D
David_Castlen
Guest
**So Mr Captain America sir,
How much improvement (if any) in the lives of the poor happened when a free society was eventually implemented (1805 to 1910)?**
- Status
How much improvement (if any) in the lives of the poor happened when a free society was eventually implemented (1805 to 1910)?**
C
Captain_America
Guest
WAS there a “free society”? Exactly define this concept for me, sir. I think historians might pick at you for this kind of assertion. I’m skeptical as well; a utopian past, perhaps?
What we’re finding is that (a) socialism doesn’t seem to work, and (b) libertarian unregulated capitalism rests on flawed premises: see, eg., marketwatch.com/story/corzine-i-do-not-know-where-the-money-is-2011-12-08?siteid=YAHOOB
Any true libertarian would be sick at the current spectacle on Wall Street. Crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism.
It’s clear that at an early phase the Adam Smith/Econ 101 stuff makes sense. But as the economic system grows, surely wealth pulls power to itself and corrupts the system. The period you speak of was a period of great income inequality. . . however the rapid first world industrialization raised the standards of living for the poor as well as the wealthy (a rising tide lifts all boats). At the same time, clearly the public soured on business machinations and schemes (watered stock, inexistent capital/bad accounting, wildcat banks, etc.) and this resulted in strong support for the populists and progressives. . . the Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, even the Pure Food and Drug Act. . . it goes on.
C
Captain_America
Guest
Interesting for the “libertarian crowd” is that the first government regulation of business began when the private corporations, the railroads, overbuilt for the market and asked the government to regulate the market so that they could make profits. The ICC was born this way.
I think even the wealthy acknowledge that they have a larger social responsibility (and should pay more tax) than everyone else. Keeps the system going. Good for profits.
If you think the rich are taxed highly now, consider their situation in 1975. What’s amazing, and morally outrageous, is the spectacle of today’s rich PROTESTING tax, as if it’s immoral. Come now, that’s juvenile!
I think even the wealthy acknowledge that they have a larger social responsibility (and should pay more tax) than everyone else. Keeps the system going. Good for profits.
If you think the rich are taxed highly now, consider their situation in 1975. What’s amazing, and morally outrageous, is the spectacle of today’s rich PROTESTING tax, as if it’s immoral. Come now, that’s juvenile!
W
wordtourfather
Guest
It is important we also take into contest the socioeconomic and political factors statements like this may be based on. For example, if a government was starving its people the church would acknowledge the right of the people to take from the government to sustain themselves. This doesn’t mean you can steal from your rich friend.
Obviously, stealing is a sin. You have no right to take from another - in fact, we have the right to very little.
Obviously, stealing is a sin. You have no right to take from another - in fact, we have the right to very little.
T
tmtimages
Guest
I think I’ll let St. Paul answer this.
2 Thesselonians 3:10 “they who do not work, neither should they eat”
2 Thesselonians 3:10 “they who do not work, neither should they eat”
A
Abu
Guest
Not only has socialism not worked but it is condemned by the popes as is the Welfare State.
The Church teaches that economic life must be built on subsidiarity and solidarity where those in need are helped to acquire skills to help themselves, and given material aid when necessary by the community organizations formed for that purpose with government support.
There is no such thing as “unregulated capitalism”. “Capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why Bl John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’
Free enterprise is affirmed also here: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).
M
Mudgely
Guest
Some would ask, “what gives the rich the right to amass their wealth on the backs of the poor?”
Certainly a rich man does not need another dollar as much as a poor man does. Why should that dollar then go to the rich man?
A
Awful_Things
Guest
Explain what this means. It sounds really convincing because it is poetic, but what does it mean in real life.
M
markomalley
Guest
That is not the right question. Dwelling on that question is a violation of the 10th Commandment of the Decalogue.
[BIBLEDRB]Deut 5:21[/BIBLEDRB]
Now, there are a couple of ways to look at it that would actually be moral:
The first way is to examine if there was injustice done in amassing that wealth. That injustice should be corrected. And it would be the function of the State to act to correct that injustice…acting as a guardian of the poor who might not have a voice for themselves. But this should be done where injustice is actually done, not done against a whole class of people.
Let me give you a couple of examples:
- A rancher finds oil on his land. He pays the oil workers well to drill the wells and run the pipelines. He exercises all due care to ensure that oil doesn’t spill and damage the environment. He tithes from his profits made from the oil extracted and so on. And he ends up making $10 million from the oil field on his land. Is it an act of justice for the State to come and take a significant portion of the wealth that he accrued…by all reasonable measures completely morally?
- An electronics manufacturer outsources his circuit board plant to China. The local plant manager colludes with the Chinese State officials to use prisoners to assemble the circuit boards using unpaid labor in unhealthy conditions. Several are crippled as a result of using unsafe equipment. The electronics manufacturer increases his profits because his costs are lowered. For the sake of comparison, let us say his profits increased by $10 million. Is it an act of justice for the State to come and take a signicicant portion of the wealth that he accrued…by our standards, immorally?
Why, in the second case? Because the second employer, for all his scumminess, did not do damage to the State. He did damage to his employees. I think it would be a proper function of the State to bring suit against the employer on behalf of the employees and, if able to prove the case, to mandate that the unjust employer correct the injustice done to his employees. (Read Rerum Novarum) But that is completely different than confiscatory taxation.
There is one case where I could see the State being involved in confiscation and it not being a violation of injustice: and that is if the State was involved with creating that injustice in the first place. For example, let us say that a Brazilian government took a bribe from somebody and granted a million acres of Amazon rain forest to somebody so that the trees could be harvested and so on. This action displaced thousands of indigenous villagers. I could see the Brazilian government, when they found out about this misconduct, jailing the corrupt official and confiscating the land in order to return it to the people who had been living there for eons…along with the profits gained as a result of that corrupt bargain. Something along those lines I could definitely see. (Read Populorum Progressio). But that’s about the extent of it.
The other way to look at the issue is what is the rich person doing with his wealth. Is he embracing liberality with it There is nothing wrong with some people being distributed more than others (distributive justice). See Summa II-II 61.2, which states, in part:
Consequently in distributive justice a person receives all the more of the common goods, according as he holds a more prominent position in the community. This prominence in an aristocratic community is gauged according to virtue, in an oligarchy according to wealth, in a democracy according to liberty, and in various ways according to various forms of community. Hence in distributive justice the mean is observed, not according to equality between thing and thing, but according to proportion between things and persons: in such a way that even as one person surpasses another, so that which is given to one person surpasses that which is allotted to another. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 3,4) that the mean in the latter case follows “geometrical proportion,” wherein equality depends not on quantity but on proportion.
That is where societal norms need to be shaped so as to fully endorse liberality rather than greed. Our teachers (the bishops and their assistants, the priests), along with other societal leaders, need to work to inculcate liberality as a virtue fully embraced and expected in our society. As Aquinas states (Summa II-II 117.6):
Every virtue tends towards a good; wherefore the greater virtue is that which tends towards the greater good. Now liberality tends towards a good in two ways: in one way, primarily and of its own nature; in another way, consequently. Primarily and of its very nature it tends to set in order one’s own affection towards the possession and use of money. On this way temperance, which moderates desires and pleasures relating to one’s own body, takes precedence of liberality: and so do fortitude and justice, which, in a manner, are directed to the common good, one in time of peace, the other in time of war … Again, liberality is ordained to a good consequently, and in this way it is directed to all the aforesaid goods. For by reason of his not being a lover of money, it follows that a man readily makes use of it, whether for himself. Or for the good of others, or for God’s glory. Thus it derives a certain excellence from being useful in many ways.
It’s very difficult to embrace liberality when somebody is forcing your hand.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
“Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again.
Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first—and then they will joyfully share their wealth.”** – St. John Chrysostom**
But, we also have St. John Chrysostom saying this:
“He gives some people more than they need, not that they can enjoy great luxury, but to make them stewards of his bounty on behalf of orphans, the sick, and the crippled. If they are bad stewards, keeping this bounty to themselves, they will become poor in spirit, and their hearts will fill with misery. If they are good stewards, they will become rich in spirit, their hearts filling with joy.”
I think that this is the position we should all take. Certainly, those who are blessed with abundance should help those who are stricken with poverty (St. John Chrysostom even goes so far to say that not helping those in need is equivalent to stealing from them), but we should never turn to means like ‘social justice’ or ‘wealth redistribution’ in order to force the rich to care for the poor; this helps neither the rich or the poor, as it would turn neither of them to Christ.
Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first—and then they will joyfully share their wealth.”** – St. John Chrysostom**
But, we also have St. John Chrysostom saying this:
“He gives some people more than they need, not that they can enjoy great luxury, but to make them stewards of his bounty on behalf of orphans, the sick, and the crippled. If they are bad stewards, keeping this bounty to themselves, they will become poor in spirit, and their hearts will fill with misery. If they are good stewards, they will become rich in spirit, their hearts filling with joy.”
I think that this is the position we should all take. Certainly, those who are blessed with abundance should help those who are stricken with poverty (St. John Chrysostom even goes so far to say that not helping those in need is equivalent to stealing from them), but we should never turn to means like ‘social justice’ or ‘wealth redistribution’ in order to force the rich to care for the poor; this helps neither the rich or the poor, as it would turn neither of them to Christ.
A
aicirt
Guest
Define poor. How does a man become rich from the poor? They have nothing to give him. Only way that would happen is if the “poor” are slaves.
How about a man who comes up with an idea, perfects the idea, works to get the financial backing for what is now a product, puts his life’s savings up to bring his idea to life, and is able to hire some folks to work in his shop. He benefits and the people, once without income and therefore “poor”, also benefit. The product is successful so he is now able to hire more people so more people are no longer without income. He also pays back the people who migth have helped him.
M
markomalley
Guest
Glad to see I’m not the only one who owns On Living Simply.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
People talking about WIC and foodstamps have obviously never been on either.
First, the programs fulfill different needs. You can only get on WIC, for your children under 5 or are a pregnant woman (and for a short time after the baby is born, if you are nursing).
Just because WIC tells you what you can buy, does not mean that you can buy healthier foods.
Did you know that, you cannot buy natural peanut butter, or organic eggs, regardless, if they fit within the dollar amount allowed on the check?(Peter pan peanut butter is on the list which has partially hydrogenated oil in it). Did you know, that you have to buy everything on the check whether or not you need it or want it? Did you know that in NY it gives pregnant women 6 cans of tuna a month, when the medical advice is no more than one can a week?
Sounds real healthy.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
I am trying to find “On living Simply” where can I get it!!!Glad to see I’m not the only one who owns On Living Simply.
I will keep trying… very impressed wtih quotes
S
Shasta4737
Guest
Most of these posts sound so selfish and mean. This isn’t the way Jesus was at all. I have to admit that I don’t have much, but what I do have I tend to want to hold too tightly. The material things of this world will just decay and fall apart. I pray to be more generous in the future.
There but for the grace of God go I
Susan
There but for the grace of God go I
Susan
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I knew all that quite well with the exception of the six cans of tuna.
What can I say? Government programs are going to be like that. That’s one of the reasons we can’t rely entirely on State and Federal programs to take care of the poor.
M
markomalley
Guest
You can buy it at Amazon. Chances are that your local Catholic bookstore will not have it (unless they have a good section on the Eastern Fathers). BUT YOU SHOULD ASK – after all, it would be nice to get some exposure to the Eastern Fathers like St John and St Basil.
I am fortunate where I live because of the Newman Bookstore at the Paulist Center in DC (a Barnes and Noble sized Catholic bookstore with over 25,000 titles in stock – a virtual toy store for theology geeks). But I know most people don’t have anything even remotely like that in their locale.
T
tominrichmond
Guest
Ummm, don’t see that in Church teaching anywhere.
While those with a surplus have certain obligations under the law of Charity to use their surplus well, I find no authority in the Magisterium for the proposition that the ***government ***is the appropriate or only instrument for determining how a person’s surplus is used.
In fact, many Popes have expressly condemned Socialism.
A
aicirt
Guest
I agree. The other point is when the government gets its hands on the money, how well does it handle it? There is a lot of waste in government. Who watches the government and how successful have they ever been?
The Post Office runs at a billion dollar defecit manily due to its pensions obligation. We already know that the Post Office is outdated thanks to email, Federal Express etc. What it moves is mostly third class mail. Only area needing it is rural America. Why not continue to pay the pensions but sell off its holdings to Fed Ex etc.? Keep working in the rural areas. Bottom line is you cannot continue to support businesses that are not productive. Pony Express went as soon as the railroads took over. So be it with the Post Office. Will the powers that be do it? No. They want the votes so we continue to dump more money on a system that is obsolete. And the money being wasted could and should be applied to health care for vets, rebuilding of our inferstracture etc. What billionaire is more wasteful than our own government?
D
David_Castlen
Guest
They have clearly condemned it!!!..in encyclicals… in CA it notes that socialism is wrong for a number of reason but it explicitly says because it is stealing and it creates envy
- Status