What is the Societies' responsibility in dealing with world poverty?

[Robert_Sock]

I’m not doing that. And I still see no one particular group being oppressed. I see the general population being oppressed by democratic secular government.

So the extreme poverty in the world is not due to oppression by the capitalists?

How is the general population being oppressed by democratic secular government?

 

[Jozefo]

So the extreme poverty in the world is not due to oppression by the capitalists?

How is the general population being oppressed by democratic secular government?

No, not capitalists. Just plain ol’ greedy people. What economic system they use doesn’t matter, because under any economic system people can be oppressed. Also, socialism is incompatible with Christianity, and only capitalism comes remotely close to just and fair commerce.

As to the general population being oppressed, it’s democracy itself that perpetuates it. There’s a reason why the kingdom of heaven isn’t called the People’s Republic of Heaven.

 

[Ridgerunner]

With all due respect, that’s not what you said in your original posting. But anyway, now I’m understanding you to say that if someone is homeless and not by choice, they are being oppressed.

Now I’m wondering who you think is oppressing the poor and homeless.

Mr. Sock can answer for himself, but here is my contribution.

For some of the poor, their condition is oppressing them, e.g., the developmentally disabled. Such people, who cannot help themselves, can only be afforded a decent life through the intervention of other people. Presently, the “other people” are the states, with some funding from the federal government. Possibly the states are the most proximate level of effective aid, and one is inclined to think it likely.

The “homeless” are not a distinct group as, say, the severely developmentally disabled are. Some people are homeless because they are insane. Such people are remarkably refractory to useful intervention because of governmental limitations (generally the courts) on impinging on their freedom. Such limitations seem quite inhumane to me, and I am inclined to conclude that the “oppressors” of such people are the courts and those politicians who follow the logic of the courts.

Other “homeless” people are only temporarily without homes, largely because of financial mishap. Sometimes the mishaps are of their own making, sometimes not. While it varies, it is difficult not to conclude that the present “oppressor” of most such people is the federal government which resolutely discourages hiring in many ways. The ongoing defection of people of working age from the work force despite the potential of this economy testifies to that.

And it isn’t only in discouraging what we think of as ordinary hiring that the government can be, and often is, the “oppressor” of poor people. Within human memory of people now living, it was possible for people in need of personal labor to hire those who could provide it without governmental intervention that makes it nearly impossible. Years ago, I was involved in appraising houses, and it’s surprising how many old homes had provision for “live in” domestics, and not just the homes of obviously wealthy people. (One telltale sign was the difficult to totally erase evidences of a kitchen stairway leading to what was once a separated room upstairs.) Before accusing me of racism, let me inform you that there were no minorities anywhere around here at all for generations. The domestics were white, and of the same general backgrounds as their employers. Very few people can hire domestic help now other than very occasional help and, irony of ironies, Obamacare made even occasional help more difficult to hire by requiring that persons who pay any one person more than $600 in a calendar year file a 1099 on that person (those persons) and keep records on it for years.

The same was true of farms. Many, many farmers had “hired hands” who lived on premises, largely shared meals with the farmer’s family and received bed, board and some salary. Almost none do now because one must pay withholding on the value of the bed, board and food as well as the salary.

So, again, to the extent the people who formerly worked in those conditions are homeless, the “oppressor” is, again, the governments, both federal and state.

Finally, we need to ask about those who are simply better off than most. Are they “oppressors”? Undoubtedly some are, but as a group or class are they? Certainly, some contribute to causes that aid those who are homeless. But in an economic environment in which the combined taxation of federal, state and local authorities takes up to slightly more than half their income, can it truly be said that they are “oppressors” who give up half their income or nearly so to a government that promises to take care of the needy but largely doesn’t?

It has often been speculated here on CAF whether individuals would be sufficiently generous to provide for the needy if government did not take so much of their earnings. We don’t know the answer to that, and aren’t likely to learn anytime soon because the government is not about to lower any taxes that truly matter, but seeks to raise them, largely for “middle class welfare”, i.e., buying the votes of those who actually can take care of themselves. In my mind, “Cash for Clunkers” has to be “Exhibit A” for that proposition.

 

[Jozefo]

@Ridgerunner

I agree that if there is oppression it’s coming from government, which in the US is democratically selected by a very small group of people.

I know it’s a popular notion though, to beg government for help with poor and homeless people, or beg it to stop its oppression.

In either case, it shouldn’t matter to the Christian, in my opinion. Their citizenship is supposed to be in heaven, and not subject to the 14th Amendment.

The Sermon on the Mount is very clear. It lays out the proper order of society, and people’s obligations and benefits to being citizens in the kingdom.

 

[jmcrae]

I never said that the government needs to cater to anyone in particular, but to cater to the basic needs of groups of individuals, such as the homeless and the elderly.

Charity, in the sense of making people dependent on hand-outs, is only a temporary solution.

The permanent solution is to create a society in which jobs are readily available to people with an ordinary education.

In the current economic climate, the only family-friendly jobs are available to those who have multiple Ph. D.s But unless we are going to support education through to the Ph. D. level, this isn’t a viable system for the majority of ordinary people.

For those without Ph. D.s the options are entrepreneurship (risky if you have no capital) and temporary “McJobs” that can sustain them in meagre conditions from paycheque to paycheque, but won’t provide enough for a family.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Charity, in the sense of making people dependent on hand-outs, is only a temporary solution.

The permanent solution is to create a society in which jobs are readily available to people with an ordinary education.

In the current economic climate, the only family-friendly jobs are available to those who have multiple Ph. D.s But unless we are going to support education through to the Ph. D. level, this isn’t a viable system for the majority of ordinary people.

For those without Ph. D.s the options are entrepreneurship (risky if you have no capital) and temporary “McJobs” that can sustain them in meagre conditions from paycheque to paycheque, but won’t provide enough for a family.

But many of the homeless are unable to work due to mental or physical handicaps.

 

[Robert_Sock]

No, not capitalists. Just plain ol’ greedy people. What economic system they use doesn’t matter, because under any economic system people can be oppressed. Also, socialism is incompatible with Christianity, and only capitalism comes remotely close to just and fair commerce.

As to the general population being oppressed, it’s democracy itself that perpetuates it. There’s a reason why the kingdom of heaven isn’t called the People’s Republic of Heaven.

A government that provides subsidies to the poor can still be capitalistic. Again, when our capitalistic system oppresses people, it’s time for the government to step in and rectify the the injustice.

 

[markomalley]

How should government implement humanitarian values within very greedy societies if not through subsidies?

I personally believe that when charity is lacking, we must look to government to provide those subsidies. Should we, as Catholics, just let the poverty to continue and look the other way?

1. These general observations also apply to the *role of the State in the economic sector. *Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise *a substitute function, *when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus
​

 

[ahollars]

When he sees the luxurious residence or the charming country house of a wealthy person, a poor workingman often asks himself: “Why is there such inequality in the world?”

How many volumes have been written about equality among men! How much blood has been spilled for this idea! And yet, in spite of it all, we still have the rich and the poor…

Let us imagine that one day all the inhabitants of the world would assemble to put into effect this sharing of all goods; and that in fact each person, granted that the world is very big, received an exactly equal portion of the wealth existing on earth.

Then what? That very evening one man might say, “Today I worked hard: now I am going to take rest.” Another might state, “I understand this sharing of goods well; so let’s drink and celebrate such an extraordinary happening.” On the other hand, another might say, “Now I am going to set to work with a will so as to reap the greatest benefit I can from what I have received.” And so, starting on the next day, the first man would have only the amount given him; the second would have less, and the third would have increased his.

Then what do we do? Start redistributing the wealth all over again?

Even if everybody began to work right away with all his might and at the same time, the results would not be identical for all. There are, in fact, different kinds of work which are unequally productive; nor do all workers enjoy the same identical capacities. This leads to a diversity of results achieved, and consequently to differences in people’s profits.

~Saint Maximilian Kolbe~

 

[Ridgerunner]

A government that provides subsidies to the poor can still be capitalistic. Again, when our capitalistic system oppresses people, it’s time for the government to step in and rectify the the injustice.

And when, as now, the government oppresses people, who steps in?

 

[Jozefo]

A government that provides subsidies to the poor can still be capitalistic. Again, when our capitalistic system oppresses people, it’s time for the government to step in and rectify the the injustice.

A government is comprised of people. A capitalistic system is comprised of, and is operated by people. These two institutions are inhabited by people. So when you say a system is oppressing people, you’re really saying that one group of people is oppressing another group of people. And when you say it’s time for the government to step in and save people from being oppressed, you’re really saying that the government people ought to save the oppressed people from the capitalist people.

Since we’re really dealing with people in every aspect of this economy you’ve presented, and in order for the oppressed to be saved they must wait on the government, then what you’re really advocating is another group of people occupying the government than the one in power in the world today. And supposedly this new savior group of people would dismantle the capitalist system in favor of something else.

Now this raises a question: what other system would you have the savior institute? And how would it be any less oppressive than the one currently in place?

 

[Robert_Sock]

A government is comprised of people. A capitalistic system is comprised of, and is operated by people. These two institutions are inhabited by people. So when you say a system is oppressing people, you’re really saying that one group of people is oppressing another group of people. And when you say it’s time for the government to step in and save people from being oppressed, you’re really saying that the government people ought to save the oppressed people from the capitalist people.

Since we’re really dealing with people in every aspect of this economy you’ve presented, and in order for the oppressed to be saved they must wait on the government, then what you’re really advocating is another group of people occupying the government than the one in power in the world today. And supposedly this new savior group of people would dismantle the capitalist system in favor of something else.

Now this raises a question: what other system would you have the savior institute? And how would it be any less oppressive than the one currently in place?

Again, what I’m saying is that when charity does not come close to ending extreme poverty in a greedy society, the government is bound to step in and provide subsidies. There may indeed be better systems of government that care for those in poverty, but discussing this was not the direct purpose of this thread.

 

[Jozefo]

Again, what I’m saying is that when charity does not come close to ending extreme poverty in a greedy society, the government is bound to step in and provide subsidies. There may indeed be better systems of government that care for those in poverty, but discussing this was not the direct purpose of this thread.

I think then you need to prove your case. You say the government is bound. By what authority?

Society is just another word for a group of people. People form just societies by consent. So by what authority can government step in and do what you say needs to be done, without first having the consent of the governed?

If the purpose of the thread was to point out that greed is bad, I doubt there would be any disagreement here. That is a self evident truth.

 

[Borealis]

Our very greedy society. Government has an obligation to cater to the needs of the homeless just like it’s obligated to cater to the basic needs of all its citizens, like the elderly.

Why is that the first instinct of so many people, Catholic or otherwise? The government has no obligation to cater to the needs of anyone beyond ensuring that your basic, God-given (not state-given) rights are maintained. By taking obligations upon itself that are not part of its mandate, the government grows itself, gets bloated, and eventually demands more and more like a bottomless money pit, which ends up interfering with EVERYONE’s rights to look out for their own interests and live their lives as they choose within the moral structure granted by God.

The government has abrogated rights to itself that it should never have had, then claims that it is doing so out of necessity, then further imposes taxes on people to support its unnecessary responsibilities. Eventually, you end up with the multi-headed bureaucratic monsters we see all over the world today.

Social justice does not come from government; it comes from people listening to God’s commands and obeying them to the fullest of their ability. Government is incapable of putting the needs of others first. Individuals are capable of doing just that, and the Church’s mission is exactly that. So why turn to an uncaring, unfeeling bureaucracy instead of looking to God?

The American Founding Fathers thought exactly the same way; they repeatedly warned about the dangers of government, and did everything they could to minimize the impact the federal government would have. For a long time, they succeeded; about a century ago, the pillars began to crumble, until we find ourselves in the situation we have today, where people are demanding that the government save everyone. Washington, Franklin, Adams, and the rest knew very well that the government can’t save anyone without stepping on other people’s rights to do so. It’s a shame people don’t listen to them today.

If you see a need in the community, then step up yourself and start helping; if you can’t, then help the Church help those people. The government will never truly help people, because the system isn’t built to do so.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think then you need to prove your case. You say the government is bound. By what authority?

Society is just another word for a group of people. People form just societies by consent. So by what authority can government step in and do what you say needs to be done, without first having the consent of the governed?

If the purpose of the thread was to point out that greed is bad, I doubt there would be any disagreement here. That is a self evident truth.

Government is bound to take action for the welfare of all people. It’s a moral code. For us Catholics, it’s alluded to in the Holy Bible, such as in Matthew 25:31-46.

 

[Borealis]

A government that provides subsidies to the poor can still be capitalistic. Again, when our capitalistic system oppresses people, it’s time for the government to step in and rectify the the injustice.

As Ridgerunner so excellently explained, more often than not it is the government doing the oppressing. Free markets don’t oppress people anywhere close to the level that socialist communities do. A simple review of history will prove that. So when is it time for someone else to step in and rectify the injustices imposed by the government, and who is going to step in?

You can’t go to the cause of the problem and expect that same cause to be the solution, anymore than you would pour gasoline on a fire expecting it to be extinguished.

 

[Borealis]

Again, what I’m saying is that when charity does not come close to ending extreme poverty in a greedy society, the government is bound to step in and provide subsidies. There may indeed be better systems of government that care for those in poverty, but discussing this was not the direct purpose of this thread.

Subsidies are the biggest reason that poverty is increasing. When you are handed a thousand dollars, you no longer need to work to earn that thousand dollars. When someone starts handing you a thousand dollars every month, that disinclination to work becomes habitual. And so someone else is going to have to work harder to earn that thousand dollars to hand over to the person who expects it to be given to him on a monthly basis. That’s a thousand dollars that the earning person won’t have to support his own family, or pay off his own debts, or spend lavishly to treat his wife to a much-needed vacation, or whatever.

The War on Poverty began in 1965 or so; since then, poverty is far greater than it was, in spite of all the opportunities society has to offer to those who truly want to improve their lives. I find it impossible to believe that in a technological society such as ours, where online entrepreneurship is increasing exponentially, and the potential for growth is limited only by the size of the planet (and soon not even that), that subsidies are so desperately needed by so many millions of people because not a single one of them can get off the couch long enough to make an honest effort.

Frankly, if the governments of the world got out of the charity business altogether, the Catholic Church would be able to handle the greatly-diminished numbers of those who genuinely need charitable help.

 

[Borealis]

Government is bound to take action for the welfare of all people. It’s a moral code. For us Catholics, it’s alluded to in the Holy Bible, such as in Matthew 25:31-46.

Someone quoted those very verses earlier in this thread. Oh, wait…it was you.

Please point out the part of the passage that refers to the government taking action. Because every time I read it, I keep seeing the same thing over and over and over again: Take responsibility for your own actions, and step up to the plate to help those in need yourself. Nowhere does Jesus tell us to let the government take care of them.

Frankly, the only government that I would trust to actually live up to the responsibility of providing charitable aid would be the one based in the Vatican. Any other government entity cannot be trusted.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Why is that the first instinct of so many people, Catholic or otherwise? The government has no obligation to cater to the needs of anyone beyond ensuring that your basic, God-given (not state-given) rights are maintained. By taking obligations upon itself that are not part of its mandate, the government grows itself, gets bloated, and eventually demands more and more like a bottomless money pit, which ends up interfering with EVERYONE’s rights to look out for their own interests and live their lives as they choose within the moral structure granted by God.

The government has abrogated rights to itself that it should never have had, then claims that it is doing so out of necessity, then further imposes taxes on people to support its unnecessary responsibilities. Eventually, you end up with the multi-headed bureaucratic monsters we see all over the world today.

Social justice does not come from government; it comes from people listening to God’s commands and obeying them to the fullest of their ability. Government is incapable of putting the needs of others first. Individuals are capable of doing just that, and the Church’s mission is exactly that. So why turn to an uncaring, unfeeling bureaucracy instead of looking to God?

The American Founding Fathers thought exactly the same way; they repeatedly warned about the dangers of government, and did everything they could to minimize the impact the federal government would have. For a long time, they succeeded; about a century ago, the pillars began to crumble, until we find ourselves in the situation we have today, where people are demanding that the government save everyone. Washington, Franklin, Adams, and the rest knew very well that the government can’t save anyone without stepping on other people’s rights to do so. It’s a shame people don’t listen to them today.

If you see a need in the community, then step up yourself and start helping; if you can’t, then help the Church help those people. The government will never truly help people, because the system isn’t built to do so.

To the degree that we are one nation under God, it would seem that we are to follow His decrees. Who said that the role of government ought to be directed to just ensuring people’s rights? No, government must have a humanitarian quality to it and care for the basic needs of people who cannot fend for themselves. It has to do with government’s moral obligations to stop the senseless oppression and marginalization.

 

[Borealis]

To the degree that we are one nation under God, it would seem that we are to follow His decrees. Who said that the role of government ought to be directed to just ensuring people’s rights? No, government must have a humanitarian quality to it and care for the basic needs of people who cannot fend for themselves. It has to do with government’s moral obligations to stop the senseless oppression and marginalization.

And what happens when the government not only forfeits those moral obligations, but actively contributes to the senseless oppression and marginalization you speak of? You don’t solve a problem by making it worse.

The solution is simple: take personal responsibility, don’t rely on someone else to do it for you. That applies not only to your own life, but to the suffering you see in the world as well. Do something about it yourself, whether it be large or small. If enough people were to do this, the government’s role would be superfluous.