Isn't distributivism a type of idolatry?

[MindOverMatter2]

What struck me about the post he made was the complete lack of any reference to personal responsibility for the choices one makes.

Ishii

What strikes me as irrational about your post is the complete lack of understanding of what it means to be apart of a human community and the moral responsibility that civil law has to protect the value and dignity of all life in that community, against all oppressive factors including economic ones.

You seem to think that you’re in it for your self, taking from the human community and moaning because you have to give something back in order to support those less fortunate in the economic market place. You then make fallacious straw-man arguments about the downside of things and ignore the positive ones (preserving the life of those less fortunate) in-order to make it appear as if the government is doing something wrong by preventing murder (allowing or depriving members of the human community of lifes necessities for the sake of profit, thus allowing your brothers and sisters to starve to death). That human beings in general have a moral responsibility to look out for there own well being is irrelevant to the fact that the government also has a right and a responsibility to safe guard the well being of all humans in the community regardless of economic concerns. The dignity of human life comes first. For a billionaire to cry about losing a million that he will never spend is irrational and down right shameful. In the end you are complaining about people having basic human rights, which is quite disgusting.

XII in Rerum Novarum criticized liberal capitalism noting the “enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses.” This statement remains exactly right, particularly given the varying, but similar figures, stating that an incredibly small minority of people own beyond-staggering percentages of global wealth. Forty years after Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI declared that “a veritable economic dictatorship” was forming. The Holy Father argued that these disorders, by and large, resulted from the divorce of economic science from natural law morality and social ethics:

“The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves…see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere—such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is.”

"This concern for the poor in general and the poor worker in particular has been a consistent theme of Catholic social doctrine since the time of Leo’s writing (1891, not long after the Bismarckian reforms). The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are:

** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity.
* The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations."

 

[Sonoran_Son]

If distributivism is what I think it is, then I would agree that such an idea would work in small groups, but would be hard to implement in large groups. For large groups, such as countries, the problem with enforcing charity in the form of social programs is that it can create an incentive for people to rely on the social programs over looking for employment. The other extreme, relying only on the charity of others, is also not economically efficient because then helping the poor is treated as a public good and thus runs into the problem of free riders. Some sort of middle ground needs to be struck that assists people who are in need of assistance without making such an assistance preferable over employment.

 

[ishii]

Why kind of madness is this? There are many factors to consider, historical, psychological, racial, and political, that are simply ignored here for your economic convenience. There is nothing worse than letting people starve and even worse is depriving them of a means to make a dignified living. If a whole nation of people have no legal access to food, water, shelter, heat, and a just wage, a huge number will starve to death, before any of them are helped. Civil law cannot rely on the human heart to be charitable; and to deprive people of lifes necessities is murder and theft.

It is simple logic.

First off, thanks for changing your mind about “leaving it for God” to explain your position. It is not “madness” to merely suggest that the Great Society, in contributing to the breakdown of the black family, made things worse for blacks in inner cities instead of helping them. As I mentioned in my post, there are prominent black economists and sociologists who also believe that. Of course there are other factors at work too, like you point out.

Now about you other point about letting people starve. Who in America is starving? Last I checked we have a problem with obesity, not malnutrition. America’s wealth and affluence is such that its “poor” eat too much food! So let’s stop this nonsense about people “starving” shall we?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

What strikes me as irrational about your post is the complete lack of understanding of what it means to be apart of a human community and the moral responsibility that civil law has to protect the value and dignity of all life in that community, against all oppressive factors including economic ones.

How do you come to believe that I don’t understand what it means to be a part of a human community? You’re right, civil law does have a responsibility to protect all human life. I would be interested to know what “oppressive economic factors” are currently not being addressed by our civil law. Also, I would like to know why you believe I am being “irrational”?

You seem to think that you’re in it for your self, taking from the human community and moaning because you have to give something back in order to support those less fortunate in the economic market place. You then make fallacious straw-man arguments about the downside of things and ignore the positive ones (preserving the life of those less fortunate) in-order to make it appear as if the government is doing something wrong by preventing murder (allowing or depriving members of the human community of lifes necessities for the sake of profit, thus allowing your brothers and sisters to starve to death). That human beings in general have a moral responsibility to look out for there own well being is irrelevant to the fact that the government also has a right and a responsibility to safe guard the well being of all humans in the community regardless of economic concerns. The dignity of human life comes first. For a billionaire to cry about losing a million that he will never spend is irrational and down right shameful. In the end you are complaining about people having basic human rights, which is quite disgusting.

What do I “take from the human community” ? Also, I am not “moaning” about giving back. I give back more than you know, most likely. What I give back actually helps people, unlike the inneffective govt progams that are funded by money confiscated from me. Again, who, exactly, is starving to death? How was I complaining about people having basic human rights? You seem to like to throw words around like “madness” “starving” “responsible for murder” “shameful” and yet you don’t know me. If you want to have a conversation and hopefully learn something, then I would hope you’d tone down the hyperbole!

XII in Rerum Novarum criticized liberal capitalism noting the “enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses.” This statement remains exactly right, particularly given the varying, but similar figures, stating that an incredibly small minority of people own beyond-staggering percentages of global wealth. Forty years after Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI declared that “a veritable economic dictatorship” was forming. The Holy Father argued that these disorders, by and large, resulted from the divorce of economic science from natural law morality and social ethics:

“The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves…see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere—such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is.”

Buddy, when was rarum novarum written? 1891 when there were sweat shops and child labor, no safety net, no right of unions to organize, in short, it was addressing the terrible working conditions that existed in many industrialized countries at that time. Now you are taking that encyclical and wrongly applying it to modern 21st Century America when everyone’s obese and the biggest affront to the dignity and rights of humans is the slaughter of the unborn. Question: Who will decide, in our country, how much money is too much to make, and what will you do when the person with the power to decide that takes it upon himself to decide other things? Power corrupts, you know.

Ishii

 

[Betterave]

What strikes me as irrational about your post is the complete lack of understanding of what it means to be apart of a human community and the moral responsibility that civil law has to protect the value and dignity of all life in that community, against all oppressive factors including economic ones.

You seem to think that you’re in it for your self, taking from the human community and moaning because you have to give something back in order to support those less fortunate in the economic market place. You then make fallacious straw-man arguments about the downside of things and ignore the positive ones (preserving the life of those less fortunate) in-order to make it appear as if the government is doing something wrong by preventing murder (allowing or depriving members of the human community of lifes necessities for the sake of profit, thus allowing your brothers and sisters to starve to death).

ETC., ETC…

Wow. A suggestion, MOM2: how about trying to be a little less dogmatic and trying to be a little more fair and open-minded toward what ishii (or whoever) is saying? That would make for a much more interesting discussion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Now about you other point about letting people starve. Who in America is starving? Last I checked we have a problem with obesity, not malnutrition. America’s wealth and affluence is such that its “poor” eat too much food! So let’s stop this nonsense about people “starving” shall we?

Ishii

Now it seems that, even though you use the word “poor”, you are attempting to imply that there are no poor people or people living in poverty in first world countries by picking on those who are over weight. I don’t know much about America, but first of all, people eat cheap **** food with high calorie content; you no, things that are bad for your health yet cheap enough to sustain you. You don’t have to eat too much it to get fat of it. And some people are more poor than others. I am not aware that all poor people are fat people. It would be interesting to see how that contrasts with rich people. Psychologically speaking, people tend to overly stimulate themselves in depressing and oppressive conditions, whether that be with drugs, food, or sex or whatever else that they happen to have access to; which is understandable given the nature of our society. In a heartless world there are many opiums for the masses. Thus i cannot help but think that this is just another tired straw-man.

Secondly; even if your allegation is true, having enough food does not mean that all the right living conditions are being met or that a person has a just wage. In terms of functioning healthily in this society, both physically and psychologically, having enough to eat is only one of the factors that need to be met. Being able to eat too much is hardly proof that people are not being treated unjustly.

Thirdly you are not reading what i am saying properly. I never said anything about what people are doing in America, i never said that people are starving to death; rather i am talking about what will happen if you take away peoples human rights to be preserved by government initiatives, whether that be through taxation of the rich or some other means. I am talking about the civil rights that people ought to have in any** situation time or place**. In general, according to the transcendent dignity of a living person, human beings ought to have civil rights, the right to a fair and just wage, the right to good living conditions, the right to public health care, the right to sustainable benefits when one has no other access to sustainable goods, whether that be because they have no access to work or because they have some kind of impediment/illness. These are transcendent human rights; they are not conditional. If somebody does not have access to food or shelter or the means to production, and those who have it in abundance refuse to give it, then this is murder and theft, since in the first place private property is only legitimate if it respects the common good, the transcendent dignity of a living person. Private property is not an absolute right.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Wow. A suggestion, MOM2: how about trying to be a little less dogmatic and trying to be a little more fair and open-minded toward what ishii (or whoever) is saying? That would make for a much more interesting discussion.

I find it hard to be open minded with people who actively seek excuses to deprive people of what we as “living human beings” have a moral right to. I’m sorry, but i can’t do it.

 

[Rocinante]

Private property is not an absolute right.

right. give to caesar what is caesar’s. give to god what is god’s.

and what is god’s? why, absolutely everything. that doesn’t leave any room for private property as an absolute. we are only ever custodians of property which all belongs to god.

 

[ishii]

Now it seems that, even though you use the word “poor”, you are attempting to imply that there are no poor people or people living in poverty in first world countries by picking on those who are over weight. I don’t know much about America, but first of all, people eat cheap **** food with high calorie content; you no, things that are bad for your health yet cheap enough to sustain you. You don’t have to eat too much it to get fat of it. And some people are more poor than others. I am not aware that all poor people are fat people. It would be interesting to see how that contrasts with rich people. In a heartless world there are many opiums for the masses. Thus i cannot help but think that this is just another tired straw-man.

You say, “I don’t kow much about America”. I think we found something we agree on. I don’t know which country you’re from or living in, but I when discussing what form of govt. or economic system is best, I try to use my own country (America) as the example because that is the country I know most. When you say, “Distributism is great!” I try to imagine if that system would be good for America, how it would work, etc. In our discussion of poverty and its manifestations, if you’re thinking of a different country, then be specific as to which one, and also specifically refer to actual conditions that exist. It would help us understand where we’re both coming from. Now, as to America’s poor, I never said that all of them are obese, but many are obese from eating the wrong foods, prepared foods, and fast foods, processed foods, etc. I think this is due to culture and education partly. It takes a bit more work and planning to make a healthy meal, and its actually cheaper! There are a lot of factors at work here (another thing we agree on) but one thing I’ve noticed is that the poor in our country seem to like their big mac cheeseburgers. Also, the poor tend less to engage in fitness which also contributes to their obesity. There are lots of factors here to: lack of infrastructure in poor neighborhoods to walk in, dangerous areas, etc. I live in an area with a high concentration of people whose work is seasonal and affected (sadly) by our current economic recession. Many of those are receiving some kind of govt. assistance, but would I call them poor? In America, many of those who fit the description of “poor” are suffering from issues such as illegitimacy, single parent homes, etc. rather than not enough govt. handouts. That said, I think that there are things that govt can do to discourage illegitimacy. I think defining what we mean by poor would help us understand each other better and have a better discussion - assuming you want to have a better discussion.

Secondly; even if your allegation is true, having enough food does not mean that all the right living conditions are being met or that a person has a just wage. In terms of functioning healthily in this society, both physically and psychologically, having enough to eat is only one of the factors that need to be met. Being able to eat too much is hardly proof that people are not being treated unjustly.

Can you give some examples of how people are being treated unjustly now, and in what country? The reason I ask, is because the system you are advocating does not exist in America - in terms of “guarantee of public healthcare” “affordable housing” etc. There are problems in America and a definite underclass, but those problems are the result not of a lack of govt. programs, but too many govt. handouts, and other factors as well. You see, I am trying to figure out whether your system would be good for America.

Thirdly you are not reading what i am saying properly.

Yes, when I asked you to elaborate, you replied, “I will let God explain it to you”. Now you’re complaining that I don’t understand you properly! :banghead:

I never said anything about what people are doing in America, i never said that people are starving to death; rather i am talking about what will happen if you take away peoples human rights to be preserved by government initiatives, whether that be through taxation of the rich or some other means. I am talking about the civil rights that people ought to have in any** situation time or place**. In general, according to the transcendent dignity of a living person, human beings ought to have civil rights, the right to a fair and just wage, the right to good living conditions, the right to public health care, the right to sustainable benefits when one has no other access to sustainable goods, whether that be because they have no access to work or because they have some kind of impediment/illness.

Ok, then if you are saying that people are treated fairly in America (we have a mixed economy - capitalist with a certain amount of govt assistance and a safety net), then why are you advocating for distrubutism? I was intrigued by the system of Distributism at first, but there are too many questions. Can I pose one to you? Who will decide how much money is too much to have? Given that the ability to make that decision and enforce it through confiscatory measures, how can you guarentee that such a powerful entity would not someday enforce evil measures? How would they be kept from doing so? Lastly, a general question: It seems that the left, those who advocate socialism, the rights of humans to have housing, food, a job, etc. also overwhelmingly support the slaughter of the unborn. Why do you think that is, and do you see it as a contradiction? If we support the dignity of the human, then why would we want to let mothers kill the human inside them?

Ishii