Socialism

[Paddy_Walker]

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.

Homelessness could happen to anyone. It could happen to you. The bubble might burst, you lose your investments. Creditors swoop in to seize everything you have left. Friends become former friends because now you’ve discovered that alcohol or drugs are all you have left. You live for alcohol now. You are lucky if sometimes you can beg a dollar or two a day. The soup-kitchen provides the one meal a day you have. You can look forward to a relatively short life though. If only someone could give you a digout, provide a bit of capital and an address and you could start earning again. Even the simplest business idea needs relatively large investments of capital before it can even begin working. Homelessness is a trap, poverty is a trap. And pints of beer is all they have sometimes, so they live for beer, or whatever.

 

[Reep]

The root cause of homelessness is an addiction to liberal behaviors.

I can suggest another root case for many homeless people. Mental illness.

 

[ManOnFire]

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

My university was urban and I worked in inner city NYC for years. My aunt, who is practically a saint, told me to never give money to the homeless. I used to give cash to this one guy who I was convinced was not an alcoholic, until one day I was across town and saw him drunk with a bottle. He was taking the bus to panhandle where he doesn’t drink.

Even many homeless shelters advise against giving cash to the homeless. Give instead to the shelter.

Several of my friends have offered to give work to the homeless and every time they have said no. Try it.

Perpetual drunkenness and a life free of responsibility where one receives money without working is not without it’s attractions, kinda like screwing the system and winning the lottery a little every day. Yes, it’s definitely a liberal behavior, except for those with mental problems. With such little responsiibility and so many opportunities to resist liberal temptations and escape, maybe we shouldn’t be so negatively judgmental that they are living their lives wrongly. Maybe someone should mention the pleasureful serotonin release our brains receive when we believe we are helping. Maybe WE are also the drug addicts. It sure would help explain all the unrealistic dreamers.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

My university was urban and I worked in inner city NYC for years. My aunt, who is practically a saint, told me to never give money to the homeless. I used to give cash to this one guy who I was convinced was not an alcoholic, until one day I was across town and saw him drunk with a bottle. He was taking the bus to panhandle where he doesn’t drink.

Even many homeless shelters advise against giving cash to the homeless. Give instead to the shelter.

Several of my friends have offered to give work to the homeless and every time they have said no. Try it.

Perpetual drunkenness and a life free of responsibility where one receives money without working is not without it’s attractions, kinda like screwing the system and winning the lottery a little every day. Yes, it’s definitely a liberal behavior, except for those with mental problems. With such little responsiibility and so many opportunities to resist liberal temptations and escape, maybe we shouldn’t be so negatively judgmental that they are living their lives wrongly. Maybe someone should mention the pleasureful serotonin release our brains receive when we believe we are helping. Maybe WE are also the drug addicts. It sure would help explain all the unrealistic dreamers.

Theres nothing wrong with them drinking. They have nothing else. I wouldn’t take it away from them.
Offering them a job is no good. You wouldn’t accept a job either if they forced you to sober up and be at work at 8:30 every morning and work for 8 hours in one place, losing your freedom of movement.
Giving someone like that charity of a couple of dollars a day will never solve their problem. That regular tiny amount of cash goes into a bottle of wine or whatever and thats all that can be bought with it.
Work that would suit them is self-employment and not working as an employee.
The idea of providing capital to them is to let them choose something to train at. They could carve wood and sell it, they could learn to make shoes - rich americans fly all the way to Italy to have shoes hand-made for them in tiny cottage-industry type shops.
They could choose to learn to do something to earn money. But they would need help and capital to start.

 

[GLam8833]

Very good stuff being brought up here,
I’m learning a lot from your posts, might I add that
the taking care of the poor is the Church;s God-given
responsibility, (see the first few chapter of Acts), but
in socialist countries like Canada, they have torn down
that part of the WALLS of the church that was supposed
to shelter the Homeless, and provide for the Poor, who
are the ones God chooses(James 2:5) to be rich in faith!!!

 

[Paddy_Walker]

The poor will always be with you, not, should always be with you.

The question as I see it is what is the most efficient and successful way to get those people back on their feet again who are capable of it.

I am not interested in not doing something because I’m afraid the Communists are coming. If charity can cater for something, that fine, if not, then try something else.

 

[Contarini]

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

No, I don’t think it is. Any definition of common good means that action for the common good cannot simply be equated with one individual’s actions toward another. You can argue that taxation doesn’t really provide for the common good, or something along those lines. But you can’t simply say “taxation is the same thing as my neighbor extorting money from me with a gun.” It clearly isn’t. Even if it doesn’t serve the common good, it purports to and must be discussed on that basis, by showing what you believe the common good is, why that definition is correct, and why taxation (or more reasonably, a particular form of taxation) doesn’t serve it or why a particular form of government doesn’t legitimately speak for 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.

Voluntary support isn’t really taxation, it seems to me. When I use the word “taxation” I mean “contribution to the common good enforced by legal authority, just as other legal ordinances are.” I don’t think it’s ever been used in any other way until relatively recently.

Now I agree that taxation that is widely seen as unjust or unnecessary will be very hard to enforce without tyranny. But that’s true for any law.

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.

On what do you base this very restrictive definition of government?

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.

But you do not get to declare unilaterally what government is or is not authorized to do.

Furthermore, this is different from your earlier claim that all [involuntary] taxation is robbery. Which is it? It’s hard to discuss this issue with you when you keep flip-flopping on just what you are arguing.

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

No. The overwhelming consensus of informed people makes it highly likely to be true, so that those of us who are less informed would be ill advised to put off acting on the consensus just because it’s not 100% certain. But you certainly do not have such an overwhelming consensus here. The consensus is, in fact, the other way. That doesn’t make you wrong–it just means that you need to argue the case. Over and over again you are failing to do this. You can’t seem to make an argument that doesn’t depend either on question-begging (inserting the definition “taxation is robbery” into your argument), arbitrary redefinition of language (taxation isn’t unjust as long as it is “voluntary,” when we already have a well-established concept of taxation that is distinct from voluntary contributions), or just plain assertion without evidence or logic on your part.

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…

But completely illogical. Of course an unjust ruler will tax unjustly. That’s a truism. What you are supposedly trying to prove is that [government-enforced] taxation (i.e., what most people would just call “taxation”) is intrinsically unjust. You haven’t shown this. Augustine never suggests that taxation is intrinsically unjust. In the passage you cite, he’s talking about conquest, not taxation.

It would be much more reasonable to use Augustine to suggest that, for instance, the United States has no right to enforce its borders against illegal immigration because it reached those present borders by unjust means (war against Mexico and/or the forcible/fraudulent annexation of the territory of native American tribes).

In fact Augustine’s position is probably more nuanced and paradoxical than that. He thinks that we need government to restrain human sinfulness, so that even if the government has gained power unjustly, Christians can and should still support it insofar as it promotes the common good and restrains sin. (This is how Christians came to support the “barbarian” rulers who took over the Western Roman Empire, and were beginning to do so in Augustine’s day. Legitimacy becomes less important than function.) Aquinas fuses Augustine’s thought with Aristotle’s much more optimistic view of government, and the resulting fusion is the basis of most later Western reflection on these (and most other) matters.

…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?

How do you know that this was the purpose?

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.

Doesn’t make sense. Government exists solely in order to provide for the common good. A corporation doesn’t–it should act in a way that furthers the common good, but that’s not the essential definition of its purpose for existing in the same way that it is for government.

That doesn’t mean that government is unaccountable. Quite the reverse–it should be held to a higher standard. But again, it means that government does not relate to me in the way that another person, or even a corporation, does.

Edwin

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Very good stuff being brought up here,
I’m learning a lot from your posts, might I add that
the taking care of the poor is the Church;s God-given
responsibility, (see the first few chapter of Acts), but
in socialist countries like Canada, they have torn down
that part of the WALLS of the church that was supposed
to shelter the Homeless, and provide for the Poor, who
are the ones God chooses(James 2:5) to be rich in faith!!!

Canada is a capitalist nation. As are Germany, and the UK. Yet they manage to provide care for their citizens.

ATB

 

[JB_Dugan]

. You can argue that taxation doesn’t really provide for the common good, or something along those lines.

Thank you for the permission. I thought I had been doing that all along when I spoke of unjust governments.

But you can’t simply say “taxation is the same thing as my neighbor extorting money from me with a gun.” It clearly isn’t.

Yes it is. Remember unjust governments.

Voluntary support isn’t really taxation, it seems to me. When I use the word “taxation” I mean “contribution to the common good enforced by legal authority, just as other legal ordinances are.” I don’t think it’s ever been used in any other way until relatively recently.

I find the concept of “enforced contribution” to be a contradiction.

Now I agree that taxation that is widely seen as unjust or unnecessary will be very hard to enforce without tyranny. But that’s true for any law.

Now I think we are getting somewhere.

On what do you base this very restrictive definition of government?

On the concept of a limited government.

But you do not get to declare unilaterally what government is or is not authorized to do.

That is what a Constitution if for.

Furthermore, this is different from your earlier claim that all [involuntary] taxation is robbery. Which is it? It’s hard to discuss this issue with you when you keep flip-flopping on just what you are arguing.

If I confused you and you think I am flip-flopping, I am sorry. My fault.

No. The overwhelming consensus of informed people makes it highly likely to be true, so that those of us who are less informed would be ill advised to put off acting on the consensus just because it’s not 100% certain. But you certainly do not have such an overwhelming consensus here. The consensus is, in fact, the other way. That doesn’t make you wrong–it just means that you need to argue the case.

I do have a consensus. We could poll the participants of this thread to prove it…or you could simply do a Google Search “Taxation is Theft” and find a lot of agreement.

But completely illogical. Of course an unjust ruler will tax unjustly. That’s a truism. What you are supposedly trying to prove is that [government-enforced] taxation (i.e., what most people would just call “taxation”) is intrinsically unjust. You haven’t shown this. Augustine never suggests that taxation is intrinsically unjust. In the passage you cite, he’s talking about conquest, not taxation.

It would be much more reasonable to use Augustine to suggest that, for instance, the United States has no right to enforce its borders against illegal immigration because it reached those present borders by unjust means (war against Mexico and/or the forcible/fraudulent annexation of the territory of native American tribes).

In fact Augustine’s position is probably more nuanced and paradoxical than that. He thinks that we need government to restrain human sinfulness, so that even if the government has gained power unjustly, Christians can and should still support it insofar as it promotes the common good and restrains sin. (This is how Christians came to support the “barbarian” rulers who took over the Western Roman Empire, and were beginning to do so in Augustine’s day. Legitimacy becomes less important than function.) Aquinas fuses Augustine’s thought with Aristotle’s much more optimistic view of government, and the resulting fusion is the basis of most later Western reflection on these (and most other) matters.

You have constantly referred to Aquinas, Augustine and now Aristotle…yet you reject the philosophers, economists and legislators I rely on. Not fair.

How do you know that this was the purpose?

"…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? "

Simple. If a peasant is not poor…he is not a peasant. Then who does the work for the local noble?

Government exists solely in order to provide for the common good.

So say you!

I say government exists for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights.

A corporation doesn’t–it should act in a way that furthers the common good, but that’s not the essential definition of its purpose for existing in the same way that it is for government.

That doesn’t mean that government is unaccountable. Quite the reverse–it should be held to a higher standard. But again, it means that government does not relate to me in the way that another person, or even a corporation, does.

Edwin

A corporation and a government are entities. The purpose of their existence is not important. The FACT is that they can very well be charged with crimes just as individuals.

 

[GLam8833]

Hi Mickey Finn,
Glad for your correction, I mean by labeling Canada as a
socialist country, I’m saying that the SYSTEM in Canada
is basically socialist! One is insured “From the cradle to the
grave”, We are so USED to having “Big Brother government”
pay for everything that we fear “the form” (the application for
government assistance) more than God!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes it is. Remember unjust governments.

(in response to edwin’s:* But you can’t simply say “taxation is the same thing as my neighbor extorting money from me with a gun.” It clearly isn’t.*)

The fact that a government can be unjust does not establish what you claimed (that taxation is the same thing as my neighbor extorting money from me with a gun). Several significant differences have been mentioned, but you have ignored them. For one thing your statement that taxation is like personal extortion is a blanket statement that does not mention whether the government is just or unjust. Are you claiming that all governments are inherently unjust? Or are you claiming that taxation is like personal extortion only when the government is unjust? Either way you have not overcome the significant differences between the two concepts that would justify calling them the same concept.

On the concept of a limited government.

This was supposed to be an answer to “On what do you base this very restrictive definition of government?” But that is circular reasoning. “Limited government” is just another way of saying “restrictive definition of a government”. You are not actually supporting your thesis. You are just restating it. Probably what you meant to say was “I think government works best when it is limited”. This is quite different from saying “everybody knows what government means and it means limited government”.

That is what a Constitution if for.

Here is another answer that does not address the quote above it, which was “But you do not get to declare unilaterally what government is or is not authorized to do.” Apparently you think that a careful reading of the Constitution will easily show that government is not authorized to do all the things you think it should not do. But it is not at all obvious, and the flip response you gave shows that you don’t even care to make your point understandable.

I do have a consensus. We could poll the participants of this thread to prove it…or you could simply do a Google Search “Taxation is Theft” and find a lot of agreement.

This is a very poor survey technique because the participants in this thread are not randomly selected. In fact they are self-selected to be much more likely to be anti-tax. And as for Googling “Taxation is Theft” and finding agreement, well, you could also Google “Elvis Lives” and “Moon landing was a fake” and get a lot of agreement.

You have constantly referred to Aquinas, Augustine and now Aristotle…yet you reject the philosophers, economists and legislators I rely on. Not fair.

edwin was citing Augustine here because you cited Augustine. edwin was showing that your interpretation of Augustine was selective, and could just as well be interpreted to support a very different conclusion about government. That seems quite fair.

 

[Reep]

Canada is a capitalist nation. As are Germany, and the UK. Yet they manage to provide care for their citizens.

ATB

That’s not caring. That’s politics. Caring is when you reach into your own pocket to help someone else, not when you reach into someone else’s pocket.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

That’s not caring. That’s politics. Caring is when you reach into your own pocket to help someone else, not when you reach into someone else’s pocket.

Interesting though inaccurate play on words there. We are talking about political systems, and the action or inaction of governments. While all of the mentioned nations are not only capitalist, but in the cases of Germany, and Canada provide a better standard of living than out own United States. This makes it pretty hard to seriously defend our present system. Which I believe is unjust by any reckoning.

ATB

 

[Reep]

Interesting though inaccurate play on words there. We are talking about political systems, and the action or inaction of governments. While all of the mentioned nations are not only capitalist, but in the cases of Germany, and Canada provide a better standard of living than out own United States. This makes it pretty hard to seriously defend our present system. Which I believe is unjust by any reckoning.

ATB

I’m not sure exactly what it is that you think is unjust. Is it that one country has a higher standard of living than another? Or simply that some other country has a higher standard than the USA? Is there some reason we should be higher? Lower?

Maybe if the US—with 5 percent of the earth’s population—did not pay to incarcerate one-fourth of the world’s inmates, we could do better?

Maybe if the US—with 5 percent of the earth’s population—did not spend 39% of all military spending on planet earth, we could do better. [Compare to China & Russia, which-taken together–account for 14.7%]

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I’m not sure exactly what it is that you think is unjust. Is it that one country has a higher standard of living than another? Or simply that some other country has a higher standard than the USA? Is there some reason we should be higher? Lower?

Maybe if the US—with 5 percent of the earth’s population—did not pay to incarcerate one-fourth of the world’s inmates, we could do better?

Maybe if the US—with 5 percent of the earth’s population—did not spend 39% of all military spending on planet earth, we could do better. [Compare to China & Russia, which-taken together–account for 14.7%]

A lot of maybe’s to be thrown around. I was thinking, as most people are, that the inordinate gulf between the 5%, and the rest is our main injustice. If we fix that we’ll be well on our way. Then maybe we could afford a few of your Libertarian ideas.

ATB

 

[JB_Dugan]

Hello Leaf:
Welcome to our discussion. You sound curiously like Edwin. Did you guys go to the same school…are you a Jesuit?

(in response to edwin’s:* **But you can’t simply say ***“taxation is the same thing as my neighbor extorting money from me with a gun.” It clearly isn’t.)

The fact that a government can be unjust does not establish what you claimed (that taxation is the same thing as my neighbor extorting money from me with a gun). Several significant differences have been mentioned, but you have ignored them. For one thing your statement that taxation is like personal extortion is a blanket statement that does not mention whether the government is just or unjust. Are you claiming that all governments are inherently unjust? Or are you claiming that taxation is like personal extortion only when the government is unjust? Either way you have not overcome the significant differences between the two concepts that would justify calling them the same concept.

“But you can’t simply say…”

Why not?

I can say ANYTHING I please that does not violate the rules of this forum or basic etiquette. You, Edwin and anyone else are welcome to disagree with me…but, please do not tell me what I can or cannot say. (Unless you are a Moderator and intend to use the power of expulsion, much like a government uses the power of taxation to extort or steal from citizens)

Once we settle this point we can move on to your points of dissagreement.

This was supposed to be an answer to “On what do you base this very restrictive definition of government?” But that is circular reasoning. “Limited government” is just another way of saying “restrictive definition of a government”. You are not actually supporting your thesis. You are just restating it. Probably what you meant to say was “I think government works best when it is limited”. This is quite different from saying “everybody knows what government means and it means limited government”.

Again, another problem…" Probably what you meant to say was …"

Do not put words in my mouth. I find that offensive and immediately determine you to be playing a superior, “holier than thou” part.

I’m a simple guy. I believe that words mean what they say. Sometimes I do not express myself clearly. One of my minor faults.

Edwin’s question was a question with a premiss. (I avoid those like the plague). He asked:

“On what do you base this very restrictive definition of government?” His use of the term “very restrictive” is his premiss. My definition was of a PROPER, limited government. If you and Edwin consider a proper government to not be constrained…that’s fine, I feel sorry for you but you are entitled to defining “your” government any way you choose.

Here is another answer that does not address the quote above it, which was “But you do not get to declare unilaterally what government is or is not authorized to do.” Apparently you think that a careful reading of the Constitution will easily show that government is not authorized to do all the things you think it should not do. But it is not at all obvious, and the flip response you gave shows that you don’t even care to make your point understandable.

I gave a flip answer because the statement showed a lack of understanding pertaining to governments.

Governments are established by people, they don’t just occur. Being a people, I do, in fact, “get to declare what [my] government is or is not authorized to do.”

My brief and flippant answer: “That is what a Constitution if for.” should have been sufficient for someone who knows that our Constitution limits our government.

This is a very poor survey technique because the participants in this thread are not randomly selected. In fact they are self-selected to be much more likely to be anti-tax. And as for Googling “Taxation is Theft” and finding agreement, well, you could also Google “Elvis Lives” and “Moon landing was a fake” and get a lot of agreement.

…and if Elvis and Moon landings were the subject…we would have a consensus.

edwin was citing Augustine here because you cited Augustine. edwin was showing that your interpretation of Augustine was selective, and could just as well be interpreted to support a very different conclusion about government. That seems quite fair.

Edwin cited Augustine first…after I made it clear that I was discussing this subject from a secular view. I named several philosophers, economists, and politicians who agree with me and Edwin rejected them. That is not only not fair…it’s dumb.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hello Leaf:
I can say ANYTHING I please that does not violate the rules of this forum or basic etiquette. You, Edwin and anyone else are welcome to disagree with me…but, please do not tell me what I can or cannot say. (Unless you are a Moderator and intend to use the power of expulsion, much like a government uses the power of taxation to extort or steal from citizens)

I think you know quite well what the idiom “you can’t simply say…” means in this context. But in case you don’t, let me explain. The idiom means you can’t just say taxation is the same as private extortion with a gun based only on the meaning of the words themselves without putting yourself in a position of authority for defining the meaning of words. If you think these two concepts which most people see as distinct are in fact the same, the burden is on you to support that statement with a logical argument. But instead of taking up the challenge to explain yourself, you focus on a silly misinterpretation of an idiom. I frankly am very interested to hear how you would go about supporting that statement of yours.

Again, another problem…" Probably what you meant to say was …"

Do not put words in my mouth. I find that offensive and immediately determine you to be playing a superior, “holier than thou” part.

I had no intention of offending you or declaring myself holier than anybody. I was merely trying to restate what I thought you really intended, but without the circular reasoning, showing how much of your thesis I could agree with.

Edwin’s question was a question with a premiss. (I avoid those like the plague). He asked:

“On what do you base this very restrictive definition of government?” His use of the term “very restrictive” is his premiss. My definition was of a PROPER, limited government.

My apologies. Upon reading your posting that edwin was responding to, I see now that you did say “proper functions”, which can be construed to mean that you were describing what you considered to be a “good” government. You were not, in fact, defining what a government is in general (including both good and bad governments). In that case edwin’s criticism of your “restrictive definition” was unfair, since it was not actually a definition. Of course, as you say, we can all disagree about what we think a “good” government is.

I gave a flip answer {“That’s what the Constitution is for”} because the statement showed a lack of understanding pertaining to governments.

Governments are established by people, they don’t just occur. Being a people, I do, in fact, “get to declare what [my] government is or is not authorized to do.”

Yes, but not unilaterally - only in concert with your fellow peoples. And if those fellow peoples decide differently from you, you just have to deal with it, or express your ideas and desires for change through whatever mechanism your government has established. As for the particular question at hand (“Is taxation legal?”), your fellow peoples have indeed decided that it is. The decision has been arrived at both popularly (much less than 50% of all people advocate that all taxes be eliminated) and structurally (the US Supreme Court, which is made up of justices who have studied the Constitution much more than you, has ruled that taxation, in general, is constitutional). So if you think the constitution implies that government does not have the authority to levy taxes, one wonders how you came to this conclusion when so many learned people did not see things that way. That is why a flip answer is not sufficient. A much more substantial explanation is clearly called for.

…and if Elvis and Moon landings were the subject…we would have a consensus.

The fact that there a lot of hits in a Google search proves nothing.

 

[Contarini]

That’s not caring. That’s politics. Caring is when you reach into your own pocket to help someone else, not when you reach into someone else’s pocket.

Again, this assumes radical individualism and does not seem compatible with classical Christian social thought, as far as I can see.

It isn’t one person reaching into someone else’s pocket. It’s legislators providing for the common good by means of the power of taxation which Our Lord granted even to the Roman emperors with regard to the conquered Jewish people (a fortiori, it is not unjust when wielded by a representative government over people who have a chance to vote the legislators out if they dislike their policies).

As long as libertarians use this crass and unjustified way of talking about it, we will never even get to the real issues.

William Cavanaugh, for instance, has written a very pungent critique of the idea that the modern nation-state is a legitimate guardian of the common good. But we have to agree that there is a common good in the first place for that even to be a relevant discussion.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

As Dr William Luckey writes:
“Pope John Paul II is right is expressing reservations here, but his reservations are not about the free market but the social context in which that market, or, quite frankly, anything else, operates. Everything in society functions in an environment of ethical/religious, political/juridical and economic reality. For the free market to work, there needs to be a moral society, backed up by revealed religion, and a system of just law, respected by the people and enforced justly by the courts. Economists have created a whole body of literature on the effect of institutions on economic life. If there is a problem with how the market operates, the first place to look is the society and the government. Obviously Pope John Paul II realized this. Now if only other Catholics would be as informed.”
drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/Church-Teaching-on-Economics

This from the *Catholic Culture *library: Library : Catholic Social Doctrine Begins with Subsidiarity | Catholic Culture"
Frank Morriss
“True, free economics is open to abuse when it is allowed to be laissez-faire governmental indifference to the general economic welfare. But only free economics by its very own premise allows for the existence of subsidiarity, which demands not governmental indifference, but proper governmental restraint — the greatest amount of noninterference in economics in keeping with the common good. Welfare programs heedless of need, applied generally and replacing the desire and ability of the vast majority to govern their own lives and families, financed by taxation imposed on the basis of economic success, clearly give no weight to subsidiarity.”

 

[JB_Dugan]

Yes, but not unilaterally - only in concert with your fellow peoples. And if those fellow peoples decide differently from you, you just have to deal with it, or express your ideas and desires for change through whatever mechanism your government has established.

True.

I am in complete concert with the ideals agreed upon by those who wrote the Constitution that established my government. I have no desire to see change whatsoever.

However like James Madison, I cannot find that article of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to spend money on objects of benevolence.

The concept of the “common good” or "general welfare"is a wonderful thing. It applies to ALL…equally. It does not imply taking from one to give to another. It implies taking from all and serving all equally.

Charity is reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need. Reaching into someone else’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man hardly qualifies as charity. When done privately, we deem it theft. When done by a government that has no authority to “spread the wealth” it can surely be termed theft also.

Today. three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. We euphemistically call it “income redistribution”, but that’s exactly what thieves do…redistribute income.

Since I and my fellow people established this government to serve us… and we lack the moral and legal ability to take another’s property, we cannot rightly authorize the government to do so.

As for the particular question at hand (“Is taxation legal?”), your fellow peoples have indeed decided that it is. The decision has been arrived at both popularly (much less than 50% of all people advocate that all taxes be eliminated) and structurally (the US Supreme Court, which is made up of justices who have studied the Constitution much more than you, has ruled that taxation, in general, is constitutional). So if you think the constitution implies that government does not have the authority to levy taxes, one wonders how you came to this conclusion when so many learned people did not see things that way. That is why a flip answer is not sufficient. A much more substantial explanation is clearly called for.

A new question?? “Is taxation legal?”

Yes it is. The Constitution gave congress the power to tax. It is interesting to note that the "Supreme Court, which is made up of justices who have studied the Constitution much more than I, declared that Income Tax was, in fact, UN-constitutional. It took the 16th Amendment to establish Income Tax…and that is pretty scary in itself.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Since it doesn’t say “how much”, I gather that the government has the power to tax our income at 100% if it wants.

Back to the question,…taxation is legal. But Illegal taxation is theft.