Pro-life Catholic Who Attends Latin Mass Appointed As New UK House of Commons Leader

[JonNC]

JonNC:

rnment can does these better than the Church, charities, etc. “.
the solution then is for government to set up voluntary contributions to help the poor, to then be distributed as needed.

Sure, and the same thing for the army.

Two entirely different functions. There is a huge difference between the general welfare of the country and charity for individuals.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Charitable spending is useless and will never solve society-wide problems, and in a lot of cases you’re probably just garnishing some CEO’s salary.

 

[niceatheist]

Which sounds like an argument for letting the poor starve. Noblesse oblige doesn’t work. The Romans figured that out 2000 years ago.

 

[PickyPicky]

the general welfare of the country

Then perhaps we might find ourselves disagreeing on what the general welfare of the country entails. Or perhaps we could experiment by going back for a year or two to the times when charity alone eased the burdens of the poor because their welfare was insufficiently general. After all, were there no prisons? Were there no workhouses?

 

[JonNC]

Charitable spending is useless and will never solve society-wide problems, and in a lot of cases you’re probably just garnishing some CEO’s salary.

I disagree. We’ve spent the national debt’s amount of money in the US on domestic welfare programs and the results are inter generational poverty, destruction of the nuclear family, and a huge national debt.

Be that as it may, if people believe that only government can care for the poor, okay. Just don’t call it compassion and don’t criticize those who oppose it while believing another approach is better.

 

[JonNC]

Which sounds like an argument for letting the poor starve. Noblesse oblige doesn’t work. The Romans figured that out 2000 years ago.

You’re of the opinion that neighbor will allow each other to starve and the only way to solve that is through government. Since government bureaucracies are made up of people who are our neighbors, why do you think they are better and more compassionate than the rest of the population?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

the general welfare of the country

Then perhaps we might find ourselves disagreeing on what the general welfare of the country entails. Or perhaps we could experiment by going back for a year or two to the times when charity alone eased the burdens of the poor because their welfare was insufficiently general. After all, were there no prisons? Were there no workhouses?

Prisons and workhouses were run by government. No?
Here’s my point: Americans and the British have chosen to put the poor in the hands of government. I disagree with that philosophy, but those who support it must believe that Trump and Rees-Mogg are better able to do do than they are.

 

[PickyPicky]

Here’s my point: Americans and the British have chosen to put the poor in the hands of government. I disagree with that philosophy, but those who support it must believe that Trump and Rees-Mogg are better able to do do than they are

Certainly Trump and Rees-Mogg are in a better position to relieve the suffering of the poor than I am. Can there be any doubt about that?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Here’s my point: Americans and the British have chosen to put the poor in the hands of government. I disagree with that philosophy, but those who support it must believe that Trump and Rees-Mogg are better able to do do than they are

Certainly Trump and Rees-Mogg are in a better position to relieve the suffering of the poor than I am. Can there be any doubt about that?

Yes. There is overwhelming doubt about that. Here in the US, one only need look at Baltimore, South Chicago, Detroit and North Philly.

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes. There is overwhelming doubt about that. Here in the US, one only need look at Baltimore, South Chicago, Detroit and North Philly

I’m afraid I don’t have the means to help all four. The US Government, of course, does.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Yes. There is overwhelming doubt about that. Here in the US, one only need look at Baltimore, South Chicago, Detroit and North Philly

I’m afraid I don’t have the means to help all four. The US Government, of course, does.

No, it doesn’t. The general government has over $22 trillion in budget debt and over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
It also has no money of its own. It only has money it takes as taxes from the citizens.

 

[PickyPicky]

It only has money it takes as taxes from the citizens

And therein lies the means.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It only has money it takes as taxes from the citizens

And therein lies the means.

Responsibility for local spending such as this falls on the local and state governments.
That said, I continue to be amazed with the notion that taking property from one person to give to someone else is somehow okay.

 

[PickyPicky]

Responsibility for local spending such as this falls on the local and state governments

If that’s relevant, so was responsibility for most prisons and for workhouses until the late C19.

That said, I continue to be amazed with the notion that taking property from one person to give to someone else is somehow okay.

Well, of course, unless the tax-collector has a poor sense of what’s right and proper all receipts from taxation are given to someone else. The question is whether the expenditure is or is not proper. If the people through democratic procedures determine that some should go on defence, some on diplomacy, some on communications, some on celebrating July 4, some on building walls, some on law enforcement, some on relieving the worst cases of poverty, I see no reason for amazement. It seems a natural way for a civilised society to operate.

 

[niceatheist]

And one way or the other it is the way civilization has functioned for a very long time. The Roman government gave out bread, in medieval times the Church was granted vast tracts of land in no small part to assist the impoverished.

Libertarianism is a utopian notion. Relying upon a poor person’s neighbors to keep them alive, particularly where said neighbors may not be much better off, is absurd.

Libertarianism is to my view a fundementally sociopathic ideology, and it’s unfortunate that the church doesn’t more stridently reject it as as wrongheaded interpretation of subsidarianism.

 

[JonNC]

If that’s relevant, so was responsibility for most prisons and for workhouses until the late C19.

Yup. Government. Care for the poor resides with the Church and charities. Only there will you find compassion and charity.

Well, of course, unless the tax-collector has a poor sense of what’s right and proper all receipts from taxation are given to someone else.

Patently false. It is the difference between the general welfare and individual welfare. The general welfare, defined constitutionally, us the role of government: courts, defense, foreign affairs. Individual welfare, transfer payments, for individuals in need, is not a governmental role, at least not at the general government level.
The two are rather distinct.

Libertarianism is a utopian notion. Relying upon a poor person’s neighbors to keep them alive, particularly where said neighbors may not be much better off, is absurd.

I’m not talking about libertarianism, though that is an important part of individual liberty.
And the alternative to libertarianism is not authoritarianism, as the welfare state clearly is.

 

[Kaninchen]

“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich”

Rousseau’s observation does seem to be an alternative to both welfare and charity.

 

[PickyPicky]

Charity is no doubt good for the giver. For the recipient, welfare is much less demeaning. I’m not sure I go all the way with Clement Attlee, but I can see what he was getting at:

Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim

 

[JonNC]

Charity is no doubt good for the giver. For the recipient, welfare is much less demeaning. I’m not sure I go all the way with Clement Attlee, but I can see what he was getting at:

Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) https://www.heritage.org/sites/defa...55/bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-1-825.jpg

The graph shows that, after fifty years of the so-called war on poverty, the percentage of people in poverty had not changed as of that date. What is changing the the percentage of children born out of wedlock, the best method of ensuring inter generational poverty.
As a non Catholic, I would trust the Catholic Church to do a far better job than government.
It seems on a Catholic forum I’m in the minority on that point. Astonishing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

His effect on the poor based on his personal giving, whatever it is, will pale in comparison to the effect of his public policies.