Socialism

[ribozyme]

You just answered your own question.

How would you like to be put to the test, to justify your usefulness to society? If you are crippled, sick, or otherwise need care, you die – because it costs more to keep you alive than you contribute to society.

No! But are you talking about Sweden? I am sure they actively kill their unproductive citizens in their communist dystopia with high taxes and socialized medicine. I am sure no one wants to live there. We should all lament that the communist leftist in the United States want to transform the USA into a dystopian nightmare such as Sweden.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I said no mass murder or coerced sterilizations would occur; only abortions, consensual euthanasia, and possibly infanticide.

Those things are mass murder.

 

[ribozyme]

Consider this – in America, Blacks have an average IQ about 15 points below the norm. And Blacks are over-represented in our prisons. They also more likely to carry Sickle Cell Anemia genes. Should they be “purged” from the gene pool? If you follow Sanger’s logic, they would be.

Gee… you are the one who said that not me…

But if you do agree that Blacks have a lower IQ by about a standard deviation of the white mean, it confutes the very premise for your view of social justice.

You think that people can earn a decent living by working and using their talents. Unfortunately, as you have tacitly acknowledged, this view is not congruent with reality.

But you have acknowledged that differences in abilities do unfortunately exist. Since you acknowledge differences between groups, it is plausible to believe that some people do not have the means to help themselves. To acknowledge that is extremely unpleasant. However, it is not easy as it places the responsibility to provide for them to those who can, but I generally do not have faith in human charity. To me, it is like expecting one with Down syndrome to comprehend differential calculus. (best simile I can come up with within a minute)

If you want them to allow them to suffer in this world with no assistance, I do not see how that is moral compared to what Peter Singer advocates.

In liberal, market driven societies, however, eugenics will not be coercively imposed by the state for the collective good. Instead, it will be the outcome of parental choice and the workings of the free market. If it leads to healthier, smarter people with better problem-solving abilities, that will be a good thing. But even if parents make choices that are good for their children, there could be perils as well as blessings.

In the case of sex selection, it is easy to see that couples who independently choose the best for their own child can produce an outcome that makes all their children worse off than they would have been if no one could select the sex of their child. Something similar could happen with other forms of genetic selection. Since above-average height correlates with above-average income, and there is a clearly a genetic component to height, it is not fanciful to imagine couples choosing to have taller children. The outcome could be a genetic “arms race” that leads to taller and taller children, with significant environmental costs in the additional consumption required to fuel larger human beings.

The most alarming implication of this mode of genetic selection, however, is that only the rich will be able to afford it. The gap between rich and poor, already a challenge to our ideas of social justice, will become a chasm that mere equality of opportunity will be powerless to bridge. That is not a future that any of us should approve.

But avoiding this outcome will not be easy, for it will require that selection for genetic enhancement is either available to no one or accessible to everyone. The first option would require coercion, and – since countries will not accept that others should gain a competitive edge – an international agreement to forego the benefits that genetic enhancement can bring. The second option, universal access, would require an unprecedented level of social assistance for the poor, and extraordinarily difficult decisions about what to subsidize.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/200609–.htm

I am willing to bet that Peter Singer advocates the second option; he did not say sterilize people. But it seems that people actually want sterilization because if genetic enhancement to available to everyone it would be expensive. This position would be loathed, not because it is “eugenics,” but because it simply redistributes wealth to the lower classes that desperately need it. Redistributionism (even to rectify inequalities in innate talent and to help create a truly just society) is a greater sin than “eugenics.” I am sure “eugenics” will be accepted by the “fiscal conservatives” if it is available in the free market and results in extreme inequality.

Tell me why do you loathe Singer’s views? That how he would deal with the aforementioned conundrum.

I fear this the most… Let me ask you this question: do you fear the free market? Do you fear it will exacerbate innate inequalities? That was my last post in this thread was about.

Show me how Peter Singer wants to commit genocide or mass sterilizations. Regarding African Americans, he hasn’t received any umbrage from the NAACP. From reading Singer’s literature, he sincerely cares for the poor and wants to rectify inequality, not amplify it.

 

[ribozyme]

Here’s a bit of reality to eviscerate your fantasy expressed in this post:

Anyone can be affluent, as these stories show. All of us (baring those who have disabilities that prevent us from working, or understanding how to deal with money) can become self-supporting. None need rely on the charity of others (again baring those who have disabilities that prevent us from working, or understanding how to deal with money.)

To achieve true social justice, we merely need to inculcate in children the values of work and saving, and an understanding of economics. Everything else needed to end poverty is already in place.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=155776

Life is difficult at the low end of the IQ bell curve (IQ 75 and below), as anthropologists have poignantly documented for mildly retarded adults (e.g., Edgerton, 1993, deinstitutionalized retarded adults; Gazaway, 1969, a low-IQ White Appalachian community; Koegel & Edgerton, 1984, Black inner-city special
education students as adults). This is the “high risk” zone: high risk of failing elementary school, being unmasked as incompetent in daily affairs (making change, reading a letter, filling out a job application, understanding doctors’ instructions, monitoring one’s young children), being cheated by merchants and exploited by friends and relatives, remaining unemployed, dependent, and socially isolated, and “consistently fail[ing] to understand certain important aspects of the world in which they live, and so regularly find[ing] themselves unable to cope with some demands of this world” (Edger-ton, 1993, p. 222). Many eventually lead satisfying lives, but only with the help of a benefactor or strong social support network or only after a long struggle to find a self-affirming social niche.

…

As noted before, they are prohibited from enlisting in the military, and no civilian jobs routinely recruit them. They are increasingly vulnerable-and unemployable-as unskilled jobs disappear.

Life is easier and more stable, but still an “uphill battle” for the next 20% of the bell curve (IQ 76-90). More training and job opportunities are within reach cognitively, but they tend to be the least desirable and least remunerative: production workers, welders, machine operators, custodians, and food service workers. The work is atypically dangerous, physically difficult, and/or performed in unpleasant circumstances (Table 7). Individuals at this level tend not to be competitive for higher level work, in part because its training is relatively difficult for them. Over half are what the military used to call marginal men for purposes of military service (below the 16th percentile). At this IQ level, fewer than half the high school graduates and none of the dropouts meet the military’s minimum AFQT enlistment standards.

udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

How does these people with “least remunerative” jobs afford health care? Yes, I do acknowledge that if health care was “socialized” there would still be inequalities (as Gottfredson argues in another paper), but by encouraging proper use of health care (such as lowering their copays), they would not be detered from using health care.

You fundamental assumption, that almost everyone has the capacity to take care of themselves, is not based in reality. However, your main qualifier of " those who have disabilities that prevent us from working, or understanding how to deal with money" seems to apply to more people than you seem to realize. I am sure you did not expect that proportion to be 25% of people.

You want them to suffer in this world with no assistance

Hyperbole, if you read this, I am sorry… I cannot delete it, but that was written without any ratiocination. (Edit that remark out of my previous post)

I am simply saying that the some people need more assistance and overestimating their abilities will cause more suffering.

 

[jssaxon]

No. The Church is completely against socialism. The level of taxes and spending are prudential judgements that the Church makes no pronouncements on. The obligation to help the poor is a personal responsibility not a societal one.

God Bless

I don’t think you are correct about that. The Church is against Communism, which is atheistic, but supports many Socialistic policies.

 

[milde]

The Church is against Communism, which is atheistic, but supports many Socialistic policies.

Just as I feared. Under what situations does the church support my assets being taken by for or the threat of force and given to others?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But if you do agree that Blacks have a lower IQ by about a standard deviation of the white mean, it confutes the very premise for your view of social justice.

You think that people can earn a decent living by working and using their talents. Unfortunately, as you have tacitly acknowledged, this view is not congruent with reality.

Only if you assume the reason for the difference is biological.

But consider this – in Northern Ireland, Catholics have a lower average IQ than Protestants. But in the Republic, Catholics just as high as Protestants. Which gives us a clue as to why we see this disparity in IQ.

Which in turn tells us what we should do about it – education can have a dramatic effect. Unfortunately, our worst schools are in the poorest districts – which are overwhelmingly minority districts.

The difference between my position on social justice and Singers’ is I don’t want to kill people, I want to educate them. The difference between my position on social justice and the liberals’ is I don’t want to feed and warehouse people, generation after generation, I want to educate them.

 

[ribozyme]

Just as I feared. Under what situations does the church support my assets being taken by for or the threat of force and given to others?

To better people’s lives… (like I said before, extreme redistribution would not work currently, but it is justified in the future to prevent further inequality)

I think Singer would advocate it to prevent any inequalities in the future, or a Gattaca type world would be your utopia with extreme inequality.

Is that what you want? A world with extreme inequality? It would be justified to redistribute resources to prevent that type of world.

Vern, what if the difference is biological? What if?

As I said, it would be extremely difficult to educate them if the differences are innate. It means that those who have the ability to take care of themselves have the responsibility to take care of thos who do not have the capacity. We do not kill or sterilize them as that only increasing suffering.

It is extremely difficult to acknowledge, but it is better than blaming the victim for something that he is not culpable of: his own genotype.

There is no permentent solution to this problem yet, people like milde want to deny people access to the solution because it involves according to Singer:

unprecedented level of social assistance for the poor, and extraordinarily difficult decisions about what to subsidize

An unprecendented level of assistance would require extreme redistribution.

 

[milde]

To better people’s lives…

You can always take from one person who has more and give to another to better someone’s life. The problem is that it’s called stealing. The bible is very clear about the fact that this is wrong.

Just like stealing, people also enjoy drugs, extramarital sex, and all sorts of other activities. You don’t do something just because you like it in the moment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You can always take from one person who has more and give to another to better someone’s life. The problem is that it’s called stealing. The bible is very clear about the fact that this is wrong.

Just like stealing, people also enjoy drugs, extramarital sex, and all sorts of other activities. You don’t do something just because you like it in the moment.

Funny how the do-gooders of this world always want someone else to pay the freight.

In all the posts I’ve seen extolling redistributionism, I have never seen even one post where a redistributionist says he should work harder so as to pay his fair share.

 

[milde]

Funny how the do-gooders of this world always want someone else to pay the freight.

In all the posts I’ve seen extolling redistributionism, I have never seen even one post where a redistributionist says he should work harder so as to pay his fair share.

Exactly. People find a way to justify most any sin they want to commit in an effort to bring the over achievers down to their own level of laziness and general slackness. That’s why capitalism works. Capitalism deals a ruthless blow to people who can’t or won’t create value for others. It’s sounds very Christian to me, so I don’t understand why the church doesn’t preach more about the evils of socialism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You can always take from one person who has more and give to another to better someone’s life. The problem is that it’s called stealing. The bible is very clear about the fact that this is wrong.

Just like stealing, people also enjoy drugs, extramarital sex, and all sorts of other activities. You don’t do something just because you like it in the moment.

Every act of charity benefits two people. Obviously it benefits the recipient, but it also benefits the giver – who gains grace and merit through his gift.

But if the “gift” is extorted by force of law, what then? Does a person gain grace and merit by paying taxes? And if so, do the “rich” – those who pay the most taxes – get more grace and merit than those who pay less, or do not pay taxes at all?

And are not those who could make more (and pay more taxes) but choose not to guilty of being uncharitable?

 

[milde]

That’s a really good question. My wife and I talk about this all the time. We pay far, far more in taxes than most people do. That money gets redistributed and lowers the tax bill of others, obviously.

So this is a serious question: Does the church view this favorably? Have we tithed already??

 

[St_Benedict]

No. The Church is completely against socialism. The level of taxes and spending are prudential judgments that the Church makes no pronouncements on. The obligation to help the poor is a personal responsibility not a societal one.

God Bless

No, the Church is against ‘totalitarian and atheistic’ socialism - there is loads of socialism out there that is neither.

‘Free for all, screw you, I’m ok’ Capitalism is also condemned.

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2425.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a really good question. My wife and I talk about this all the time. We pay far, far more in taxes than most people do. That money gets redistributed and lowers the tax bill of others, obviously.

So this is a serious question: Does the church view this favorably? Have we tithed already??

If you accept the proposition that the government must do what private charity did in the past, the answer must be yes.

At the same time, we must recognize that those who don’t work up to their potential are failing in their duty.

 

[milde]

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2425.htm

All I can discern from this is that the church rejects extremes. Is one to imply that they approve of everything else?? I don’t get it. Someone put this in English please.

 

[St_Benedict]

All I can discern from this is that the church rejects extremes. Is one to imply that they approve of everything else?? I don’t get it. Someone put this in English please.

No, you got it. The Church does not approve any economic system. It only voices it’s disapproval of areas where systems do not conform to Church Teaching.

 

[rlg94086]

All I can discern from this is that the church rejects extremes. Is one to imply that they approve of everything else?? I don’t get it. Someone put this in English please.

Sure…first, here is the excerpt again with some bolding:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it **solely **by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” **Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
**

So, the Church outright rejects totalitarian and atheistic ideologies. Whereas, she has problems with extremes in the “practice” of capitalism - specifically, pure *laissez-faire *capitalism. So, capitalism is preferred, but only with “reasonable regulation…etc.”

 

[St_Benedict]

In Catholic thinking, just as the principle of private ownership is limited by the common destiny of the goods of the earth, so legitimate claims to local self-determination must also be integrated into a wider commitment to the extended family of the whole human race.

The State has a duty to implement distributive justice and communal welfare, but does not have the inner power to touch men’s consciences and call men to heroic charity. In short, the State cannot make saints. Only Christ can do that through his Church.

faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Nov07/Nov07TheChurchAndTheNewWorldOrder.html

 

[St_Benedict]

Labour is men’s humanising gift to the world. We labour when we give what we have and are in order to make the given world better and more meaningful for us. Labour includes paid work, but it also includes the many unpaid labours of love and service. It includes the direct domination of the earth, from farming to factories, but also the efforts required to create and maintain communities, to advance and spread learning and to keep mortal men close to their eternal destiny.

faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Nov07/Nov07ReclaimingEconomicsForChristians.html