Socialism

[JB_Dugan]

You need the Church to help you form your conscience.

Yes…regarding the teachings of the Church.

Man’s intellect allows him to determine right from wrong without religious teachings.

You’re a fan of Thomas Aquinas, what does he say about conscience vs. intellect?

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.

Ha! As if “lawgivers” cannot be corrupt thieves using the “common good” for their own gain.

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

I am not familiar with William Cavanaugh, but he sounds like he is on the right track.

When the state robs Peter to pay Paul, Paul is happy but Peter suffers. That in itself disqualifies a state as a guardian of the common good.

.

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

Since you consider it “patently novel”…I must have argued it somewhere…

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

Oh…you mean those armed deacon tithe collectors were shaking people down up until the French Revolution??? Shocking! By the way, what means of coercion did the Church use in those days?

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.

Well it has been so defined now.

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):

Thank you for the references. I have read some of Aquinas. Catholic Tradition was pretty well established before he was born.

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.

#7, 10, 11, 16, 23, 30, (I like #30, Seems I am forming a forum consensus) 37, 38, and 46.
Mostly all gainst socialism which is the unjust redistribution of wealth. (Theft)

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

It was not confusing…just silly.

So you are the judge of all things?

When it comes to sharing my wealth for the common good I am as good a judge as anyone and much better than any government bureaucrat.

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.)

Edwin

Oh boy, Aquinas again…

I hate to burst your bubble, Edwin, but Thomas Aquinas had many critics both outside the Church and within the Church. Sure, he is considered one of the great Doctors of the Church and a great philosopher but he is not the Magisterium.

Actually, taxation as such is rarely mentioned in magisterial documents.

Pope Leo XIII mentioned taxes once: “‘a man’s means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation… depriv[ing] the private owner of more than is fair’”

John XXIII said: “In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing”

Fair and just are the operatives.

Taxation is a means, and distributive justice is the end. The Church does not seem to prescribe a particular method by which that end is achieved, leaving that discussion open to policy experts. (You & me)

If taxation were fair and just, people would voluntarily pay taxes. There would not be any need for coercion which is theft at the point of a gun. (My opinion)

 

[Reep]

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

I think we both agree that voluntary charity is to be preferred over to the welfare state. We may disagree on the inherent morality of the welfare state, but if you prefer Peter Maurin & Dorothy Day (and their methods), then we are not far apart in practical matters. If your neighbor is in need, don’t send him to the state; help him yourself, now.

Randy

 

[Contarini]

Yes…regarding the teachings of the Church.

Yes, and the Church has teachings on the common good and the proper ways for society to be ordered. You have so far entirely failed to support your position from anything in the Catholic tradition. Nor have you actually made a logical argument.

Ha! As if “lawgivers” cannot be corrupt thieves using the “common good” for their own gain.

Of course they can. And this affects our argument how?

When the state robs Peter to pay Paul, Paul is happy but Peter suffers. That in itself disqualifies a state as a guardian of the common good.

Remember that the point under dispute is whether taxation is robbery? That means that you can’t use the word “rob” in your argument until you have established that point.

Well it has been so defined now.

So you get to redefine language as you wish? Isn’t that, at the very least, arrogant and confusing to others?

Thank you for the references. I have read some of Aquinas. Catholic Tradition was pretty well established before he was born.

And where in that tradition do you find the teaching that taxation is theft?

#7, 10, 11, 16, 23, 30, (I like #30, Seems I am forming a forum consensus) 37, 38, and 46.
Mostly all gainst socialism which is the unjust redistribution of wealth. (Theft)

Exactly. There are lots of posts in which people have spouted their dislike of socialism and their love of capitalism, and there are several posts which provide specific support for the claim that the Church upholds the principle of a free economy. None of this is in controversy between us. What we are arguing about is whether taxation is theft.

Where is the support for that?

Also, a post by another poster saying that she thinks the Fathers agree with you doesn’t count. You need actually to cite the Fathers. Or papal documents. Or something. You can’t be bothered to do this, apparently. You prefer to rely on other posters to do the work for you, which doesn’t work because they a) are most of the time just sounding off themselves, and b) when they do cite Church teaching, aren’t citing anything that supports the specific points at issue between us.

I also note that you have included posts by Abu in your list. But Abu has said clearly that he/she disagrees with you on the taxation/theft question.

It was not confusing…just silly.

Hardly. Pacifism is a minority tradition within Christianity. Some naive pacifists do what you are doing–they redefine “murder” to mean “all killing of another human being” and then go around talking as if this were obvious. You are doing exactly that with “theft.” However, responsible pacifists don’t do this–they acknowledge that theirs is a minority position and they do the hard work of showing what principles in the tradition support them. You simply aren’t willing to do this. So your position is nothing but a lot of hot air.

Oh boy, Aquinas again…

I hate to burst your bubble, Edwin, but Thomas Aquinas had many critics both outside the Church and within the Church. Sure, he is considered one of the great Doctors of the Church and a great philosopher but he is not the Magisterium.

No bubble to burst. I don’t cite Aquinas because you must agree with him. I cite him to start the conversation, because he is a central figure in the tradition and you need to deal with him. For instance, I know that Leo XIII does speak of property as a natural right, which Aquinas didn’t. So if you can show me that Pope Leo, based on his stronger view of the right to property, condemned all taxation as theft, then you have a case. But of course you can’t do this, because Pope Leo did nothing of the kind:shrug:

Actually, taxation as such is rarely mentioned in magisterial documents.

Pope Leo XIII mentioned taxes once: “‘a man’s means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation… depriv[ing] the private owner of more than is fair’”

John XXIII said: “In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing”

But don’t these quotations prove that these Popes do not think of taxation as in itself unjust?

You aren’t making sense at all. When you abandon the position that taxation is intrinsically robbery, then we can have a conversation about whether specific forms and levels of taxation are just.

Fair and just are the operatives.

Taxation is a means, and distributive justice is the end.

Precisely.

If taxation were fair and just, people would voluntarily pay taxes. There would not be any need for coercion which is theft at the point of a gun. (My opinion)

Your opinion which is completely unsupported by anything at all. Leo and John do not make this qualification. I’m not sure how “voluntary taxation” would actually be taxation. But that’s quarreling about words. What matters here is that these Popes very clearly were not thinking of your “voluntary taxation.” There’s no reason to suppose that they were using the word other than the way most people use it–to refer to government-imposed contributions for the common good. By saying that taxation must be fair and just, they are implying that it can be. Which contradicts your position.

Edwin

 

[JButky]

Remember that the point under dispute is whether taxation is robbery? That means that you can’t use the word “rob” in your argument until you have established that point.

I would interject into this comment that excessive taxation at some point becomes robbery. The specifics need only clarify the terms of when and how for that point . Unfortunately, that point is a moving target even when properly defined. I do believe it can be defined however giving credence to the proposition of “taxation is robbery”. But taxation is not always robbery and a definitive line marks that boundary or cross over point into robbery.

Joe B

 

[JB_Dugan]

Yes, and the Church has teachings on the common good and the proper ways for society to be ordered. You have so far entirely failed to support your position from anything in the Catholic tradition. Nor have you actually made a logical argument.

You know, Edwin, when this first started I thought I made it clear that I was arguing from a secular position. I didn’t think I really had to support my position from Catholic (T)tradition.

Of course they can. And this affects our argument how?

Simple. Since “lawgivers” can be corrupt and use the “common good” for their own gain they are nothing more than thieves and would be robbing people via taxation.

Remember that the point under dispute is whether taxation is robbery? That means that you can’t use the word “rob” in your argument until you have established that point

Actually the “point” of this thread is Socialism. We are off on a tangent.

Help me out here Edwin. I see that you are a Forum Elder, while I am just a trial member…
Is there a forum rule that forbids me to use the word “rob” in my argument or are you just making stuff up?

So you get to redefine language as you wish? Isn’t that, at the very least, arrogant and confusing to others?

Oh it may be a tiny bit arrogant but language is defined and redefined everyday. My definition of taxation, being a form of theft, is becoming popularly accepted in most of the secular world today. Who knows, maybe the Church will accept it someday.

And where in that tradition do you find the teaching that taxation is theft?

Back to “tradition” again. Ok I’ll play along.

You like Aquinas, I like St. Augustine. Speaking of taxes he says: “If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?”

I said before that taxation, as such, is rarely mentioned in magisterial documents. What we have is pretty much summed up by “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s but give to God what is God’s” I have no problem with that concept. Although Caesar employed tax collecting thugs to steal people’s money in the form of taxes…I can find no instances of the Church holding a holy sword over the heads of the faithful to extort tithes.

Also, a post by another poster saying that she thinks the Fathers agree with you doesn’t count. You need actually to cite the Fathers. Or papal documents. Or something. You can’t be bothered to do this, apparently. You prefer to rely on other posters to do the work for you, which doesn’t work because they a) are most of the time just sounding off themselves, and b) when they do cite Church teaching, aren’t citing anything that supports the specific points at issue between us.

Now who is being arrogant?

That’s a fine way for a Forum Elder to refer to forum members…

Indeed…"They a) are most of the time just sounding off themselves, and b) when they do cite Church teaching, aren’t citing anything that supports the specific points at issue between us.

I think it does work very well since I have relied on several of your own posts (cut-and-paste actually) to bolster my position. OOOps…if there is a forum rule about that please let me know, I will refrain.

I also note that you have included posts by Abu in your list. But Abu has said clearly that he/she disagrees with you on the taxation/theft question

Abu is free to disagree with me anytime…even if he/she is wrong.

So your position is nothing but a lot of hot air.

You aren’t making sense at all.

Your opinion which is completely unsupported by anything at all.

Edwin

My opinion is supported by experience.

Every time I calculate my tax burden…trying to save every penny of my own money…I FEAR a government arresting me by force, judging me and imprisoning me. If an individual instilled the same level of fear to obtain my money it would be THEFT.

Therefore, I apply that term to government coerced taxation.

There are many secular philosophers who support my views including voluntary taxation. Ayn Rand being one.

Noted economists who agree with me include Murray Newton Rothbard, Walter E. Williams, Frank Chodorov and others who have written on the subject of taxation being theft.

I don’t like to quote politicians, but when they are right…they are right.

“How much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government?”—Rep. John Boehner

 

[Reep]

I would interject into this comment that excessive taxation at some point becomes robbery. The specifics need only clarify the terms of when and how for that point . Unfortunately, that point is a moving target even when properly defined. I do believe it can be defined however giving credence to the proposition of “taxation is robbery”. But taxation is not always robbery and a definitive line marks that boundary or cross over point into robbery.

Joe B

While I prefer voluntary arrangements, for all you small government folks, you might consider whether taxation becomes robbery*** **at that point when taxpayer funds starts being used to benefit **particular **persons rather than the general welfare or common good.

*****robbery is defined as the taking of money or property by force or the threat of force. Robbery is a more appropriate term than stealing because stealing (or theft) may be done surreptitiously and without threat of violence. An example of stealing or theft would be the federal reserve “printing” $85 billion every month to expand the money supply and thereby making the dollar in every man’s pocket worth less.

 

[Contarini]

You know, Edwin, when this first started I thought I made it clear that I was arguing from a secular position. I didn’t think I really had to support my position from Catholic (T)tradition.

So you have a bifurcated view of the world in which some things aren’t affected by your faith? We are talking about the meaning of one of the Ten Commandments–about basic issues of justice and natural law. The Catholic tradition has a lot to say about that.

And since you refer to yourself as a conservative elsewhere, I’d think that you would care about your cultural tradition as well. Your authorities seem to be purely modern–later on you mention Ayn Rand, for instance, but no one before the 20th century.

I’m not appealing to the Tradition in order to say that you must be wrong. I’m pointing out that your views are contrary to both the tradition of Catholic political/social thought and
the Western secular political tradition (which for a thousand years, from Augustine to the Reformation, were, effectively, the same thing, and even today are pretty strongly intertwined in various ways). I have repeatedly said that I’m inviting you to show why such a radical revision of the tradition is a good thing.

We agree that civil laws are invalid if they contradict natural law.
We agree that, in St. Augustine’s words, a state without justice is nothing more than a gang of robbers. In fact, that’s one of my favorite Augustine quotes.

But you have made the claim that taxation is robbery–that legislators do not have the power to compel people to contribute financially for the common good. This is not a claim that you can substantiate or have substantiated.

The tradition has always held that governments do have the right to use coercion for the common good. One can challenge this, but one can’t simply assume that the tradition is wrong without actually presenting an argument.

Simple. Since “lawgivers” can be corrupt and use the “common good” for their own gain they are nothing more than thieves and would be robbing people via taxation.

Are you saying that the potential to be corrupt makes them thieves? That seems overly perfectionistic, to me. All human beings are potentially corrupt.

One has to examine whether, in a particular instance, legislators are using the power to tax unjustly.

But if you are right and all coercive taxation is robbery as a matter of principle, then obviously that kind of discussion becomes moot. But you need to establish the principle, which so far you have utterly failed to do. You seem aggrieved that I even ask you to do it.

Actually the “point” of this thread is Socialism. We are off on a tangent.

It’s not a tangent at all.

You and many other people here see redistributive taxation as socialism and claim (falsely, as far as I can see) that it is therefore condemned by the Church.

You are not the only person who in the course of such a conversation has referred to the principle that taxation is robbery as if it were some kind of self-evident moral principle. This is clearly connected to the socialism issue for you, so I don’t see why you are now claiming that it’s a “tangent.”

Furthermore, the bigger issue is that you are happy to appeal to the Catholic tradition’s opposition to socialism, but then you condemn various things as “socialism” based on a set of moral and political principles that are themselves completely outside the Catholic tradition.

To put it in a nutshell: since your own views, by your own admission, are not dependent on the Catholic tradition of social/political reflection, you are no judge of what is and is not “socialism” by Catholic standards.

Help me out here Edwin. I see that you are a Forum Elder, while I am just a trial member.

“Forum Elder” is a silly label the forum automatically slaps on you if you waste enough time here. It should read “Pathetic loser” instead

Is there a forum rule that forbids me to use the word “rob” in my argument or are you just making stuff up?

Not a forum rule, but a basic rule of logic. I am challenging your claim that taxation is robbery. If you want to defend that claim, you can’t do so assuming that taxation is robbery. That’s just arguing in a circle. It’s called “petitio principii” or “begging the question”–it’s one of the most basic logical fallacies.

If you break it, the only consequence is that people with whom you disagree will get frustrated, and may eventually stop trying to talk to you.

Oh it may be a tiny bit arrogant but language is defined and redefined everyday. My definition of taxation, being a form of theft, is becoming popularly accepted in most of the secular world today

I think you’re wrong, actually. Certainly not in the corners of the secular world I know (which admittedly are academic circles and thus generally left-wing.) But it doesn’t really matter. You surely aren’t arguing that just because lots of people in a secular culture come to think something, therefore it is right?

Can’t you give me a better argument than that? I really want to hear it. I am sure that there must be a reason why you believe this, and if you could articulate it instead of just assuming it we would all benefit. You are certainly right that it’s become a popular argument in certain circles (in my experience these are fairly narrow circles).

Who knows, maybe the Church will accept it someday.

If so, it will be because someone has actually made an argument for it that harmonizes with the previous tradition.

 

[Contarini]

Back to “tradition” again.

And you call yourself a conservative? Conservatives, by any definition, do not despise tradition surely! (I think I’m a conservative too, precisely because I care very much about tradition. I don’t care whether you think I’m a conservative or not–labels don’t ultimately matter that much.)

You like Aquinas, I like St. Augustine. Speaking of taxes he says: “If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?”

Actually, that quote is in the section from the Summa that I cited above. Aquinas quotes it, so clearly he’s not disagreeing with Augustine on this point at all. Neither am I.

The quote is originally from City of God Book 4, chap. 4. I cannot see that the context has anything to do with taxation.

I said before that taxation, as such, is rarely mentioned in magisterial documents. What we have is pretty much summed up by “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s but give to God what is God’s” I have no problem with that concept. Although Caesar employed tax collecting thugs to steal people’s money in the form of taxes…I can find no instances of the Church holding a holy sword over the heads of the faithful to extort tithes.

I don’t know what you mean by that. Tithes were mandatory just like any other tax. If you refused to pay them, you would be taken to court.

If you have no problem giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Jesus was clearly talking about taxation, then how can you argue that this is robbery?

It seems self-contradictory to say that taxation is “giving Caesar what is Caesar’s” and also that it’s robbery. Robbery is taking what doesn’t belong to you. If it belongs to “Caesar” then it’s not robbery for Caesar to take it.

I’m just having trouble understanding your logic. You keep repeating the principle over and over, but apparently you will not actually argue for it. Every time you try, you just wind up assuming it.

That’s a fine way for a Forum Elder to refer to forum members…

“Forum Elder” just means that I’ve been around a long time. That means that I’ve seen all the rhetoric and most of the arguments already, and I get a bit impatient. When it comes to socialism, people tend to just cite Church condemnations without actually discussing what the Church says socialism is. When we get down to brass tacks, people’s definitions of socialism usually aren’t coming from the Church but from secular libertarians like Ayn Rand. Your posts are demonstrating this very well. That’s why this is not a tangent. You are making my point for me, showing over and over again that you can’t defend your principles from Catholic sources and thus that your appeal to Church condemnations of socialism is bogus. You’re not defining socialism as the Church does in the first place.

Sure. But this is the point we keep coming back to. You are denying the legitimacy of government at all when you say this. You are saying essentially that the government has the same relationship to you (in natural law) as one individual to another. That is not the traditional position, nor is it a position for which you have made any rational argument. Civil authorities are those responsible for the common good. That doesn’t mean that they can do whatever they like, but it does mean that their actions are not simply to be equated with those of private individuals.

Would you say that there is no difference between executing a murderer after a fair trial and carrying out vigilante justice? The state can indeed murder people–unjust execution is murder and the fact that the state does it doesn’t make it OK. But the way to hold the state accountable for its unjust actions is not to pretend that is no different than a private individual. That doesn’t make sense.

There are many secular philosophers who support my views including voluntary taxation. Ayn Rand being one.

Noted economists who agree with me include Murray Newton Rothbard, Walter E. Williams, Frank Chodorov and others who have written on the subject of taxation being theft.

I don’t like to quote politicians, but when they are right…they are right.

But why are they right? Why is the entire tradition of Western thought and Christian reflection on this point wrong? Why was Jesus wrong in saying that in taxation Caesar is simply taking what is his own?

Why, for heaven’s sake, focus on taxation? If you want to start talking about unjust state actions, worry about the people who are executed without sufficient evidence. Worry about the Pakistanis who cower in the mountains in fear of our drones. Why worry so much about the government doing something that Jesus thought even the clearly oppressive Roman government had a right to do? You seem to have warped priorities to me.

It seems to boil down, for you, to the fact that you find these ideas appealing. You haven’t produced a shred of argument, and you despise the tradition in spite of calling yourself a conservative. It doesn’t make sense.

Edwin

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own collective good. Not factual

I prefer a Free Market.

The Free Market is a powerful institution. It allows people to interact with one another and achieve things they could not achieve acting on their own. As we have recently seen. A "free market’ leads to financial disaster for most.

The Free Market allocates resources in ways that no single individual or government bureaucrat could even begin to duplicate. It lowers the social costs of meeting human wants and needs far better than any other institution known to man.Pointless use of the term bureaucrat. No doubt used to distract from the topic.

Free Market outcomes may, on occasion, be improved by VERY limited, judicious regulation. But it is never worthwhile to suppress the market entirely in almost any field of human endeavor.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Fascinating discussion.

What might be called true socialism existed in the earliest days of the Church, as we can all read about in the Book of Acts. It was a real application of the axiom, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

It had two important and essential features. All of the members of this early “collective” loved Jesus Christ above all, and they were all volunteers.

So, if we wish to see true socialism again, we must expect those two conditions to be met.

Padster, when all of Britain loves Jesus Christ above all, and when they volunteer to pool all of their resources, voila! you will see true socialism.

Mickey Finn, communism, as we know it and have seen in action, is the natural end of socialism as we find it in the real world.

We also can infer from Scripture that the original socialist experiment didn’t work out in the longer term, because we see St. Paul later making the point that those who don’t want to work shouldn’t eat.

There’s the rub. In any economic organization, the difficulty always arises when the human heart’s tendencies lead someone to figure out a way to benefit from the labors of others. The collapse of any society, any socio/economic system is always a result of that particular problem.

And, there is no political economic solution to that problem. It has not been devised and will not be because the problem is the human heart. All we are left with as Christians is the decision of which is the most practical, hurts the least amount of people, is the most tweakable ongoing and to my mind the most important characteristic is to what extent it allows Christians to practice and preach their faith.

Call it what you wish. Capitalism, socialism, some hybrid of the two. It will always fall when the weight of those who have figured out how to live from the labor of others crushes those who are actually carrying the weight.

Well, nothing man creates is permanent.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

A person of conscience promotes and defends what is true and good – precisely what Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI have done with free enterprise, and they excoriate the PEOPLE who by their greed and selfishness defraud others, and governments whose policies distort and ravage free enterprise.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable. That’s what the parable is about? I guess I was taught a little different. Something about making yourself useful, and serving God I thought.

The Popes have some realization of the cause and effect of economic laws:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. More of a course correction if I know anything of the past. I don’t doubt the popes of the past had good reason at the time to say the things they said. But I do not see what you’re are trying to inject into their words.

In 1931, we were taught: “…lastly, summoning to court the contemporary economic regime and passing judgment on Socialism, to lay bare the root of the existing social confusion and at the same time point the only way to sound restoration: namely, the Christian reform of morals. [Pius XI in *Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 15].

Let us recall that Bl John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).

Thus the principles of free enterprise are true and good, the evils of Socialism and the Welfare State are condemned, and the absolute necessity of the practice of virtues and sound morals by individuals is emphasised if truth and goodness are to be the essence of society.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

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.Again we see a few words used with the intent to invoke a response based on past negative use of the these words. Also, we see where you describe communism, and present it as socialism. Even thought at this point it is certain you know the difference.

A free enterprise economy can work just fine without coercion, but a socialist economy by its very nature requires coercion to survive.We lack an example of true socialism so I wonder what you are basing this claim on?

 

[GLam8833]

I’m not a socialist but I do recognize the need occasionally of services for the good of humanity or more specifically citizens of a particular country. The danger though is that we run the risk of giving up control of our lives to a secular government who has little concerns for the things of God…

On that note I will continue the line of reasoning (It was the second post of this thread)
well, IF this is TRUE, those of you who are on welfare and are Christian Catholics
should WAKE UP, give glory to God and repent and say I am receiving this pogey
cheque because THE GOVERNMENT has become god to me, Help me O God
to free myself of this great evil, so that I may live upright and godly, as YOU WANT ME
TO LIVE. And Pray, pray for the Great and Awesome God to RESTORE your dignity
and fear Him to whom alone fear is DUE (Ps 90)!!!

 

[JB_Dugan]

A wise man once told me that arguing with an academic elitist is like playing chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then struts around like he won the game.

We agree that civil laws are invalid if they contradict natural law.
We agree that, in St. Augustine’s words, a state without justice is nothing more than a gang of robbers. In fact, that’s one of my favorite Augustine quotes.

But you have made the claim that taxation is robbery–that legislators do not have the power to compel people to contribute financially for the common good. This is not a claim that you can substantiate or have substantiated.

The tradition has always held that governments do have the right to use coercion for the common good. One can challenge this, but one can’t simply assume that the tradition is wrong without actually presenting an argument.

This is totally dependent on the definition of “Common Good”.

Are you saying that the potential to be corrupt makes them thieves? That seems overly perfectionistic, to me. All human beings are potentially corrupt.

One has to examine whether, in a particular instance, legislators are using the power to tax unjustly.

But if you are right and all coercive taxation is robbery as a matter of principle, then obviously that kind of discussion becomes moot. But you need to establish the principle, which so far you have utterly failed to do. You seem aggrieved that I even ask you to do it.

No, I am not saying it is a matter of principle. A proper government can function on the voluntary support of those who created it.

The only proper functions of a government are: Security; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; the police, to protect us from criminals; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

A government that grows beyond its limitations and meddles is areas of human endeavor where it was never authorized, is illegitimate and unjust. When that government begins to force taxes from it’s citizens to support that which it was never authorized to do…it becomes a thief.

You surely aren’t arguing that just because lots of people in a secular culture come to think something, therefore it is right?

Lots of people argue that man is causing Global Warming…does that consensus make it true?

Actually, that quote is in the section from the Summa that I cited above. Aquinas quotes it, so clearly he’s not disagreeing with Augustine on this point at all. Neither am I.

The quote is originally from City of God Book 4, chap. 4. I cannot see that the context has anything to do with taxation.

It has everything to do with taxation.

“If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?”

When the king (government) becomes unjust he becomes a robber of peoples money (taxes).

Pretty clear to me…

I don’t know what you mean by that. Tithes were mandatory just like any other tax. If you refused to pay them, you would be taken to court.

…by civil authorities…who were confiscating both taxes and tithes in order to keep peasants is a perpetual state of poverty. Unjust government come to mind?

Sure. But this is the point we keep coming back to. You are denying the legitimacy of government at all when you say this. You are saying essentially that the government has the same relationship to you (in natural law) as one individual to another. That is not the traditional position, nor is it a position for which you have made any rational argument. Civil authorities are those responsible for the common good. That doesn’t mean that they can do whatever they like, **but it does mean that their actions are not simply to be equated with those of private individuals. **

A Government is an entity, not unlike a corporation. A corporation can be charged with crimes, including theft. So…yes…government has the same relationship to you (in natural law) as one individual to another.

 

[Abu]

Abu:
In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

Mickey Finn #71
That’s what the parable is about? I guess I was taught a little different. Something about making yourself useful, and serving God I thought.

Jesus taught through many parables.

That “the entrepreneur can (and should) work for the development and maintenance of the common good…is a consistent feature of the Fathers of the Church, of St Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic Theologians.

The parable of the Talents “primarily teaches that God’s gifts, of nature and especially of grace, are held in stewardship and must not be allowed to lie idle. They are to be used to further His kingdom. It emerges, secondarily, that the standard of God’s judgment is relative to the opportunities offered: ‘the greater the gifts, the greater the account demanded’ (Gregory the Great).” A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson, 1953].

So,

1. “There is the emphasis on the ‘talent’, which is a measure of value.
2. “The trading activity of the two stewards is important. Christ praises them for the energy, alertness, and perseverance they demonstrate in making a truly significant profit (they have doubled the original sum). There is a reference to accountability which is crucial to any business.
3. “Then the nuanced criticism of fear: ‘I was afraid, and I went off and hid your talent in the ground.’ This fear leads the lazy steward to avoid the risks and obstacles that are a key part of entrepreneurial work.
4. “There is the clear reference to the financial system. The lazy steward at least could have placed the ‘money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.’ ”

“We can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”

“We can thus say that Catholic tradition views entrepreneurial work as alert to information; discovers new possibilities in the market place; engages then factors of production in a large enterprise; looks for profit as a compensation for the risks undertaken in engaging the factors of production; is characterized by the creation and sustaining of relationships; and intends to develop and maintain the common good.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 81-82].

By His parable of the Talents Jesus is not implying that anyone should seek wealth first in their lives. He is preaching and rewarding prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, rather than attacking those who accumulate wealth legitimately, He is lambasting the slothful. In the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II emphasises “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”

 

[ManOnFire]

The Church does not advocate a specific economic policy, but it has always denounced Marxist Socialism for it’s Atheism, it’s materialism, it’s emphasis on class warfare as well as it’s subjugation of the human person to the will of the state and obsession with violence. However, the Church has also advocated certain policies (free education, minimum wages, low income housing, basic health care, social security) that were once considered socialist (although they have been now been accepted-and co-opted-by most centrist and centre-right political parties) on the basis of social justice and solidarity. The Church has also stressed that unrestrained capitalism is equally evil to socialism, for it’s materialism and putting profits ahead of human beings.

Well said. These are my beliefs. The leftist media and culture doesn’t teach people how to thrive and avoid dependency because that’s called conservatism. Socialism in the USA must ultimately lead to Communism because there are too many freedom-loving individuals who will become violent once we run out of “other people’s money.”

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Maybe someone should do an experiment. Live rough on the streets for three months with no money, no home and only wear the castoff clothes you can find on the street. If after three months you can locate through charity enough capital to start a business and become an independent functioning member of society again that is great, charity will be the way to go.
If you fail however then try the social welfare route, get a free house or cheap room to give you an address so you can get a bank account for your business, get an enterprise partial grant or micro-loan for the capital you will need to start a small business.
See which system works best and fastest, and that will be the best solution.

 

[ManOnFire]

The root cause of homelessness is an addiction to liberal behaviors. When you think about it, homelessness is the ultimate liberal lifestyle. No responsibilities. If the person was as ambitious as your dream implies, he/she would know to avoid the addiction to liberal behaviors in the first place, but that’s why most homeless stay homeless.

 

[Usagi]

The root cause of homelessness is an addiction to liberal behaviors. When you think about it, homelessness is the ultimate liberal lifestyle. No responsibilities. If the person was as ambitious as your dream implies, he/she would know to avoid the addiction to liberal behaviors in the first place, but that’s why most homeless stay homeless.

Your statements are incomprehensible to me. Are you actually asserting that homelessness is a pleasant, desirable state of no responsibility, rather than a desperate state of scrabbling just to survive? That people choose it and choose to remain in it? (Leaving aside those who are severely mentally ill and may not know any better, who make up a significant portion of the homeless.)

Your definition of “liberal” also seems so broad as to be meaningless, except possibly as a synonym for “bad.” What in the heck are the “liberal behaviors” that spawn homelessness, and what makes them particularly liberal?

Usagi

 

[Mickey_Finn]

The root cause of homelessness is an addiction to liberal behaviors. When you think about it, homelessness is the ultimate liberal lifestyle. No responsibilities. If the person was as ambitious as your dream implies, he/she would know to avoid the addiction to liberal behaviors in the first place, but that’s why most homeless stay homeless.

Man on Fire, (that’s was a great book, and a mediocre movie by the way) you don’t seem to understand the problem of homelessness. So, you choose to blame it on something else you don’t understand. But at least you didn’t try to attribute your views to scripture .

The conference of mayors determines that the three most common causes of homelessness in families are,

1. Cost of housing (market driven I believe)
2. Poverty ( wages are market driven I believe)
3. Unemployment ( you guest it)

Otherwise, there are veterans, mentally ill, and honest bums. The veterans that are homeless has dropped do to efforts by the federal government. The mentally ill, are victims of cost saving efforts started by Ronald Reagan I believe while he was the governor of California. The honest bums? Throw them a dime when you can, and remember them in your prayers.

ATB