What is the role of Government in CST?

[Oscarthecat]

Hey, all-

I would like to know what you think the role of the government is, according to Catholic Social Teaching?

Reading through some of these posts, I can see that there is a pretty wide range of beliefs on the topic, ranging from people that believe that the government has no business existing in the first place, to people that believe the government should manage roads and basic protection services like police and fire, all the way to the other side, where the government should be in charge of everyone’s food, shelter, healthcare, and other basic needs.

I would like to know where people stand on this issue, and how they believe their perspective fits into Catholic Social Teaching.

 

[goofyjim]

The government doesn’t need to be involved in everyone’s food, shelter, healthcare and basic needs. But if they are basic needs, which I believe they are it should be involved in providing them to those who are unable to provide them for themselves. The ill and children without parents to provide for them, for example. OTOH, if someone is just unwilling to work, then they should go without.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Oscarthecat (Felix’s younger brother?),

My stance isn’t really an option in your poll. I believe in a limited safety net:

1. I would be okay with forced retirement withdrawals (similar to SS), but privatized. The individual gets to decide how to invest it. The reason I’m okay with it being forced, is that it will require that people put money away for retirement rather than sitting back and counting on furture government programs. The reason it should be private is that it is their money.
2. I would be okay with a a nationalized medical clinic system for basic care - immunizations, pre-natal, check-ups, minor medical stuff; but, I would prefer the government stay out of hospitals and catastrophic care.
3. I’m all for government-sponsored unemployment insurance, removed from payroll checks, as is typically done. But, I am for limiting welfare to support for the disabled - mentally and physically - to the level that each individual case requires.

BTW…all but your last option are licit roles for government IMO. I don’t think the government should be micro-managing people’s income. It would be a disaster (has been a disaster, when tried).

 

[Pius_IX]

The government shouldnt be involved at all. The greatest prosperity in our history occurred without a welfare state. Sadly, many people here think of the state as one giant charity. In reality, governments are simply a monopoly of force.

I would like to know why every one seems in agreement that is not OK for thieves to steal, but OK for the government to?

 

[rlg94086]

The government shouldnt be involved at all. The greatest prosperity in our history occurred without a welfare state. Sadly, many people here think of the state as one giant charity. In reality, governments are simply a monopoly of force.

I would like to know why every one seems in agreement that is not OK for thieves to steal, but OK for the government to?

Theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you without the owner’s permission. In an elected, representative government, we are giving our permission.

 

[Pius_IX]

Theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you without the owner’s permission. In an elected, representative government, we are giving our permission.

The idea that we are ‘represented’ by any of them is increasingly becoming a farce. A good chunk of the tax revenue is used to fund immoral acts, many acts impermissible under CST.

 

[goofyjim]

The government shouldnt be involved at all. The greatest prosperity in our history occurred without a welfare state. Sadly, many people here think of the state as one giant charity. In reality, governments are simply a monopoly of force.

I would like to know why every one seems in agreement that is not OK for thieves to steal, but OK for the government to?

Are we talking about the roaring twenties whose bubble then burst in 1929?

 

[rlg94086]

The idea that we are ‘represented’ by any of them is increasingly becoming a farce. A good chunk of the tax revenue is used to fund immoral acts, many acts impermissible under CST.

Indeed. But, how is it that they don’t ‘represent’ us, if they keep getting a majority of the votes from the populace? The problem is not with the institution itself, it is with the voting public.

Would you prefer a benevolent dictatorship? If so, how do you propose we keep it benevolent?

 

[Pius_IX]

Are we talking about the roaring twenties whose bubble then burst in 1929

Much of that was caused by the polices of the Federal Reserve Bank. There are of course a couple of different explanations, but the ‘standard’ version is false. (it goes something like this - The relatively laissez-faire policies of Harding/Coolidge CAUSED it) Chicago School economists blame ‘deflation’ of the money supply, but I dont personally agree with that.

 

[Pius_IX]

Would you prefer a benevolent dictatorship? If so, how do you propose we keep it benevolent?

I wasnt proposing anything. Merely stating my thoughts. Taxation levels, by and large, keep getting worse and worse. To be honest, I dont see how the welfare state can continue forever. When we start talking about ‘Universal Health Care’ it makes my head spin.

I know you all have good intentions though. I suppose, to go back more to the original poll question, I would like private charity to replace the government in most areas. We all know the Catholic Church would be much better than the state with efficiency.

 

[Swan]

The government shouldnt be involved at all. The greatest prosperity in our history occurred without a welfare state. Sadly, many people here think of the state as one giant charity. In reality, governments are simply a monopoly of force.

I would like to know why every one seems in agreement that is not OK for thieves to steal, but OK for the government to?

The gilded age was gilded only for a very few. And government was involved, indeed, the deck was stacked in favor of big business and against the little man. We had no worker safety laws, no child laborl laws, no decent housing laws, and as a result the workers were exploited, literally, to death. There was no unemployment insurance, no healtcare…you get the idea. Sure, some made fortunes then but it was generally on the backs of the others who were exploited. Food was often unsafe (ever read “The Jungle”), air and water were filthy. The reason we have the government restrictions we have now is because all these folks thought of was $$$. Since they were so short sighted and greedy, government steeped in to regulate certain areas. Now kids can’t be forced to work until a machine rips their arm off, for example. You can be forced to work with asbestos. We have housing standards and product safety standards. Had the businesses taken care of these things on their own, government would not have needed to respond. But they did not. That is why government has the role it does. I suggest you read a little more about the plight of the urban worker during the gilded age and try to imagine how you would have liked it.

 

[rlg94086]

I wasnt proposing anything. Merely stating my thoughts. Taxation levels, by and large, keep getting worse and worse. To be honest, I dont see how the welfare state can continue forever. When we start talking about ‘Universal Health Care’ it makes my head spin.

I know you all have good intentions though. I suppose, to go back more to the original poll question,** I would like private charity to replace the government in most areas.** We all know the Catholic Church would be much better than the state with efficiency.

That is also my preference. That is why I said “I would be okay with…” rather than “I prefer.” The Church is not specific on government involvement, but it seems pretty clear that a completely laissez faire system would not be licit, just as pure socialism/communism is not licit.

Also, I firmly believe that it would be best if the most local government handles any social program that we decide to institute, so it is actually difficult to give a straight answer when someone just says “government.” City? County? State? National? International?

 

[Pius_IX]

I suggest you read a little more about the plight of the urban worker during the gilded age and try to imagine how you would have liked it

A growing capitalist economy starts off rough, I admit. (See: India, China in the 80s as well). As earnings increase, wages increase. This is the natural free market at work.

I dont agree with much of what you said, however I wont change any minds here I can see.

 

[Pius_IX]

Also, I firmly believe that it would be best if the most local government handles any social program that we decide to institute, so it is actually difficult to give a straight answer when someone just says “government.” City? County? State? National? International?

Good reply. If states (when I say states, I mean governments, not US states) do exist, decision making should be broken down to the lowest possible level. I am a firm believer in Federalism.

 

[Tigg]

Much of that was caused by the polices of the Federal Reserve Bank. There are of course a couple of different explanations, but the ‘standard’ version is false. (it goes something like this - The relatively laissez-faire policies of Harding/Coolidge CAUSED it) Chicago School economists blame ‘deflation’ of the money supply, but I dont personally agree with that.

The Federal Reserve is a cartel of private bankers, many of them international. There is nothing “federal” (meaning governmental) about it. It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people. Congress unconstitutionally gave up its right to coin money. The Fed prints the money (a fiat currency without anything but thin air to back it up), then loans us our own “money” on which we must pay interest. The debt can never be repaid. They then instituted the Federal Income Tax to have funds to collect the interest. Check this all out at:

                     [fdrs.org/banking_history.html](http://www.fdrs.org/banking_history.html)

This was done in the stealth of night back in Wilson’s era. The game continues with most of the American public none the wiser. It is unconstitutional and immoral for they are the original “Robber Barons.” It is also directly linked today with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank and is the reason for almost all of the ills of this country today.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you without the owner’s permission. In an elected, representative government, we are giving our permission.

I would certainly agree here. After all, we all have the option of voting with our feet. There are plenty of countries that have low tax rates that we can move to, so the fact that we are staying when we don’t have to reflects the fact that we are giving our consent to the taxation.

 

[Pius_IX]

The Federal Reserve is a cartel of private bankers, many of them international. There is nothing “federal” (meaning governmental) about it. It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people. Congress unconstitutionally gave up its right to coin money. The Fed prints the money (a fiat currency without anything but thin air to back it up), then loans us our own “money” on which we must pay interest. The debt can never be repaid. They then instituted the Federal Income Tax to have funds to collect the interest. Check this all out at:

fdrs.org/banking_history.html

Oh I know. I was merely stating its name. Even if it were all government-based, I would still oppose the debasing of our currency. I support a full and 100% gold standard. (heck, id settle for a silver standard)

Just another long list of ‘progressive’ evil from Wilson. You’re preaching to the choir my friend!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The gilded age was gilded only for a very few. And government was involved, indeed, the deck was stacked in favor of big business and against the little man. We had no worker safety laws, no child laborl laws, no decent housing laws, and as a result the workers were exploited, literally, to death. There was no unemployment insurance, no healtcare…you get the idea. Sure, some made fortunes then but it was generally on the backs of the others who were exploited. Food was often unsafe (ever read “The Jungle”), air and water were filthy. The reason we have the government restrictions we have now is because all these folks thought of was $$$. Since they were so short sighted and greedy, government steeped in to regulate certain areas. Now kids can’t be forced to work until a machine rips their arm off, for example. You can be forced to work with asbestos. We have housing standards and product safety standards. Had the businesses taken care of these things on their own, government would not have needed to respond. But they did not. That is why government has the role it does. I suggest you read a little more about the plight of the urban worker during the gilded age and try to imagine how you would have liked it.

You are so correct. It is really was an amusing time in some respects. Big Business used two concepts to its advantage and the majority of the public suffered terribly. One, they introduced, via eastern intellectuals the concept of “survival of the fittest” . This idea which has nothing to do with anythng Darwin said, was pasted onto business, and basically said, left alone, the best will survive, meaning business. Then they added the work ethic which impressed upon the poor that anyone could make it if they tried. This gave them the hands off economy they desired and eliminated in them any requirement that they respond to their workers in any way other than use then as fodder. Today, we see that theme resurrected in the elite fundamentalism of the neo-cons who want a free market economy for exactly the same reasons, because it favors big business and assesses no responsibiity on them to society at large. So we have CEO making hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies and their workers lose everything. The rich continue to consolidate all wealth in their hands internationally and that group is shrinking, the middle class is disappearing and the poor working class is growing hugely.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Oh I know. I was merely stating its name. Even if it were all government-based, I would still oppose the debasing of our currency. I support a full and 100% gold standard. (heck, id settle for a silver standard)

Just another long list of ‘progressive’ evil from Wilson. You’re preaching to the choir my friend!

How would you deal with the problem of deflation?

 

[Pius_IX]

Today, we see that theme resurrected in the elite fundamentalism of the neo-cons who want a free market economy for exactly the same reasons, because it favors big business and assesses no responsibiity on them to society at large

bzzzt wrong! ‘Neocons’ (often misused) are almost all Keynesians, like you seem to be. They all support the New Deal, the Great Society, and just about every other big government program.

Very few mainstream groups favor a true free market, as I do. Do you really think Neocons (this would be those who write for the Weekly Standard, and not National Review) would get rid of OSHA? How about the FDIC?

‘Big Business’ is only evil when it starts to engage in corporatism. Simply being ‘Big’ (IE productive) is not evil.