Socialism

[Padster]

Fair enough. I stand by my comments minus the helicopter.

If Socialism was truly alive in the UK then the Remploy workers would still have a job. But Ian Bunkum-Smith thought they sat around drinking coffee all day, so they had to go.

You talk about coercion. Aren’t people coerced by Capitalism?

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[livingwordunity]

Only Almighty God is truly wise. Leaders of Church and State have the same human brain and comprehension as the rest of us. Yes, they are usually very learned and intelligent people, but then so are court judges.

“To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” - Ephesians 3:8-10

After all, wasn’t it a Pope that thought the sale of indulgences was a good idea? Or ordering a medal to be struck to celebrate the slaughter of the Huguenots in France?

See the following:
Myths about Indulgences
Primer on Indulgences
Huguenots

 

[livingwordunity]

You talk about coercion. Aren’t people coerced by Capitalism?

Some of the worst examples of Socialism include Stalin murdering millions of his own people, the murderous dictatorships of North Korea and China, and in the United States socialist Jim Jones and “Jonestown” which was the biggest cult suicide/murder tragedy in U.S. history. Can you identify an example of Capitalism that compares to any of these worst examples of Socialism?

 

[Padster]

I can think of plenty of examples of Capitalist coercion:

The Peterloo Massacre in Manchester, The Bangladesh clothes factories, zero working hours, migrant salaries, public sector pay freezes, the banks, the energy companies, foreign wars, economic problems in Greece, manipulation of the democratic process.

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[JB_Dugan]

All caused by by government intervention in business.

 

[Abu]

Padster #44
I can think of plenty of examples of Capitalist coercion

Here is the failure to acknowledge the incomparable value of the free enterprise system developed by Catholic Late Scholastics by substituting an individual’s (or group’s) evil actions instead.

For padster;
Heed Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:
“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 et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36). Thus are wise laws needed to reduce the effects of Original Sin.

See Centesimus Annus 42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘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”.’

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, the benefits are obvious. Wise laws enable these benefits to be better realised and distributed.

 

[uther]

Fair enough. I stand by my comments minus the helicopter.

If Socialism was truly alive in the UK then the Remploy workers would still have a job. But Ian Bunkum-Smith thought they sat around drinking coffee all day, so they had to go.

You talk about coercion. Aren’t people coerced by Capitalism?

Best wishes,
Padster

I’m not a capitalist.

What you have in the UK is a mix of the remnants of aristocracy, some capitalism, and a heavy dose of socialism. A mixed economy you might say. America has a different mix and its aristocracy is the aristocracy of money, Old money has seniority, so to speak.

But socialism does not prevent lay-offs. The difference is that government gnomes and bureaucrats in comrade dress do it instead of businessmen in suits.

A free enterprise economy can work just fine without coercion, but a socialist economy by its very nature requires coercion to survive.

 

[Reep]

Truly, Truly, What is the Catholic Church’s position on Socialism? Should I give back my Social Security and Medicare?

Yes. Give it back if you can. My own plan is to work as hard as I can to give it back to the people it will be stolen from once I retire. It depends on having enough saved for retirement that I don’t have to live on my social security. Since I have no good way to reimburse all the government’s individual victims directly, I intend to return all that stolen money to my four children.

I like the rough justice of the idea, but unfortunately, my plan only works for the rich or middle class who are able to save for retirement. For the poor, they will need every dime just to survive–and leave nothing when they die.

Which brings us to the real victims of the social welfare state: the children of the working poor who pay their own and their parents’ way with no hope of getting their own money back. Until the system breaks–and it will–they will live on money taken by forcible taxation from their own children’s generation.

 

[Contarini]

Yes. Give it back if you can.

I think you should make it clear, given the OP’s question, that this is not Church teaching. Unless you can point to some Church teaching of which I’m not aware that condemns social security and Medicare. (Condemnations of “socialism” don’t count, obviously, unless you can show that these condemnations define “socialism” to include SS and Medicare.)

There is no justification that I know of in Church teaching for your bizarre view (shared by far too many Americans) that taxation for social welfare purposes is a kind of theft.

 

[Reep]

I think you should make it clear, given the OP’s question, that this is not Church teaching. Unless you can point to some Church teaching of which I’m not aware that condemns social security and Medicare. (Condemnations of “socialism” don’t count, obviously, unless you can show that these condemnations define “socialism” to include SS and Medicare.)

There is no justification that I know of in Church teaching for your bizarre view (shared by far too many Americans) that taxation for social welfare purposes is a kind of theft.

I am sure the Church would approve of giving it back as a voluntary act (which is all I am saying).

I do not know how we can be so glib about social programs that make you and I comfortable today, but will have to be paid for by our children and grand-children tomorrow. It is just a complex system of forcibly extracting money from one generation for the benefit of another. Call it whatever you like. I call it robbery. If you see justice and charity in it, you see better than I do.

I am still wondering about my views being both bizarre and “shared by all too many Americans.” So which is it?

 

[Contarini]

I am sure the Church would approve of giving it back as a voluntary act (which is all I am saying).

I do not know how we can be so glib about social programs that make you and I comfortable today, but will have to be paid for by our children and grand-children tomorrow. It is just a complex system of forcibly extracting money from one generation for the benefit of another. Call it whatever you like. I call it robbery. If you see justice and charity in it, you see better than I do.

I’m simply asking you where in the Church’s Tradition you find support for the idea that taxation is robbery.

I am still wondering about my views being both bizarre and “shared by all too many Americans.” So which is it?

Both. Large sections of a culture can come to hold views which are, in terms of reason and natural law, pretty bizarre. The hyper-individualism of sections of American society is an example of this.

I share in this culture to some extent. I’m a homeschooling parent and was homeschooled myself. I have strong anarchist tendencies in many ways. I’m deeply suspicious of the modern nation-state and of centralized versions of anything. But I challenge your use of the word “theft.” It just doesn’t hold up in terms of Church tradition and natural law.

Edwin

 

[Reep]

I’m simply asking you where in the Church’s Tradition you find support for the idea that taxation is robbery.

As far as supporting the coercive welfare state (as opposed to genuine charity) the Church is all over the map. You can find some teaching that says an involuntary taking from one person to give another in need is OK. But then I can find another teaching to say the opposite:

Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.

~ John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993) 78.​

Both. Large sections of a culture can come to hold views which are, in terms of reason and natural law, pretty bizarre. The hyper-individualism of sections of American society is an example of this.

Edwin

Where are you getting this “individualistism” thing. Not from me. My beef is the use of violence against others. I’m saying “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.”

http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/dont-tread-on-neighbor300.jpg

 

[JB_Dugan]

I’m simply asking you where in the Church’s Tradition you find support for the idea that taxation is robbery.

But I challenge your use of the word “theft.” It just doesn’t hold up in terms of Church tradition and natural law.

Edwin

A logical person does not need a Church’s teaching to classify something as “Theft”.

The Catholic Church as done pretty well supporting itself on VOLUNTARY donations for over 2000 years. A government can’t seem to work that way.

Natural law says that what a person earns belongs to him. That person can do whatever he wants with HIS MONEY. If a government cannot exist on the voluntary contributions of citizens it must order or force the collection of taxes. Just as a thief holds a gun to my head and demands MY money…government essentially does the same.

This form of robbery is justified by people who are conditioned to think that THEIR money belongs to the government. These are the same people who depend on a government to provide them with everything by “spreading the wealth”.

The “hyper-individualism of” our founding fathers and the majority of American society don’t buy into that fallacy.

 

[Contarini]

A logical person does not need a Church’s teaching to classify something as “Theft”.

Something that no one in Western civilization has ever classified as theft until quite recently? Yes, I think that when you are radically redefining the meaning of one of the Commandments it’s reasonable to ask for some kind of theological support.

The Catholic Church as done pretty well supporting itself on VOLUNTARY donations for over 2000 years.

Complete nonsense. In the Middle Ages tithes were not voluntary at all.

A government can’t seem to work that way.

Nor did the Church until recently.

Natural law says that what a person earns belongs to him.

No, it doesn’t. It says (I’m following Aquinas here) that private property is a fitting way to distribute things so that the common good is conveniently served, but that fundamentally all property is held in trust for those who need it. It also says that lawgivers have the right and the duty to administer the distribution of common goods according to the condition of each person.

That person can do whatever he wants with HIS MONEY. If a government cannot exist on the voluntary contributions of citizens it must order or force the collection of taxes. Just as a thief holds a gun to my head and demands MY money…government essentially does the same.

Again, this simply flies in the face of everything Catholic theologians and philosophers have taught for hundreds of years. It’s a completely non-traditional, non-Catholic ideology.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong. I am very open to pacifism (though not fully convinced by it), and pacifism is also at best marginal to the tradition of Catholic moral thought. What you are saying may be compatible with orthodox Catholicism. But it’s a radical shift and the burden of proof is on you to show how it is rooted in the principles of Catholicism.

Simply asserting over and over again that taxation is no different from one person putting a gun to another person’s head doesn’t make it so. You have to explain why the mainstream of Catholic thought is wrong on this point. Why is the concept of a legislator empowered to protect the common good mistaken? Do you accept the concept of the common good in the first place?

Are you saying that all taxation is theft, or only taxation designed to help the poor? This is something I always have trouble with when people start spouting this “theft” rhetoric.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As far as supporting the coercive welfare state (as opposed to genuine charity) the Church is all over the map. You can find some teaching that says an involuntary taking from one person to give another in need is OK. But then I can find another teaching to say the opposite:

Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.

~ John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993) 78.​

Where do you get the idea that he was talking about taxation?

You and the others who think like you simply assert, over and over again, that taxation is theft, as if it were obvious. You don’t prove it. You don’t provide any support from the tradition for it. You just say it. Not very convincing at all.

Where are you getting this “individualistism” thing. Not from me. My beef is the use of violence against others. I’m saying “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.”

Well, like any good Augustinian conservative, I want the government, when necessary, to help me be virtuous.

Equating taxation for the common good with the act of one individual in robbing another is individualism at its most radical.

You are assuming that the community has no real existence, certainly no legal right to provide for the common good. How is that not radical individualism?

Edwin

 

[JB_Dugan]

Something that no one in Western civilization has ever classified as theft until quite recently? Yes, I think that when you are radically redefining the meaning of one of the Commandments it’s reasonable to ask for some kind of theological support.

I am arguing this from a secular position. I don’t need a Church to teach me basically what is right and wrong.

Since you brought it up…as to “radically redefining the meaning of one of the Commandments”…what part of “thou shalt not steal” do you intend to radically redefine?

Complete nonsense. In the Middle Ages tithes were not voluntary at all.

Are you referring to the army of armed deacons that roamed the Christian world shaking coins from the pockets of poor farmers…?

The fact is that during the middle ages **civil law **recognized and enforced the collection of tithes. This lead to abuses by princes and nobles, and was settled by Third Council of Lateran. The payment of tithes is binding in **conscience of the faithful.
**

Nor did the Church until recently.

Well then, what’s the Church doing that a secular government can’t do?

No, it doesn’t. It says (I’m following Aquinas here) that private property is a fitting way to distribute things so that the common good is conveniently served, but that fundamentally all property is held in trust for those who need it. It also says that lawgivers have the right and the duty to administer the distribution of common goods according to the condition of each person.

Gee…that sounds more like Karl Marx than Thomas Aquinas. We all know how his great experiment turned out.

Again, this simply flies in the face of everything Catholic theologians and philosophers have taught for hundreds of years. It’s a completely non-traditional, non-Catholic ideology.

How can you say that with a straight face?

There are several very clear references from theologians, philosophers and popes posted right on this thread that dispute your ideology

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong. I am very open to pacifism (though not fully convinced by it), and pacifism is also at best marginal to the tradition of Catholic moral thought. What you are saying may be compatible with orthodox Catholicism. But it’s a radical shift and the burden of proof is on you to show how it is rooted in the principles of Catholicism.

How did pacifism get into this?

Simply asserting over and over again that taxation is no different from one person putting a gun to another person’s head doesn’t make it so. You have to explain why the mainstream of Catholic thought is wrong on this point. Why is the concept of a legislator empowered to protect the common good mistaken? Do you accept the concept of the common good in the first place?

Of course I accept the concept of the common good…as long as it meets my standards.

Are you saying that all taxation is theft, or only taxation designed to help the poor? This is something I always have trouble with when people start spouting this “theft” rhetoric.

Edwin

Yes, Edwin, ALL taxation is theft. Individual benevolent charity helps the poor.

Remember we are talking about government taxation here. Taxation that is collected by some form of force is logically…theft.

Actually a voluntary from of government taxation would work IF we concede that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income. And that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and limited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion.

Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler.

 

[Contarini]

I am arguing this from a secular position. I don’t need a Church to teach me basically what is right and wrong.

You need the Church to help you form your conscience.

Since you brought it up…as to “radically redefining the meaning of one of the Commandments”…what part of “thou shalt not steal” do you intend to radically redefine?

None. I define it in the same way it has been defined for as long as it’s been defined at all, as far as I can see: as the action of one private person in taking unlawfully the goods of another. It has never before been applied to the actions of lawgivers who have charge of the common good.

A case can be made that the modern state is uniquely disqualified as the guardian of the common good. This argument has best been made by William Cavanaugh, in my opinion. But that seems different from your position.

You have yet to argue for your definition of theft, which is a patently novel one.

The fact is that during the middle ages **civil law **recognized and enforced the collection of tithes. This lead to abuses by princes and nobles, and was settled by Third Council of Lateran.

No, it continued at least until the Reformation, and I believe until the French Revolution and its counterparts/imitators in other countries.

Well then, what’s the Church doing that a secular government can’t do?

The question here is not whether a voluntary government is possible, but whether the use of coercion to exact taxation is theft. It has never been defined so, that I know of.

Gee…that sounds more like Karl Marx than Thomas Aquinas.

It is a paraphrase of Aquinas. I can’t help the fact that Aquinas is more like Marx than you would like him to be. I don’t think that they are the same at all, by the way. Aquinas is not, for instance, an egalitarian (his view of distributive justice would give considerably more to kings and nobles than to peasants), and he believes that private property is an excellent and just arrangement. But it is an arrangement whose purpose is the common good. It is not an end in itself and not an absolute right. This is simply common knowledge. I am not responsible for your ignorance of Catholic tradition. You can find Aquinas’ concept of distributive justice here, and his view of property and theft here. Note for instance this from Question 66, Article 8 (the second link):

Robbery implies a certain violence and coercion employed in taking unjustly from a man that which is his. Now in human society no man can exercise coercion except through public authority: and, consequently, if a private individual not having public authority takes another’s property by violence, he acts unlawfully and commits a robbery, as burglars do. As regards princes, the public power is entrusted to them that they may be the guardians of justice: hence it is unlawful for them to use violence or coercion, save within the bounds of justice–either by fighting against the enemy, or against the citizens, by punishing evil-doers: and whatever is taken by violence of this kind is not the spoils of robbery, since it is not contrary to justice. On the other hand to take other people’s property violently and against justice, in the exercise of public authority, is to act unlawfully and to be guilty of robbery; and whoever does so is bound to restitution.

. . . .

Reply to Objection 3. It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing: but if they extort something unduly by means of violence, it is robbery even as burglary is. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei iv, 4): “If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?” And it is written (Ezekiel 22:27): “Her princes in the midst of her, are like wolves ravening the prey.” Wherefore they are bound to restitution, just as robbers are, and by so much do they sin more grievously than robbers, as their actions are fraught with greater and more universal danger to public justice whose wardens they are.

There are several very clear references from theologians, philosophers and popes posted right on this thread that dispute your ideology

I have read the thread and have seen no such thing. Please point me to these references and explain how they contradict anything I have said.

How did pacifism get into this?

Just as an example. Ignore it if it confused you.

Of course I accept the concept of the common good…as long as it meets my standards.

So you are the judge of all things?

Yes, Edwin, ALL taxation is theft.

Do you admit that you are going against the entire tradition of Catholic moral thought in saying this?

I have shown you where Aquinas explicitly says “It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing.” What theologian in the entire history of the Church can you point to who has said otherwise? (I’m quite aware that Aquinas is not infallible. But he’s immensely important and a great Doctor of the Church. And so far you have nothing–absolutely nothing–to cite on your side.)

Remember we are talking about government taxation here. Taxation that is collected by some form of force is logically…theft.

Putting the word “logically” in a naked assertion does not take the place of actual logic.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

JB Dugan #56
I don’t need a Church to teach me basically what is right and wrong.

Since Christ gave us His Church to do just that as the means of salvation for all, the denigration of Christ is blatant.

I accept the concept of the common good…as long as it meets my standards

That dichotomy between Christ’s Church and the self is blatant.

ALL taxation is theft

Such a feeling devalues reality. Real Catholics value the great wisdom of the Catholic Late Scholastics:
“For the Scholastics, the purpose of taxation was to raise the necessary the necessary revenue for just government. They declared that taxes should be moderate and proportional, making no reference whatsoever to taxation a as tool for equalizing wealth.” Christians For Freedom, Alejandro A Chafuen, Ignatius, 1986, p 161].

A real understanding of economics and economic thought sees the tremendous harm which has occurred from harmful taxation policies allied with government finagling and state welfarism which have decimated so many economies.

 

[Reep]

Randy England quoted JP2:
Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.

~ John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993) 78​

Where do you get the idea that he was talking about taxation?

You and the others who think like you simply assert, over and over again, that taxation is theft, as if it were obvious. You don’t prove it. You don’t provide any support from the tradition for it. You just say it. Not very convincing at all

Your position is no more self-proving than mine. And when you**“simply assert, over and over again”** it does not become any more convincing. I would love to hear a convincing reasons why using force to tax me (to support you) is different than robbing me (to support you).

---

Randy England wrote:
*Where are you getting this “individualism” thing. Not from me. My beef is the use of violence against others. I’m saying “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.”
*

Well, like any good Augustinian conservative, I want the government, when necessary, to help me be virtuous.

Edwin

If St Augustine was so interested in the government “helping” us be virtuous, one wonders why he believed prostitution must be kept legal.

 

[Contarini]

Randy England quoted JP2:
Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.

~ John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993) 78​

Your position is no more self-proving than mine.

Sure it is. I have the consistent usage of all Western civilization on my side. I cited the words of Aquinas above in an earlier post. He’s very explicit that taxation is not robbery if it exacts what the ruler needs to provide for the common good.

Now how about just one Catholic theologian who has suggested that taxation is robbery.

I would love to hear a convincing reasons why using force to tax me (to support you) is different than robbing me (to support you).

It’s different if the ruler is taxing you to support me due to a reasonable prudential judgment that this is necessary for the common good. Taxing one section of the population to support another has been done for centuries. It may be just or it may be unjust, depending on the circumstances. But it’s certainly different from one private individual forcing another to do something at gunpoint.

You and other libertarians simply assert that there is no difference. You have the words of Aquinas in my earlier post, and he’s representative of the Christian tradition (indeed the Western tradition more generally) as a whole. You have provided no counterexamples, except a passage from JPII which says nothing about taxation. You seem to think that if JPII says nothing about taxation, then your interpretation that he is talking about taxation is on equal footing with mine which says that he isn’t. That’s ridiculous.

Are you really ignorant of the fact that taxation has not traditionally been defined as theft?

If St Augustine was so interested in the government “helping” us be virtuous, one wonders why he believed prostitution must be kept legal.

No need to wonder. He and the many others who thought this believed that if men did not have access to prostitutes, they would assault virtuous women. It was very much about helping people be virtuous–preventing the men from committing greater crimes than sex with willing, unmarried women, and preventing women other than prostitutes from the danger of seduction or rape.

I think they were wrong, because they treated some women as sacrificial victims to be offered up for the rest. But the basic logic was sound. You can’t have a perfectly virtuous society, but you can create structures which channel and control human desire and “make it easier to be good,” in the words of Peter Maurin.

Nothing I’m saying should be taken as claiming necessarily that taxation and government programs are the best ways to help the poor. Maurin and Day thought they weren’t, and I tend to trust their judgment. But these policies are not theft. To claim that they are is ridiculous and flies in the face of the entire religious and cultural tradition we have inherited.

Edwin