E
estesbob
Guest
If you think this is bad start a thread about holding hands at the Our Father…
- Status
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I agree with everything above and also with the rest of your post; I sympathize with you quite a bit and personally believe that both major parties are in a state of severe crisis right now. They both leave a foul taste in my mouth most times.
Would you have supported Bob Casey (pro-life Democratic governor, who died in 2000) if you’d lived in Pennsylvania?
E
estesbob
Guest
I would of. IIRC he was shunned at the Democrat National Convetion-they wouldnt allow him to speak. Unfortunately his son ran as pro-life and voted pro-choice the very first time the issue came up. I am sure his Father would have been ashamed of him.
N
Nino
Guest
Well,lets see…this is not a new problem to be sure! To be pro-choice in allowing a developing baby in a temporary hosts body to be killed without asking…the father or the baby is hardly trendy or just one issue…all of human value is now at risk…the number of cases of child abuse has risen tremendously since that horrible supreme court edict…you also say…as seems to be the frequent case…your against felons and convicted murderers to be executed by a lawful state…ie capital punishment! So its ok to kill an innocent developing baby,which of course after a few short months feels pain…but its not ok to execute a person ,for example who has been found guilty of maybe killing 5 other human beings…mmmmm …the marxists in america were against all war after the hitler-stalin pact of 1939 …but when the nazis invaded mother russia in 1941…suddenly the ‘johnny did get his gun’ jimmy cagney type…started waving the flag and a victory sign…Lincoln and the Republican party of 1860 were against slavery and the extension there of…one major issue…I guess that would not get your attention…using your logic you would have voted for the demoncrats because they manufactured good cotton good…have a good year…
A
alessandro
Guest
Please don’t feel ignored. Sometimes, the discussion expands tangentially or circumstantially, settling “side issues” and then returning to the original theme.
I, for one, tried to explain that it’s okay to feel more of an affiliation with the democratic party – in many ways, the democratic party has paralleled Catholic theory of social justice very well, at least historically. But, as the “party platform” has become corrupted to include many other undesirable things (e.g., abortion, support for gay “marriage,” etc.), it has become blacklisted, by default, by many Catholics. This obviously creates a lot of internal conflict for those of us who still feel strongly about social justice issues (and therefore are not comfortable voting republican) yet are at the same time disgusted by the immoral stance of democrats on other issues.
So, you are not alone.
As you can see by the heated debate in this thread, there’s a great diversity of opinion. We are (mostly) Catholics here… yet there’s as much a difference of opinion – and possibly more – as anywhere else.
A
alessandro
Guest
I agree with a lot of what you said. But a microeconomic theory such as distributism is just that – microeconomic. It ignores many of the macroeconomic issues that allow a nation to function in the global economy. And it ignores or underplays the complexity of many of the normative issues that exist in a larger sphere (social justice and other moral issues) but that may not be so problematic in the smaller sphere.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Possibly I don’t understand what you’re saying, but I’m inclined to believe there is a close interplay between what happens on the macro and micro levels. Certainly the larger scale movements can affect those on the micro level. Taxation is certainly one of those. A significant change in the level of taxation can have a very significant effect on the ability of families to acquire productive assets. Consequently, tax policies can have a significant effect on the independence of the same. Pervasive governmental wealth redistribution seems to at least coincide with reduced family formation, e.g., in Western Europe. Immense concentration of wealth in private hands without much distribution at least coincides with the same result, e.g., in Russia.
It could be argued that it also works the other way. Contracting population most definitely causes changes in the economics of a nation, as in Japan, where industrial workers are in short supply, making the exporting basis of the economy harder and harder to maintain. In the U.S., the ratio of contributing workers relative to retired workers continues to reduce, and it could be argued that the very significant population shift associated with immigration are a consequence of a labor shortage here, and allows certain foreign governments to refuse to reform their economies.
Possibly the decreasing birth rate in the U.S. is the result of consumerist selfishness or late marriage on the part of childbearing age people. But it might actually be the result of the lack of intergenerational direct aid to young families, for which government intermediation in the form of taxation and redistribution based on political objectives is not an effective substitute.
It is interesting that, e.g., the last tax cuts (and prior ones) seem to have resulted in increased income to the government itself. If the theory of its proponents is correct, the private use of productive assets is superior in generating further (and taxable) wealth than is the public use of the same. At some point, there is a proper balance but the fundamental generating unit of all wealth is the individual and (since most individuals have families) the family.
When it comes to the world economy, it makes a lot of difference whether individual families elect to spend their income on consumption or on production. A “consumer economy” tends to draw in goods from everywhere, including from foreign sources, and to export capital. Investment in productivity at home not only preserves capital but can erase much of the advantage other economies may have due to the prevalence of low wages. A very anecdotal, and admittedly incomplete example is as follows. Some years ago, a local poultry plant was able to produce one million pounds of finished product per week with about 1200 workers. Over a period of about five years, it underwent a significant upgrade in mechanization and now produces 4 million pounds with 600 workers. It exports a lot of product to China.
On the other hand, because of a truly stupid U.S. restriction, the only source of a type of “pet snack”, made from surplus chicken, was China. U.S. companies could produce it more efficiently, but they couldn’t sell it. (U.S. companies had to dye it blue, Chinese companies could leave it white or dye it a light brown.) A local entrepreneur was amazingly able to get the restriction waived and now produces and sells the product. You can buy it at Walmart and lots of other places, right now. In doing so, (and in overcoming yet another regulatory hurdle for another product that had given European producers a monopoly in the U.S.) he and a partner have been able to employ just short of 600 people in two locations. All of this required significant capital (name removed by moderator)ut, and the latter situations were accomplished by private individuals, with their own capital and the capital of a handful of former employees of secondary product manufacturers who wanted to own the means of production. If they didn’t have the capital, they couldn’t have done it.
(aaaggghhhh, too long. One more continuation and I’ll quit)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
(continued)
There are other examples of the same thing, but suffice it to say I have seen individuals and small groups do amazing things when they have had the capital to do it. Governmental policies can have a significant effect on that ability, but the individuals are the ones who produce the product and the wealth.
So, as Leo XIII pointed out, is perhaps the most effective means of achieving social justice ensuring what really amounts to capital formation at the family level? (With, of course, supplemental aid to the severely disadvantaged, but at the most subsidiary level possible.) Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II did not have increased tax take in mind in advocating the protection of capital formation at the most subsidiary level. Nor did they say it would affect the balance of trade (though Belloc did). For the Popes, it was a moral issue. But it does seem that the degree to which wealth is widely distributed among those who have some capacity to use it productively has a profound effect on the economy as a whole.
There are other examples of the same thing, but suffice it to say I have seen individuals and small groups do amazing things when they have had the capital to do it. Governmental policies can have a significant effect on that ability, but the individuals are the ones who produce the product and the wealth.
So, as Leo XIII pointed out, is perhaps the most effective means of achieving social justice ensuring what really amounts to capital formation at the family level? (With, of course, supplemental aid to the severely disadvantaged, but at the most subsidiary level possible.) Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II did not have increased tax take in mind in advocating the protection of capital formation at the most subsidiary level. Nor did they say it would affect the balance of trade (though Belloc did). For the Popes, it was a moral issue. But it does seem that the degree to which wealth is widely distributed among those who have some capacity to use it productively has a profound effect on the economy as a whole.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Frankly, I can understand why SpiritMeadow and others might get the wrong idea, if they are reading posts like this. With all due respect, Bob, I think your observation is lacking in charity, too.
Peace,
Dante
A
alessandro
Guest
Yes, most certainly one sphere affects the other. I don’t debate the examples you gave, as they’re all good ones.
My point is that a microeconomic theory (and one might argue that distributism is essentially a microeconomic theory) does not address things on the macroeconomic scale. Hard to explain…
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Interesting thread. You seem to indicate that the Democratic Party is the only one that cares cares about “social justice”. That is an assumption that I believe is not true. There are many ways to help people in need and just giving them things is not necessarily the best way. The GOP believes in helping people to learn to help themselves. What we have now is an overblown entitlement system that cannot possibly maintain itself. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I reject the notion that the Democratic system of helping is the only and best way. Perhaps some of us have been less than charitable in our responses in this topic, but every year there is an election there are many Catholics who go thru all kinds of mascinations to justify voting for a party that supports abortion, etc.–the five non-negotiables. I just don’t think it can be done by a Catholic who believes in the tenets of Mother Church.
But, again, interesting thread.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
The late Gov. Casey was an honorable man. I can’t understand why one would reject a senator that they knew absolutely was pro-life for one that they only supposed would be so because of the beliefs of his father. And don’t you think that the problem with small businesses is not policies of the GOP,but the tax code that hampers their success?
R
ribozyme
Guest
Regarding the other issues that are not non-negotiable, we can adopt the policies of Somalia: no taxes, no government-funded health care, an unfettered free market…
Again, I do not believe that some people are capable of helping themselves. It is best for some people to be coddled by a welfare state although steps should be taken to inhibit further free-riding. Japan has a system that prevents the propagation of free-riders.
Not everyone is a Mother Teresa, but the European nanny states do not need religion in order to treat their citizens well.
F
frankadams
Guest
You have made your position clear. It seems you are saying that any Catholic who votes Democratic does “not believe in the tenets of Mother Church.” If that is a correct statement, then I think the Church has been derelict in not stating that any Catholic who votes Democrat should consider themselves excommunicated from the Church. I think you should direct your energies to getting the Church to make this absolutely clear. “Voter’s Guides” are simply not enough. The Pope needs to make a solemn pronoucement stating, “Attention American Catholics: If you vote for a Democratic candidate, you do not blliieve in Catholic tenets and are therefore not a Catholic. Please either change your action or leave the Church immediately.”
A
alessandro
Guest
No, I never said that the "Democratic Party is the only one that cares about ‘social justice.’ " What I said was that, historically, the democratic party’s social policy better paralleled the Catholic theory of social justice. (This doesn’t erase its other serious problems… But it makes me angrier that it doesn’t clean up its act!)
Your statement that “The GOP believes in helping people to learn to help themselves” only extends as far as charity goes. If one considers Europe – a historically Catholic continent – no country has a social policy built upon “helping people to learn to help themselves.” Rather, each country is built upon a safety-net structure that ensures protection of the natural right.
In contrast, the United States was founded by protestants religiously and influenced by Enlightenment/ post-Enlightenment scholars (and even Masons) philosophically (e.g., Adam Smith, Hume, Rousseau), who had very non-Catholic views of social justice: “Raise yourself by your bootstraps.” “Every man for himself.” “Survival of the fittest.” Back in the colonial or pioneer days, it was all about protecting one’s own family. At best – and I don’t doubt this happened a lot – one would contribute charitably to help his neighbor in a smaller community. But this concern did not extend to the larger sphere of the entire country.
I firmly feel that this protestant-based “backbone” for the United States is incompatible with true Catholic social justice doctrine at the macroeconomic level. Don’t get me wrong – Doing charitable works, or “helping people learn to help themselves” is very important, especially on a local level. And ensuring that safety-net systems are not abused is crucial for the survival of such programs and for the dignity of the people who rely on such programs in times of need. But that doesn’t change the need for such programs to exist. Catholic social justice theory charges us with the moral imperative to do so.
A neat academic exercise would be to ponder this: For whom, or for which system, would the Pope vote? I posit that it definitely wouldn’t be the highly capitalistic society that exists in the United States. Free markets are a wonderful thing, to a certain point. But somehow, my gut feeling tells me that the pope would prefer more socially-minded systems in Europe. There, citizens might pay 60% of their income in taxes, even; but all social services are covered, for the poor and wealthy alike.
I don’t suggest that the European systems are blanketly better than the US’s. The Good Lord knows they have their own problems, and then some. My point is that, if you truly consider Catholic social justice theory, truly, then you are left with a more social-minded support structure.
While personalized charity works on the smaller scale, it is not sufficient on the larger scale. That is why distributism, libertarianism, and republicanism are in some (or many) ways incompatible with Catholic social justice theory.
(I concur: This is a lively thread.)
J
jman507
Guest
I would say that it does work for a great microeconomic model. While it will stray from some of the inital ideas of distributionalism, it contains some important principles to avoid capitalism from forming a depositic oligarchy, or avoiding the counter balance of the tryanny of a government. Just go back to the time between Genesis and Exodus. If you give power for your livelyhood to another, that power may eventually enslave you – for your own good of course
.You need to take take you goods and services or capital and make sure that you are using it effectively and effeciently. If you don’t waste it, you won’t have to worry about someone else. If you take care of your family, with it’s vulernable memebers, you don’t have to worry so much about being taken advantage of. If you take all your money and give it to the government to take care of everyone, then the government can call all the shots, be it for the good or the bad. Granted most people work for good intentions, but sometimes the bad gets masked as good intentions.
So now maybe you don’t exactly get to keep a cow for yourself now, but you can save some money into money accounts or spend it on capital that can make goods and services. If anything that was much the same as the good of your own cow, your could sell it, or you could use it for milk or meat.
Now as far as the politcal parties, its good to keep yourself some freedom. If you become too beholden to one party or another, that party can sometimes just write off your needs. If you just want to vote, your only going to get so much out of the process. If you help out with a person becoming elected, you can gain some more influence. If you want to try your hand at office, you can do more. At the same time remember politics isn’t everything, and isn’t worth putting all your eggs in that basket. If that’s the case your easy to write off.
So your a democrate in a local office, and your the only one who’s against abortion. What’s going to happen if you get the call to go for the election to a higher office? What happens when another is looking for the higher office and is looking for support for a pro-life idea. It’s easy to crowd out one voice, harder to crowd out two, and each additional voice even more so.
J
jman507
Guest
Certainly I’ll say that Catholics tend to be more community based, while Protestants tend to be individual based. The US does tend to have a “rugged individualism” ethic to it. If you bring community to an excess to where no one is ever responsible, but just the impersonal “they.” Your shaping yourself up to a collapse of the whole system. If you take individualism to excess to where no one is ever responsible for another, then you can fall into a place where many are oppressed.
I don’t think you’d be really happy with the slavery of the Israelites in Exodus by the Pharaoh, nor the situation where the rich Israelites abused and/or neglected the poorer ones. In my opinion the best macro policy is where you don’t force the hand of the micro policy to go into either, or try to find a balance between freedom and regulation.
What is more important is value on the micro policy. Individually the ones that are able need to help the unable. That is best done by personal relationships. Do your best, and even if it’s not very good, keep your head up. The master needs to be the servant, and the servant the master. If a capable father, is wasting time away from caring for his family, he is wasting valueable resources, as well as putting the weak – the children – in a disadvantage. That ethic is very hard to shape. Any nation that has a policy as such will be strong, once it decides to live off of its fat it will plateau and decline. Any nation that solely focus on a macro policy can easily collapse on it’s foundation, taking it’s safety net with it.
As far as the two parties, I believe the people should be vigilant on any great new economic policy. At least the stereotype of the two parties, are neither right nor wrong, but need to be in balance.
E
estesbob
Guest
I do get cranky about the deaths of 1.2 million children a year, politicians who support this and people who vote for them.
R
ribozyme
Guest
And I get cranky about human suffering (and of other animals too) and high Gini coefficients.
Embryos and early fetuses do not have the capacity to suffer.
E
estesbob
Guest
Ah to be young again…
- Status