Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
Anarchy is mob rule. I think you are making up definitions. Arguing terms accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...
Under a democracy, 51 percent can vote to take away the freedoms of the 49 percent. That is mob rule. Anarchists believe in peaceful cohabitation and voluntary associations. They don’t want to rule. They want just the opposite. How do you possibly get mob rule out of that? And just for the record, I’m not an anarchist, but I think anarchy is a better model than democracy, by far.
pnewton said:
That explains a lot.
Click to expand...
What does it explain? That I don’t like presidents who defile the Constitution?
 
Lemuel said:
Haha. Good one. Lincoln had little regard for the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Except what I said is true. The country wouldn’t be a country today if not for Lincoln, regardless of his regard for the Constitution; therefore, our Constitution would have been promptly thrown out after the successful succession of the South.
 
Lemuel said:
So his disregard for the Constitution is what saved it?

Strange …
Click to expand...
If the country was no longer a country, then how would the Constitution be followed by a non-existent country? Lincoln held the Union together. The Union continued with the Constitution after Lincoln’s death.

If Lincoln did not hold the Union together, then there wouldn’t have been a Union to use the Constitution. Pretty simple logic.
 
The country could continue to be a country with fewer states. That’s a no-brainer. The Confederate States of America had their own Constitution.
 
Lemuel said:
The country could continue to be a country with fewer states. That’s a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
If any state could dissolve it’s connection to the Union on a whim [as the South did], there wouldn’t be much of a Union. And it definitely would not have lasted in any meaningful fashion against the still more powerful European powers.
 
And if any state is forced into the confederation, it’s no longer a union. It was well understood by the founders that being part of, or not being part of the Union was the right of the sovereign states.
 
Lemuel said:
And if any state is forced into the confederation, it’s no longer a union. It was well understood by the founders that being part of, or not being part of the Union was the right of the sovereign states.
Click to expand...
At the time of joining the Union. The Constitution is unclear about any “exit” policy.
 
Lemuel said:
The founders clearly approved of an exit policy. Just ask the British 😎
Click to expand...
Sadly, none of us can know what any of the Founders would have thought about the Civil War (although many did certainly predict it at some level). For example, I’m not sure of George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would have fought to preserve the Union or let it dissolve. Considering how much effort they put into keeping the Union together and that many of them also wanted to see the end of slavery, it’d make sense for them to be on the blue side of the war. But perhaps they would see the Federals as tyrants at that point and support the South. Hard to say.
 
Last edited:
If I were to guess, Washington and Jefferson would have allowed it and Adams would have been more likely to do what Lincoln did.
 
Spyridon said:
If I’m starving to death I’m not going to sit in my house and pray supposing God to miraculously provide victuals.

I’m going to go find food among men.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but “finding food among men” could be handled quite differently depending upon what you mean by it. If you mean look for someone to gift you with food, that is quite a different enterprise than finding creative ways to produce food for yourself and others. I would argue the second option should always be what we do. The first option only in extreme necessity when all other avenues are unavailable.
 
HarryStotle said:
Perhaps, but “finding food among men” could be handled quite differently depending upon what you mean by it. If you mean look for someone to gift you with food, that is quite a different enterprise than finding creative ways to produce food for yourself and others. I would argue the second option should always be what we do. The first option only in extreme necessity when all other avenues are unavailable.
Click to expand...
Or the third option which I hear many Catholics say:

Steal it from someone who has enough food.
 
Yep, there is no trickle when the rich man shovels more of his cash into an off-shore tax haven (because for the wealthy there is only so much more consumption they can practice, whereas for the poor almost all of extra cash goes into consumption and back into the economy); but there is I suppose what you might describe as a slight trickle going into the pockets of American workers when the rich man buys an extra Rolls or Ferrari or Porsche. A slight trickle.
 
Lemuel said:
What does it explain? That I don’t like presidents who defile the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Picking the worst as one who worked in concert with Catholic social justice in helping the poor and needy instead of those who promoted nepotism and self-interest; picking one who started ended slaver over those who owned and oppressed their fellow many, explains a lot of your comments. As much as I admire the Constiution as a great historical work, incredible for the time it was written, it doesn’t hold a candle to Catholic teaching both in terms of depth and longevity. This is why nationalism is to be condemned.

I remind you that this is a Catholic website. It must be expected that Catholic teaching, drawn directly from Scripture, is going to be defended, and the doctrine of social justice is just as much a pro-life issue as those issues cherry-picked by those who place their wants above what God wants, whether the false idol be money, guns, race or America exceptionalism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top