for us and are making serious efforts to cure the worlds ills through accumulating more wealth.
Click to expand...
One who saves money is a capitalist. One who invests in rental property a capitalist. Each one is trying to accumulate wealth. Is that bad?

Bill Gates certainly has used his great wealth in a charitable manner. Was he unfair in accumulating all that wealth. Warren Buffett has also used his great wealth in a charitable manner. Are they bad guys because they were too greedy?
 
Ashe_Faelsdon said:
God never said it should be fair. He commanded that we give alms. He didn’t say anything about “deserving” our help. He just said to give to the poor. The idea that God’s commandment stops at an artificially drawn national border is laughable.
Alms should help provide a better level of housing, nutrition and health for the whole community. Taxation for government assistance to provide this help should not be criticized but applauded by real Christians. Only those who would not of their own volition give alms complain about such programs. These may call themselves Christian, but they are not.
I’ll stop here. Enough.
Click to expand...
When communities were small, and most everyone knew who the poor people were, the human connection was present. Today, huge countries with hundreds of millions of people are urged to give to the poor of people they have never met. This is anonymous giving and detracts from the pleasure of seeing the recipients of your gifts benefit. If the poor actually do benefit, that would be ideal. Too often, however, they make poor decisions with the money they receive and are no better off after getting it.
 
The poor will always be among us. We will always have corrupt judges.

I think that some times we are facing a world wide economic collapse. I know about how the Reserve works to some degree, how they are paid so much for every dollar lent.

I don’t think there is any perfect and humane system.

It is rather within us and in living out Christ’s kingdom in our midst.

St Francis of Assisi’s letter to Catholics, written in around 1221, is a great read. He embraced poverty.

St. Francis is a great contradiction to world economy.
 
nmgauss said:
When communities were small, and most everyone knew who the poor people were, the human connection was present. Today, huge countries with hundreds of millions of people are urged to give to the poor of people they have never met. This is anonymous giving and detracts from the pleasure of seeing the recipients of your gifts benefit. If the poor actually do benefit, that would be ideal. Too often, however, they make poor decisions with the money they receive and are no better off after getting it.
Click to expand...
I was always taught that once you gave a gift to someone, it was their’s to do with what they wanted to do. The giver no longer has any control.

I know there are organizations that work to give people the knowledge they need to make good decisions with their money. These generally require more of a time commitment than a $$$ commitment. As a result, the human connection is very much present.
 
What I think most people fail to realize is that Jesus intends for us to provide for our brothers and sisters, to provide for them in their time of need, and to help the poor and the hungry, but not for the government to force us to do this. When it is forced upon us, we no longer have the free will to choose how much to give, or even to give at all.

Forced redistribution is not what I believe was Jesus’ intent.

Think for an example in this extreme: If I come into your home, hold you up by gunpoint and take your wallet and your food, then tell you that you are not being “giving” enough and that you must do better with your money, but you aren’t, so I’m going to take it from you and give it to the family down the street who needs it more", I am doing the right thing? Of course not.

Personally, even though we have a democratic republic (thus we can elect our representatives), and thus they represent our wishes, and then they proceed to increase taxes to provide billions and even trillions of dollars to whom ever they so choose, this again is not what the intent of Jesus’ teachings were.

This extends to our government as well. They have no authority or right to forceably take my money and decide who to give it to. That is not the intent of our Father, nor was it the intent of our Founding Fathers.
 
sallybutler said:
I was always taught that once you gave a gift to someone, it was their’s to do with what they wanted to do. The giver no longer has any control.

I know there are organizations that work to give people the knowledge they need to make good decisions with their money. These generally require more of a time commitment than a $$$ commitment. As a result, the human connection is very much present.
Click to expand...
If you give money to an alcoholic and that person develops cirrhosis because of the alcohol he bought with your money, would you continue to give that person your money?

The human connection is present only when a benefactor sees directly the effects of the benefit. If I give money to the Salvation Army, I don’t know whether my money is lining the pockets of an intermediary or actually reaches the persons I am trying to help.
 
JoeFreedom said:
What I think most people fail to realize is that Jesus intends for us to provide for our brothers and sisters, to provide for them in their time of need, and to help the poor and the hungry, but not for the government to force us to do this. When it is forced upon us, we no longer have the free will to choose how much to give, or even to give at all.

Forced redistribution is not what I believe was Jesus’ intent.

Think for an example in this extreme: If I come into your home, hold you up by gunpoint and take your wallet and your food, then tell you that you are not being “giving” enough and that you must do better with your money, but you aren’t, so I’m going to take it from you and give it to the family down the street who needs it more", I am doing the right thing? Of course not.

Personally, even though we have a democratic republic (thus we can elect our representatives), and thus they represent our wishes, and then they proceed to increase taxes to provide billions and even trillions of dollars to whom ever they so choose, this again is not what the intent of Jesus’ teachings were.

This extends to our government as well. They have no authority or right to forceably take my money and decide who to give it to. That is not the intent of our Father, nor was it the intent of our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...
When parents see their children being greedy, the parents will often intervene and coerce the children to share. Some kids never grow up, and remain greedy their whole life; that’s when government should step in and tax.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Robert, you completely misunderstand the need for government. The government is not intended to be our nanny nor our parents. God intended for us to self-police through conviction of morals, ethics and holiness. It is never, nor should it ever be, the place of government to punish us or coerce us into giving more to the needy. That is between you and God alone.

Once the government has power and authority to tell you precisely how much to give, who to give to, then they become god and can thus tell you how much to sleep, what to eat, how to say hello, what religion to become… all in the best interest of you, because they know better, thus removing your choice and free will.

The paradigm of the parents to their children is not analogous to our government.
 
JoeFreedom said:
Robert, you completely misunderstand the need for government. The government is not intended to be our nanny nor our parents. God intended for us to self-police through conviction of morals, ethics and holiness. It is never, nor should it ever be, the place of government to punish us or coerce us into giving more to the needy. That is between you and God alone.

Once the government has power and authority to tell you precisely how much to give, who to give to, then they become god and can thus tell you how much to sleep, what to eat, how to say hello, what religion to become… all in the best interest of you, because they know better, thus removing your choice and free will.

The paradigm of the parents to their children is not analogous to our government.
Click to expand...
So, we have no duty towards the common good of society? Government should not concern itself with this common good? Where does the Bible say that?

LOVE! ❤️
 
JoeFreedom said:
Robert, you completely misunderstand the need for government. The government is not intended to be our nanny nor our parents. God intended for us to self-police through conviction of morals, ethics and holiness. It is never, nor should it ever be, the place of government to punish us or coerce us into giving more to the needy. That is between you and God alone.

Once the government has power and authority to tell you precisely how much to give, who to give to, then they become god and can thus tell you how much to sleep, what to eat, how to say hello, what religion to become… all in the best interest of you, because they know better, thus removing your choice and free will.
Click to expand...
Your analysis might be valid if government were an innocent bystander in the struggle between those that have and those that have not. But it is not an innocent bystander. Government enforces property rights. That is one of its main functions. This is a good thing, if done justly. But government can and does sometimes decide property rights questions unjustly. There are zoning laws that restrict where a person may open a business, as just one example of how government is already interfering with the freedom to better oneself. So government is already deeply into the fairness game. It is no good crying “hands off” to government’s role in making things fair now. The government “charity” you criticize as being not the role of government can actually be viewed not as charity, but as an attempt to compensate for other decisions that unfairly disadvantaged the poor.
 
JoeFreedom said:
Robert, you completely misunderstand the need for government. The government is not intended to be our nanny nor our parents. God intended for us to self-police through conviction of morals, ethics and holiness. It is never, nor should it ever be, the place of government to punish us or coerce us into giving more to the needy. That is between you and God alone.

Once the government has power and authority to tell you precisely how much to give, who to give to, then they become god and can thus tell you how much to sleep, what to eat, how to say hello, what religion to become… all in the best interest of you, because they know better, thus removing your choice and free will.

The paradigm of the parents to their children is not analogous to our government.
Click to expand...
Government is how communities are run by the people in the community. Some governments are single ruler (monarchies), some are governed by a committee of sorts (parliments, congress, boards of supervisors, etc). All governments determine who is and isn’t a citizen, what is required and what isn’t required, and what is legal and illegal, who will and who will not have a say.

This idea that ‘government’ is some amorphous thing that just makes up things without any human (name removed by moderator)ut drives me crazy. Every law and regulation in this country was made by people getting together to make them. I may not like all the laws and regulations, but I do know and accept that at every level of government, PEOPLE made the laws and regulations.

And yes, people do feel they have a right to tell you what, when, and where you can do things. You are not allowed to eat certain foods in this country, where you can eat or drink have limitations, you are not allowed to sleep anywhere you want to, you are not allowed urinate anywhere you want to. There are people who want to control what are acceptable religions, how one can or cannot dress in public, where you can or can not ask for money, what kind of papers you have to carry, etc.

You’ve probably voted for people that put in laws and regulations. You may have even voted directly for some laws and regulations. If so, that makes you part of the government and one of the nannies.
 
nmgauss said:
If you give money to an alcoholic and that person develops cirrhosis because of the alcohol he bought with your money, would you continue to give that person your money?

The human connection is present only when a benefactor sees directly the effects of the benefit. If I give money to the Salvation Army, I don’t know whether my money is lining the pockets of an intermediary or actually reaches the persons I am trying to help.
Click to expand...
Nope, I would not continue, especially once they developed cirrhosis… However, I have given people food, bottled water, etc. I’ve given family members diapers for their kids rather than give the parents money directly.

Of course, I could assume that they might trade those items for alcohol. So maybe I shouldn’t give them food or water either. Unless, of course you think I should watch them eat and drink all of it.
 
Robert quoted, “So, we have no duty towards the common good of society? Government should not concern itself with this common good? Where does the Bible say that?”

My reply is that of course we have a duty towards the common good, but this is not the intent of government. This is the intent of individual rights and individual freedom. I assume you are referring to the “General Welfare” clause in the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, this phrase has been severely distorted and molded into intents never meant to become realized by those who intend to use it for power, based solely on duping people that if we can steal from the evil rich, that those who fight for that will be kept in power because of their graciousness to take from others and give to others.

The general welfare clause enumerates 15 powers to the Congress, in which they are very specific. These specific clauses do not provide power to the congress to force their views upon the will of the people.

If you are claiming that I am somehow more evil, less generous and mal-intent simply because I would rather choose to provide charity directly to those who need it and amongst those who I choose, rather than have a government provide middleman services.

Sally, you quoted, “Every law and regulation in this country was made by people getting together to make them.”

Unfortunately, our laws now are being made by fallible men and women, and thus those laws are no longer divinely inspired. What is accounted for in our Constitution are those natural laws not provided to us by any mere mortal, but by God Himself. The Constitution is a document of negative powers.

I ask then, what amount shall each of us be forced to contribute? Can I force you to contribute 50% because I believe you have a certain amount of luxury and wealth. What if I believe you could give more, shall I vote to force you to donate more because I believe you were born into an easy life with no hardships? Surely, you must be forced through government coercion to pay up your fair share.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your analysis might be valid if government were an innocent bystander in the struggle between those that have and those that have not. But it is not an innocent bystander. Government enforces property rights. That is one of its main functions. This is a good thing, if done justly. But government can and does sometimes decide property rights questions unjustly. There are zoning laws that restrict where a person may open a business, as just one example of how government is already interfering with the freedom to better oneself. So government is already deeply into the fairness game. It is no good crying “hands off” to government’s role in making things fair now. The government “charity” you criticize as being not the role of government can actually be viewed not as charity, but as an attempt to compensate for other decisions that unfairly disadvantaged the poor.
Click to expand...
So government is already deeply into the fairness game. THIS THEY SHOULD NOT BE. So even though it may be so does not make it right or just.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top