Vermont poised to elect America's first socialist senator

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeWM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
… It is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. - Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum 15b.
 
b_justb said:
… It is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. - Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum 15b.
Click to expand...
Unfrotunatley far too many “Catholics” ignore the Church’s teachings when it intertferes with their pooitcal views.
 
estesbob said:
How can a person who aids in killing our children EVER be considered a excellent Senator???
Click to expand...
A Senator is involved in many issues and providing services to his constituents. He may not satisfy some constituents in what he does on issues important to them. That doesn’t make necessarily make him less than excellent overall - except to those people on those issues.
 
b_justb said:
… It is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. - Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum 15b.
Click to expand...
As far as that possible Senator is concerned, it depends what he means by socialism.

We have a lot of people on this Forum who call themselves conservatives, but what “conservative” means to each poster would not always be the same.

BTW, there are Catholic religious orders that practice community of goods and eschew private property. It just depends on the circumstances.
 
b_justb said:
… It is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. - Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum 15b.
Click to expand...
Yes. I already told people to go and read Rerum Novarum (but do have a look at Populorum Progressivo at the same time, just for clarification).

The ‘problem’ in that paragraph is the inequitability of pure capitalism. Atheistic socialism which involved the abolition of all private property would indeed be a problem, as this says. But very few socialists believe in the abolition of all private property, certainly nowadays. They have historically been far more concerned with the ownership of the means of production and the redistribution of income and equality of opportunity, rather than abolishing property, primarily because it makes more sense to do so.

Very few people who call themselves outright capitalists would advocate refusing medical treatment or an education to someone who really couldn’t afford to pay for it, thank goodness. So labels are all very well to a point, but we have to be careful what we do with them.

Britain had a true socialist government in the late 1940s, and yet we still had private property. Sweden has had one for most of the last 70 years, and yet their economy is one of the best in the world - with private property.

Mike
 
Richardols said:
BTW, there are Catholic religious orders that practice community of goods and eschew private property. It just depends on the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Yes. They are following the example of the early Christians described in Acts. Good for them! Unfortunately I feel too much of a tie to personal possessions to do similar, but often I do envy them (usually when having to move house, as I’m doing next month :eek:

Mike
 
Richardols said:
A Senator is involved in many issues and providing services to his constituents. He may not satisfy some constituents in what he does on issues important to them. That doesn’t make necessarily make him less than excellent overall - except to those people on those issues.
Click to expand...
So its ok if he kills a few of constituents as long as his other political views are in line with yours ?
 
estesbob said:
So its ok if kills a few of constituents as long as his other political views are in line with yours ?
Click to expand...
I think the authorities wouldn’t be able to show a blind eye to it if he were to kill a few constituents, even those who might have deserved it for not having voted for him.
 
Richardols said:
I think the authorities wouldn’t be able to show a blind eye to it if he were to kill a few constituents, even those who might have deserved it for not having voted for him.
Click to expand...
Not only do authorites turn a blind eye but far too many “catholics” do also.
 
Richardols said:
As far as that possible Senator is concerned, it depends what he means by socialism.

We have a lot of people on this Forum who call themselves conservatives, but what “conservative” means to each poster would not always be the same.

BTW, there are Catholic religious orders that practice community of goods and eschew private property. It just depends on the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Rerum Novarum deals directly with the relationships between State and Citizen; Worker and Manager, not with religious vocations or religious orders.

Here is Bernie Sander’s site for info on him and his ideas.
 
b_justb said:
Rerum Novarum deals directly with the relationships between State and Citizen; Worker and Manager, not with religious vocations or religious orders.
Click to expand...
Fine, but in light of what Mike WM posted and what we know of “socialism,” it really depends on how one defines socialism. There are more than a few people on the right who believe that the United States is already a socialist state, and some on the left who wish that it were.
 
MikeWM said:
Code: 
Britain had a true socialist government in the late 1940s, and yet we still had private property.  Sweden has had one for most of the last 70 years, and yet their economy is one of the best in the world - with private property.

Mike
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Margaret Thatcher the PM who dismantled most of Briton’s socialist structure? I seem to remember her privatising a lot of businesses. I had a 1961 MG model A 1600. Great looking car and could pass most anything on the road except a mechanic’s shop. I would love to have it now that I can afford the repair bills, just to drive on weekends.🙂
 
Richardols said:
Good for Vermont! It’s in keeping with the spirit of that very independent people in the Green Mountain State.
Click to expand...
I always thought that the very independent people lived in New Hampshire.

Vermonters seem to be big-government people.
 
Al_Masetti said:
I always thought that the very independent people lived in New Hampshire.

Vermonters seem to be big-government people.
Click to expand...
Have you been to Montpelier? Have you driven through Vermont? Nothing there that smacks of big government that I ever saw. It’s a pretty dinky, though lovely, state.

But, I can agree that the people in both states are pretty independent.

(Just consider Vermont’s attitude towards firearms. The gunlovers would appreciate that no paperwork, no permits, nothing is required to carried a concealed handgun. How is that for independent? Even Texas, the gun fanatics’ paradise, requires paperwork to carry a piece.)
 
Lance said:
Wasn’t Margaret Thatcher the PM who dismantled most of Briton’s socialist structure? I seem to remember her privatising a lot of businesses.
Click to expand...
Yes. She broke what we called the ‘post-war consensus’ (though it was already getting a bit strained), where there was broad agreement on the main issues, whatever party was in power.

You may guess I’m not exactly a fan of Mrs Thatcher 😛 But then I’m from Liverpool, and it would be hard to find many people who grew up in Liverpool in the 1980s who are fans of Mrs Thatcher 😉
I had a 1961 MG model A 1600. Great looking car and could pass most anything on the road except a mechanic’s shop. I would love to have it now that I can afford the repair bills, just to drive on weekends.🙂
Click to expand...
Unfortunately MG-Rover hasn’t faired too well nowadays. It recently went bust (after nearly going bust 5 years ago) and got bought by the Chinese 😦

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top