Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[ishii]

I will take you at your word that Goldwater is a socialist.

As for Reagan being influenced by Adam Smith’s writings, I have not seen any evidence that he ever read them. A lot of people like to talk about Smith but few have read him.

Read:

“Let me tell you about this Invisible Hand. Many of you will remember that the phrase originally comes from the economist Adam Smith who believed that the actions of a free market work like an “invisible hand” to assure that the activities of many individuals, though seemingly self-interested, result in benefits for the common good. Ever since Ronald Reagan studied classical economics at Eureka College, Adam Smith was his hero. So everybody in the Administration quoted Adam Smith. Neckties with little Adam Smith busts on them festooned every male conservative chest in Washington when I was there. You had a wide range of choices: there were green Adam Smith neckties, maroon Adam Smith neckties, red, white and blue Adam Smith neckties. For a while, I didn’t think Ed Meese owned any other kind of tie. There were even Adam Smith scarves for the women. If Ronald Reagan had been allowed to run for a third term I imagine there would have been Adam Smith hats and Adam Smith raincoats.”

discovery.org/a/2073

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Read:

“Let me tell you about this Invisible Hand. Many of you will remember that the phrase originally comes from the economist Adam Smith who believed that the actions of a free market work like an “invisible hand” to assure that the activities of many individuals, though seemingly self-interested, result in benefits for the common good. Ever since Ronald Reagan studied classical economics at Eureka College, Adam Smith was his hero. So everybody in the Administration quoted Adam Smith. Neckties with little Adam Smith busts on them festooned every male conservative chest in Washington when I was there. You had a wide range of choices: there were green Adam Smith neckties, maroon Adam Smith neckties, red, white and blue Adam Smith neckties. For a while, I didn’t think Ed Meese owned any other kind of tie. There were even Adam Smith scarves for the women. If Ronald Reagan had been allowed to run for a third term I imagine there would have been Adam Smith hats and Adam Smith raincoats.”

discovery.org/a/2073

Ishii

It does not say he read the wealth of nations or the theory of moral sentiments.

 

[ishii]

It does not say he read the wealth of nations or the theory of moral sentiments.

I think its reasonable to assume that if Reagan studied classical economics at Eureka College in the late 20’s/early 30’s that he did read some Adam Smith, and that Wealth of Nations was on the reading list.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think its reasonable to assume that if Reagan studied classical economics at Eureka College in the late 20’s/early 30’s that he did read some Adam Smith, and that Wealth of Nations was on the reading list.

Ishii

Proof?

 

[ishii]

Proof?

Proof that its reasonable to assume?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Proof that its reasonable to assume?

You can believe what you want to believe.

 

[ishii]

You can believe what you want to believe.

I think its reasonable to believe that a student at Eureka who studied classical economics probably read some Adam Smith.

I do not, however, have access to Reagan’s course syllabus from the 1920’s so I can’t be sure. You win, Stinkcat!

Stinkcat 1, Ishii 0.

Gold medal for Stinkcat!

Ishii

 

[phil19034]

I appreciate your response, phil19034.

In your previous post you implied that the constitution might be opposed to Catholic teaching when you said you are for “the Church before the constitution.” In what way would being loyal to the Pope/bishops prevent one from being loyal to the US constitution? Be specific.

Ishii

Nothing. That’s not what I meant (at least nothing that the founding fathers meant the Constitution to mean).

But today, radical judges are changing the meaning of the freedoms granted by the Constitution. I.e gay marriage and “freedom from religion.”

I stand by the Church before any of these evil interpretations of the constitution.

 

[lynnvinc]

…it has a usual juvenile attacks on those who dare question AGW…

Not at all juvenile, it is totally irresponsible for people to be skeptical of AGW when climate scientists (who demand 95% confidence) are no longer skeptical of it, esp when it entails grave harms to life well into the future. That is totally wrong and unacceptable. Anyone with a mature and well-developed conscience and a good sense of prudence (which does not require such high standards of proof as scientist do) will understand that. I’m really saddened and appalled that so many people claiming to Catholic, esp policy-makers who are supposed to be looking out for the common well-being of society, are so derelict in their responsibilities and duties.

Okay, there might be some upfront costs and life-style changes, but I can assure people that if they seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness ALL things will be added unto them…they will find great savings and blessing in do the right thing and mitigating climate change beyond their wildest imaginations and dreams.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think its reasonable to believe that a student at Eureka who studied classical economics probably read some Adam Smith.

I do not, however, have access to Reagan’s course syllabus from the 1920’s so I can’t be sure. You win, Stinkcat!

Stinkcat 1, Ishii 0.

Gold medal for Stinkcat!

Ishii

Now, the question is, if Adam Smith were alive today, would he be a republican? That is certainly something that is up for debate. For example, would Adam Smith be against raising the minimum wage? It is far from clear that the answer is no. Would Adam Smith be against Obamacare or Medicare? Once again, we really have no clue. Was Adam Smith in favor of smaller government? That is subject to debate. The one thing that was true about Adam Smith is that he was distrustful of business, so on that level, one could argue that Obama is as much of a Smithian as Reagan was. I think we have to be careful to distinguish between the narrative put forth by current political groups and what Smith actually said.

 

[estesbob]

Then I guess there is no sense in talking about this. Republicans can do whatever they want and Catholics must support them.

I don’t know where you ever got that idea. The Church does not tell us who we have to support. It tells us who we can’t

 

[zz912]

There is no requirement to support such schemes. On the other hand, nobody can seriously argue (as some have here) that these schemes are socialist in nature. It is certainly a reasonable thing to debate, how if at all, governments should respond to climate change or other environmental issues.

Explain how instituting a massive cap-and-trade carbon system with huge taxes and regulations, with even more bureaucracy is not moving our system more towards a socialistic system?

Socialists have become more adept over the years. When it first arose, violent upheaval was their modus operandi. But this was met with strong resistance from the free world. So they modified their tactics and are employing the long game. Quietly, slowly, brick by brick, they institute more govt programs, regulations, agencies, departments. More and more authority is centralized and consolidated. But rarely with honestly saying what they are doing. They take what they can get, and then shortly thereafter fight for just a little more.

And slowly but surely, the elephant is eaten, one bite at a time.

 

[zz912]

How else could one describe Bernie Sanders and the Tea Party? They are both further to the left and right respectively than most Americans. Fringe can be an accurate descriptor. In terms of man-made contributions to climate change being a reality, only a tiny fringe minority of the scientific community would deny this.

The Tea Party led huge waves of election wins in 2010 and 2014. Bernie Sanders is a senator from a very small state.

Are you sure you know what “fringe” means?

 

[zz912]

I guess the order of moral gravity might be:
Shooting and killing someone in cold blood is worse than having an abortion (or maybe the same), which is worse than persuading people not to reduce their greenhouse gases by wrongly telling them that AGW is not happening (as if they are a science authority with the expertise and right to tell people that & thereby causing others to fall into sin), which is worse than emitting greenhouse gases well beyond what is necessary to live a good and decent life (that is, refusing to become energy/resource efficient/conservative within one’s means and go on alt energy when feasible when there are plenty of off-the-shelf options).

Since I’m not shooting or killing anyone or having an abortion, I need to focus on my more minor sins, such as emitting greenhouse gases beyond what is necessary.

Others in worse state of sin should be focusing on stopping killing people in cold blood and having abortions. That certainly comes first, but they can also multi-task and reduce their GHG emissions at the same time

What’s funny is you are typing this message on a computer or smart phone, using technology that you don’t need to “live a good and decent life”. Are you sinning by owning your computer or smartphone?

 

[zz912]

One of my favorite quotes- and not at all inconsistent with Catholic Social teaching.

I guess it needs to be repeated for those who might be reading this thread, but socialism is condemned by the Catholic Church and is inconsistent with the Christian faith.

 

[zz912]

He isn’t disobeying any doctrine. He is questioning the Pope which isn’t appropriate- especially in a public forum.

The Pope is above criticism when/if he steps into the political arena, which is outside his area of competence?

What about during the reigns of the bad popes? Should no one have questioned the behavior of popes then?

The phrase “pray, pay, and obey” encapsulates what our role as layman should be in the Church. We don’t have any business questioning those to whom God has given authority to lead.

You do realize a great deal of evil has occurred because of this way of thinking, right? The sex abuse scandal was helped tremendously by such thinking.

 

[zz912]

Capitalism has already reached the stage of consuming its own tail.

Either we shut it down orderly, or it will collapse in a violent conflagration.

The western world and the US has moved steadily away from capitalism towards corporatism/socialism mix. Any failures we see today are the result of NOT following a capitalistic model.

 

[zz912]

That’s true. Most Catholic democrats I know oppose abortion, suicide and the death penalty. It’s all the same thing, opposing the taking of human life.

The majority of Catholic democrats voted for Obama, twice. They cannot claim to oppose abortion and vote for Obama.

 

[zz912]

I think its reasonable to believe that a student at Eureka who studied classical economics probably read some Adam Smith.

I do not, however, have access to Reagan’s course syllabus from the 1920’s so I can’t be sure. You win, Stinkcat!

Stinkcat 1, Ishii 0.

Gold medal for Stinkcat!

Ishii

It truly is pedantic, isn’t it?

 

[lynnvinc]

Now, the question is, if Adam Smith were alive today, would he be a republican? That is certainly something that is up for debate. For example, would Adam Smith be against raising the minimum wage? It is far from clear that the answer is no. Would Adam Smith be against Obamacare or Medicare? Once again, we really have no clue. Was Adam Smith in favor of smaller government? That is subject to debate. The one thing that was true about Adam Smith is that he was distrustful of business, so on that level, one could argue that Obama is as much of a Smithian as Reagan was. I think we have to be careful to distinguish between the narrative put forth by current political groups and what Smith actually said.

The world view was fairly different during the Enlightenment. They didn’t have an ecological understanding of the environment or a sense of human ecology (the interconnectedness among humans), as we (at least some of us) have today. Nevertheless a philosophy prof told me that classical (Adam Smith) economics had some inclusion of the environment, while neoclassical economics of today doesn’t take it into account nearly as much as classical econ did.

And many who still live in the (anti-Catholic) Enlightenment, also don’t reckon the environment as important, but see it as wild (read “useless”) species in wild and useless places. They don’t consider it is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the materials we use to construct our buildings and make our products, the chemicals that permeate our bodies, the climate in which we grow our food. They don’t understand that healthy biological-ecological systems are fundamental to life, while the economy is merely contingent and instrumental. We could live without grocery stores (as difficult at it may be), but we cannot live without food, water, air, and a climate hospitable to human life and our food production.

Luckily the pope has education in science rather than economics.

My husband figured the appropriate question for this thread would be, “What education does Santorum have?” Obviously not a very good one! He should resign and let better qualified people take his place as a policy-maker. He seems out to ruin the world, or something…I’m sure unwittingly.