Isn't distributivism a type of idolatry?

[lkensinger]

The thread from the person who is proud to be a distributist (?) gives me pause. It’s way too easy to make the claim that government should mandate charity from it’s citizens. That way, we feel we are “off the hook”. All we have to do to feel good about ourselves is to state our political position and demand other peoples’ “charity”.

The first Christians lived communally, but they also corrected each other when the need arose. In the early years of our country, Christians did the same thing. Charity was almost exclusively handled by churches that didn’t hesitate to condemn alcoholism, adultery, abandonment of dependents.

IMHO, when our countrymen look to government for sustenance, it’s an incipient form of idolatry. Government steps into the role of “benefactor” without “judgment”. Isn’t this just what a sinner wants? Rather than to face up to sin and rely on God’s help to vanquish it?

A really good book on this subject is “The Tragedy of American Compassion” by Marvin O’Lasky. It’s bee years since I read it, but I’m pretty sure the title and spelling of the author’s name are correct.

 

[Rocinante]

The thread from the person who is proud to be a distributist (?) gives me pause. It’s way too easy to make the claim that government should mandate charity from it’s citizens. That way, we feel we are “off the hook”. All we have to do to feel good about ourselves is to state our political position and demand other peoples’ “charity”.

i think a discussion such as this one and that other thread would benefit from a moratorium on use of the words “socialism” “capitalism” “free market” and “communism,” “distributism” and probably all other “isms.”

instead of arguing about what these terms really mean, we would do much better to discuss specific policies to see if they are good or bad.

what should the goverment do?

who should pay for it?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Law exists for the benefit of human kind. It is supposed to exist in-order to safeguard the dignity of human beings. That’s why murder is illegal, because it destroys the dignity of human beings. Thus law exists so that we can have civilised society. In-order to have a civilised society there are certain freedoms we cannot have. The freedom to kill people and not face any retribution from authority figures cannot be allowed, because it undermines civilisation.

We have a natural right to private property, but that right is conditional. If one has property, such as food, heat, medical benefits, and other necessities for human life, and relegates that property and organises society in such a way and to such an extent and degree that others who cannot afford to obtain such property are therefore forced in to poverty, homelessness, potential starvation and illness, or circumstances that undermines their dignity as human beings, then such a person is a murderer and a torturer, and is responsible for the death of every homeless person who dies on the street; regardless of whether a court of law recognises it or not. The state is there to protect us from such people. If a starving person who has no practical access to food takes food from your shop, they have not sinned. The common good transcends the right to private property.

The vast majority, if not all, of the poor and the homeless do not have the means of production and neither do they have any practical means of obtaining the means by their own efforts short of a revolution, and this is due to the way modern society functions and operates as whole. Therefore the minority who have the means of production, and those who have access to the means of production, have a civil obligation, as-well as a moral one, to compensate those who cannot support themselves, so long as the economy and modern society continues to function as it does today. With property comes responsibility. Nobody has an absolute right to property.

It would be murder to allow people, who do not have a means to work and a dignified wage or access to a health service, to starve to death or die of an illness. Leaving their fate to the whim of human charity is not justified and is quite frankly a bad joke, not to mention an example of idol worshipping human charity above the dignity of human beings. Every human being has or should have the civil and moral right, to public health care, reasonable affordable accommodation, a dignified wage, and social benefits if they cannot obtain work for whatever justified reason. This is ought to be the foundation of any civilised society since the aim of civilised society is to protect the moral dignity of human beings. Thus the greedy person cannot be allowed the freedom to be greedy to the extent that people are left to perish under the weight of the economy. This survival of the fittest ideology is not catholic and should never be embraced by any civilised society or any catholic. Given that we live in one of the richest countries in the world there is no excuse. It will be a sad day when greedy people take away my human rights, but not as sad as judgement day.

Giving people a dignified basis upon which they can live with the assurance of a safety net when they fail in the market place, does not take away from the opportunity for charity. One can still be charitable. There are plenty of third world countries in which there are people starving. Also there are different forms of charity. The idea that Christian obligation will end when we give people their basic human rights, just shows how warped some peoples idea of God and the role of the state actually is. If you are think that the state should exist merely to protect you from the allegedly jealous poor and homeless people that surround you, there is something wrong with you. But if you own a business that does well by giving low wages, then I can understand the need to deceive oneself.

 

[ishii]

Law exists for the benefit of human kind. It supposed to exist in-order to safeguard the dignity of human beings. That’s why murder is illegal, because it destroys the dignity of human beings. Thus law exists so that we can have civilised society. In-order to have a civilised society there are certain freedoms we cannot have. The freedom to kill people and not face any retribution from authority figures cannot be allowed, because it undermines civilisation.

We have a natural right to private property, but that right is conditional. If one has property, such as food, heat, medical benefits, and other necessities for human life, and relegates that property and organises society in such a way and to such an extent and degree that others who cannot afford to obtain such property are therefore forced in to poverty, homelessness, potential starvation and illness, or circumstances that undermines their dignity as human beings, then such a person is a murderer and a torturer, and is responsible for the death of every homeless person who dies on the street; regardless of whether a court of law recognises it or not. The state is there to protect us from such people. If a starving person who has no practical access to food takes food from your shop, they have not sinned. The common good transcends the right to private property.

It would be murder to allow people, who do not have a means to work and a dignified wage or access to a health service, to starve to death or die of an illness. Leaving their fate to the whim of human charity is not justified and is quite frankly bad joke, not to mention an example of idol worshipping human charity above the dignity of human beings. Every human being has or should have the civil and moral right, to public health care, reasonable affordable accommodation, a dignified wage, and social benefits if they cannot obtain work for whatever justified reason. This is ought to be the foundation of any civilised society since the aim of civilised society is to protect the moral dignity of human beings. Thus the greedy person cannot be allowed the freedom to be greedy to the extent that people are left to perish under the weight of the economy. This survival of the fittest ideology is not catholic and should never be embraced by any civilised society or any catholic. Given that we live in one of the richest countries in the world there is no excuse. It will be a sad day when greedy people take away my human rights, but not as sad as judgement day.

Giving people a dignified basis upon which they can live with the assurance of a safety net when they fail in the market place, does not take away from the opportunity for charity. One can still be charitable. There are plenty of third world countries in which there are people starving. Also there are different forms of charity. The idea that Christian obligation will end when we give people their basic human rights, just shows how warped some peoples idea of God and the role of the state actually is. If you are think that the state should exist merely to protect you from the allegedly jealous poor and homeless people that surround you, there is something wrong with you. But if you own a business that does well by giving low wages, then I can understand the need to deceive oneself.

Are you talking about the situation in America? America is a country in which the poor are obese - something tells me that the poor in America do not need to steal from stores for nourishment. Its not so much a problem of lack of rights but a lack of responsibility for life choices. The homeless on the street are, by and large, drug addicts and mental ill cases. Very sad, but they are often deserving of institutionalization (a legitimate responsibility of government, imo). The massive deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill started mainly during the 70’s under that bleating heart liberal Jimmy Carter. This resulted in thousands of homeless on the street at a time when local organizations were not prepared to meet the challenges (and dangers) which which the deinstutionalization posed.

I would like you to expand on just how someone who has a lot of material wealth can be responsible for murdering the poor. Usually those with lots of wealth are the ones providing opportunity and employing the poor (atleast those who want employment).

Ishii

 

[Della]

Distributism has nothing what so ever with government providing anything. It’s every man being responsible for his own property/work and his own family. Helping one another is a Christian virtue that cannot be mandated by government. We’ve all seen what a mess government makes of charity to know it doesn’t work. If a man has his own property/business and money from it he can help those in need. I think we should have stuck to the guild system in which every child was trained to do certain types of work or service. But, those who longed for global dominance made sure that was killed and so we got rampant big business and big government. Only lately have people been waking up to the evils of both, maybe too late, we’ll have to see.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Are you talking about the situation in America? America is a country in which the poor are obese - something tells me that the poor in America do not need to steal from stores for nourishment. Its not so much a problem of lack of rights but a lack of responsibility for life choices. The homeless on the street are, by and large, drug addicts and mental ill cases. Very sad, but they are often deserving of institutionalization (a legitimate responsibility of government, imo). The massive deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill started mainly during the 70’s under that bleating heart liberal Jimmy Carter. This resulted in thousands of homeless on the street at a time when local organizations were not prepared to meet the challenges (and dangers) which which the deinstutionalization posed.

I would like you to expand on just how someone who has a lot of material wealth can be responsible for murdering the poor. Usually those with lots of wealth are the ones providing opportunity and employing the poor (atleast those who want employment).

Ishii

I am not interested in explaining the obvious. I will leave it to God to explain it to you.

 

[ishii]

I am not interested in explaining the obvious. I will leave it to God to explain it to you.

It isn’t obvious to me. Could you please explain? If there is any merit to your points, then you should be able to expand on them in order to persuade others - if persuading others is your intention.

Ishii

 

[Rocinante]

It isn’t obvious to me. Could you please explain? If there is any merit to your points, then you should be able to expand on them in order to persuade others - if persuading others is your intention.

Ishii

do you think we have a moral duty to heal the sick and feed and clothe the poor?

 

[PRmerger]

do you think we have a moral duty to heal the sick and feed and clothe the poor?

To feed and clothe the poor? Yes.

But a moral duty to heal the sick? I don’t know how I could heal the sick–I can’t even stop my nose from running when I have a cold. God would not give us a command to do the impossible.

 

[Rocinante]

To feed and clothe the poor? Yes.

But a moral duty to heal the sick? I don’t know how I could heal the sick–I can’t even stop my nose from running when I have a cold.

i also am not personally a healer. the only way that most of us have of fulfilling our moral duty of healing the sick is to support government programs such as medicare and medicaid.

 

[PRmerger]

i also am not personally a healer. the only way that most of us have of fulfilling our moral duty of healing the sick is to support government programs such as medicare and medicaid.

That is arguable.

Edit: it’s arguable that government programs “heal the sick”.

Incidentally, is paying for someone’s acne medicine our moral obligation?

 

[ishii]

do you think we have a moral duty to heal the sick and feed and clothe the poor?

Yes we do. How we do it is another question altogether. Should we support govt. programs which create more poor people?

Ishii

 

[Rocinante]

Yes we do. How we do it is another question altogether. Should we support govt. programs which create more poor people?

Ishii

obviously we should not. do you think medicare and/or medicaid create more or less people without healthcare? do you think a regressive tax system creates more or fewer poor people?

 

[ishii]

obviously we should not. do you think medicare and/or medicaid create more or less people without healthcare? do you think a regressive tax system creates more or fewer poor people?

The welfare/war on poverty programs started by LBJ resulted in more poverty. We don’t have a regressive tax system.

Ishii

 

[Rocinante]

The welfare/war on poverty programs started by LBJ resulted in more poverty.

which programs are you talking about? i suppose it is difficult to discern the effects of a given set of programs from other influences.

We don’t have a regressive tax system.

i wonder if you are right. certainly much of our taxes are regressive. even though federal income tax brackets are progressive, there are so many possibilities for deductions that the effective tax rates that people actually pay vary greatly.

many state and city taxes are flat.

social security is a regressive tax. tax on gasoline and lots of other goods and services are regressive, so i’m not sure how it tends to play out over all.

i think we ought to have a progressive system of taxation since the more wealth people have, the more stake they have in preserving the status quo and a government that protects their wealth from foreign and domestic threats. would you agree?

 

[Betterave]

I would like you to expand on just how someone who has a lot of material wealth can be responsible for murdering the poor. Usually those with lots of wealth are the ones providing opportunity and employing the poor (atleast those who want employment).

Ishii

Maybe he meant enslaving the poor, not literally murdering them, and perhaps he was referring to people like drug dealers (not to mention manufacturers)?

 

[ishii]

Maybe he meant enslaving the poor, not literally murdering them, and perhaps he was referring to people like drug dealers (not to mention manufacturers)?

Maybe he did - I’ll never know I guess because he refuses to discuss what he wrote. If he meant drug dealers, then I have no quarrell. Drug dealers can be found in countries with all types of government systems. I do think that in our country, the level of material wealth-disposable income, free time, attitudes toward rights (my body, my choice, etc) as well as other factors, have led to a all sorts of problems, drug addiction being one of them. The more freedom one has, the more opportunities there are to make the wrong choice. What struck me about the post he made was the complete lack of any reference to personal responsibility for the choices one makes.

Ishii

 

[Betterave]

Maybe he did - I’ll never know I guess because he refuses to discuss what he wrote. If he meant drug dealers, then I have no quarrell. Drug dealers can be found in countries with all types of government systems. I do think that in our country, the level of material wealth-disposable income, free time, attitudes toward rights (my body, my choice, etc) as well as other factors, have led to a all sorts of problems, drug addiction being one of them. The more freedom one has, the more opportunities there are to make the wrong choice. What struck me about the post he made was the complete lack of any reference to personal responsibility for the choices one makes.

Ishii

While I would agree that the post was very one-sided and question-begging, the lack of reference to personal responsibility was only almost complete:

“Every human being has or should have the civil and moral right, to public health care, reasonable affordable accommodation, a dignified wage, and social benefits if they cannot obtain work for whatever justified reason.”

Of course, if we tried to open up the can of worms that I have underlined, we’d be forced to have a much more balanced discussion of the problem than MOM2 seems to want to allow.

 

[ishii]

which programs are you talking about? i suppose it is difficult to discern the effects of a given set of programs from other influences.

i wonder if you are right. certainly much of our taxes are regressive. even though federal income tax brackets are progressive, there are so many possibilities for deductions that the effective tax rates that people actually pay vary greatly.

many state and city taxes are flat.

social security is a regressive tax. tax on gasoline and lots of other goods and services are regressive, so i’m not sure how it tends to play out over all.

i think we ought to have a progressive system of taxation since the more wealth people have, the more stake they have in preserving the status quo and a government that protects their wealth from foreign and domestic threats. would you agree?

The Great Society anti-poverty programs are considered to have had a detrimental effect on the black family - encouraging illegetimacy, and therefore contributed to all sorts of socio-economic and moral decay. To see the effects firsthand, go to any major inner city -be sure to do this during the day, and don’t travel alone. That is the argument of such writers as the sociologist Thomas Sowell and the economist Walter Williams. What they are saying is debatable of course, but I tend to agree with them when they say that the Great Society programs at best were of no benefit to blacks (or other poor groups) but probably made things worse.

We have a progressive income tax. Lots of other taxes are regressive, as you say, such as the sales tax where I live which is 10%. Someone who makes very little has to pay the same tax as someone who is rich, but its a larger percentage of their income. Also there are lots of other excises taxes and surcharges which hurt the poor more than they hurt the rich or even the middle class. Of course, the earned income tax credit probably offsets much of those regressive taxes. I generally am against the progressive income tax, but not strongly so. I am interested in some of the flat tax ideas that have been propose. A flat tax is fair, and the richer you are, the more $$ you pay in taxes. Thinking back to my college political science class, the questions were framed with the assumption that the economy was a finite “pie” and that those who had a larger share of the pie were doing so at the expense of the poor. The idea was that there is only so much to go around, and the wealthy have too much, “its not fair”. I have always understood the pie to be growing, that even if my neighbor has a better car, more wealth, etc. I am limited not by my neighbor, but by how hard I am willing to work and how disciplined I am willing to be. Do I go for instant gratification or do I save my money so I will have some later when I need it, or use the money to finance self-improvement. I also believe that any snapshot of the poor, statistically, includes many who are “passing through”. I have passed through the category of “poor” myself, although I never considered myself to be truly poor. On the other hand, there are permanent members of the lower classes, who for a variety of reasons have a difficult time rising up. In explaining the existence of the permant under-class, I would look at social causes (break up of the family, etc.) rather than blame their struggles on the rich who simply don’t pay enough in taxes.

I think the best system so far devised is a capitalist system (with safety net) in which there is the greatest possible number of catholics and others making decisions based on the principles of fair play and charity toward others. Without getting specific, I work for a very wealthy man who sees fit to pay his workers a living wage - not because a law tells him to do but because he believes it to be the right thing, and also (rightly) believes its best for his company. He is rewarded with loyal, and hard working employees. The capitalist system in which we live is not perfect and we need to be thinking about ways to reform and improve it, but I don’t think that passing a law limiting how much others can make is the right thing. Sorry for the rambling answer.

Ishii

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The Great Society anti-poverty programs are considered to have had a detrimental effect on the black family - encouraging illegetimacy, and therefore contributed to all sorts of socio-economic and moral decay. To see the effects firsthand, go to any major inner city -be sure to do this during the day, and don’t travel alone. That is the argument of such writers as the sociologist Thomas Sowell and the economist Walter Williams. What they are saying is debatable of course, but I tend to agree with them when they say that the Great Society programs at best were of no benefit to blacks (or other poor groups) but probably made things worse.

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.