Where are the humanitarian values within capitalism?

[Khalid]

Capitalism “with a heart” and “soft socialism” are about the same. I think Hilaire Belloc realized this - that communism, capitalism, and socialism all have so much baggage attached to the words - that he coined the name “distributism”.

For me, the government needs to be involved because nothing is worse in history than when the Church becomes a social-justice machine distracted from the eternal - look at liberation theology, the social gospel, etc. The government has its duty to supervise temporal welfare; the Church has as its duty to supervise spiritual welfare.

Now, as I’ve mentioned, the government, as is, is corrupt, and as one poster keeps pointed out, utterly godless. But this does not mean that this is a definition of government; it is a perversion of it. The Church has been exceedingly corrupt at many points in its history, and has pockets of corruption at all times, as do all human organizations: but this is not a definition of the Church, it is a perversion of it (read Jacques Maritan, The Church of Christ: Her Person and Her Personnel).

Nothing human can be perfect; but that is no reason to try and foist responsibilities of one more-corrupt organization on to another less-corrupt organization that should not be handling them. As for charity and “straight capitalism”, think thus: if even 1/50 of the poor in America alone relied solely on charity, they would all die of starvation and exposure. People are greedy. Even the best Christians. Even Catholics. As would the other 49/50s of them. The small amount that survived would have no concept of stability in their lives - socialistic safety nets at least provide that much, the government guarantee that the same check will come the next month as it did this one.

For charity to work, we would need 100% of the country to consistently give away 15-20% of their income to a centralized organization that could “spread it out”, and distribute from areas of higher income to lower income, so that the office running corporal works of mercy in Bridgeport, Connecticut (very wealthy) would be able to help those in Detroit, Michigan (poor), so that the poor could live at not even a subsistence level - no healthcare - but so they could eat, at least. This is starting to look a whole lot like mandatory taxation and government social safety nets.

I’ll stop before I come to why monarchy is the best and most natural form of government and get this thread closed down due to a riot.

 

[Edward_H]

Properly implemented, capitalism creates the greatest surplus value, which when combined with virtuous people, yields the greatest effective charity. No need for government handouts. The problem is the government consistently fails to encourage virtue.

As the size of the government increases its antivirtuous tendencies create ever greater problems.

 

[Khalid]

The problem is original sin - there can be no such thing as even an inconsistently virtuous people. Indeed, I respond that there can only be a consistently selfish and greedy people. There can be a consistently virtuous person - that is, a Saint - but there is no way to keep, say, the bottom 15% of society (the truly poor, unemployable, disabled, whatever have you) from starving from hunger without government redistribution of wealth. No amount of charity will ever issue forth from the heart of fallen humanity in proportion even approaching one part in one thousand of what is needed to keep these people from death by starvation, let alone death by exposure.

The government, no matter how hard it tried, could never encourage even a thousandths’ part enough or consistent virtue - nor could the Church. But the government could compel the performance of virtue (at which point it is no longer morally virtuous, but has the same effect on the world nonetheless), which is what I have been advocating: compelled virtue = taxation and middle-minor (currently in the USA: preferably middle-moderate, say, around 1.8-2.4x as much wealth as is currently redistributed) redistribution of wealth.

Or Anarcho-capitalism, which, in theory, could work. (We are already moving, by inches out of miles, in the direction of Anarcho-capitalism, especially as it pertains to defense and prison.) It has little to do with anarchy, but involves disestablishing the government and putting all “government services” in the private sector, open to market forces. (Murray Rothbard defined Anarcho-capitalism as simply as “breaking the government’s monopoly on legal use of force”, and I believe this to be a legitimate definition.) In the final analysis, this still would rely on taxation and redistribution of wealth, it would be only that a [likely much-more efficient] private-sector organization would be doing it, instead of a centralized government. It would be a major change in government, but social services would remain much similar, if society didn’t schism and fragment in to an increasing multiplicity of corporate enclaves, as portrayed in The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.

Wikipedia has an article on Anarcho-capitalism, but the last time I checked it was really bad, factually erroneous, and misleading. If you want to learn about it, read Murray Rothbard (although he did not use the term “Anarcho-capitalism”, correctly believing it to be very misleading, he is the intellectual father of the theory). Actually, they have a (poor, but not factually incorrect) summary of some of his ideas on his biography: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Ethical_and_political_views

It has nothing to do with anarchy qua anarchy, but views the government as a corporation (it is), and sees the only difference between this corporation and other corporations is that it has a monopoly on the legal use of force, which allows it to become extremely bloated and inefficient, and immune to the corrective effects of the market. Anarcho-capitalists define the remedy as breaking the monopoly - as monopolies are not conducive to market forces (disregarding natural monopolies for the moment). Everything else - privatized everything, fracturing of corporate enclave-nationalities each designed to cater to the sensibilities and tastes of its shareholders* - follows from this breaking of the monopoly on legal use of force.

*Such as, a Muslim-corporate enclave where the Shariah is fully enforced; a Homosexual enclave; a Marijuana-smoker enclave; hundreds of different Philosophical enclaves; an Evolutionist-Materialist enclave; several Hard-drug enclaves; a Mormon enclave; a (or several) Catholic enclave(s); hundreds of varying Christian enclaves; even a Steampunk enclave, or a Victorian one, or one based on the Middle Kingdom, or Soviet Russia, etc., each directly answerable to the people it governs - the shareholder-residents - and each one fully and completely sovereign. Some theorists believe that such a thorough disintegration of society (insofar as the fragmentation I’ve spoken of) can be avoided, and a modern kind of nation-state merely privatized; I believe human nature, market forces, and logic militate against such a conclusion, with thousands of different enclaves of like-minded people being the end result. (Notably, this, by removing dissent and stifling discourse between those disagreed, it would impoverish innovation, learning, maturation, etc. - it would impoverish culture in the widest sense greatly.)

Of course, I believe this is a terrible solution. I support a (by definition, highly-centralized) monarchical government, but one, ironically, less centralized than today; monarchy today could be immanent at all places due to the speed of communication and technology. But, ideally, powers would be delegated, so on and so forth, much as at the height of the British monarchy around the time of the Personal Rule. The monarchy survived not on taxation, but on revenues of private holdings of the monarch; in order to raise an army, taxes were levied, etc.; today, in the era of standing mega-armies, this would need to be adapted, but I still believe it to be the closest to an ideal form of government mankind can achieve. (I’d even put it all under the Pope if such a thing was possible: as Leo XIII correctly wrote, separation of Church and state is heresy.)

There is one God in heaven who rules over all, spiritual and temporal; so should there be one man on earth who rules over all, spiritual and temporal. Failing that, there should be one man on earth who rules over all temporal, and another man who rules over all spiritual. Of course, powers could be delegated, &c.

 

[epan]

The first clear exposition of the problem, which I am aware of is in gulliver’s travels. In the land of the houyhnhnm’s, there was the problem of the immortals amassing all the fortune of society over time. Swift was pointing out the problem. I don’t have an answer. It’s beyond my pay grade. But I am in good company, since Benedict XVI also sees the problem, and speaks out about it.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How is it exploitation when people voluntarily for those wages and voluntarily bubuy their products?

Exploitation = slavery and low morale. In a capitalistic system, people at the lower end of the spectrum get exploited. It’s built into capitalism. And people with the money are cursed with greed, power and prestige.

 

[Nimzovik]

Really? And the exploitation by Socialists is what, pray tell.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Capitalism “with a heart” and “soft socialism” are about the same. I think Hilaire Belloc realized this - that communism, capitalism, and socialism all have so much baggage attached to the words - that he coined the name “distributism”.

For me, the government needs to be involved because nothing is worse in history than when the Church becomes a social-justice machine distracted from the eternal - look at liberation theology, the social gospel, etc. The government has its duty to supervise temporal welfare; the Church has as its duty to supervise spiritual welfare.

Look at the Middle Ages when it started the university system, hospitals, etc.?

Now, as I’ve mentioned, the government, as is, is corrupt, and as one poster keeps pointed out, utterly godless. But this does not mean that this is a definition of government; it is a perversion of it. The Church has been exceedingly corrupt at many points in its history, and has pockets of corruption at all times, as do all human organizations: but this is not a definition of the Church, it is a perversion of it (read Jacques Maritan, The Church of Christ: Her Person and Her Personnel).

It is a fact. The government is godless. It is concerned with its own well-being. Recognize this and the actions of all states make much more sense.

Nothing human can be perfect; but that is no reason to try and foist responsibilities of one more-corrupt organization on to another less-corrupt organization that should not be handling them. As for charity and “straight capitalism”, think thus: if even 1/50 of the poor in America alone relied solely on charity, they would all die of starvation and exposure. People are greedy. Even the best Christians. Even Catholics. As would the other 49/50s of them. The small amount that survived would have no concept of stability in their lives - socialistic safety nets at least provide that much, the government guarantee that the same check will come the next month as it did this one.

For charity to work, we would need 100% of the country to consistently give away 15-20% of their income to a centralized organization that could “spread it out”, and distribute from areas of higher income to lower income, so that the office running corporal works of mercy in Bridgeport, Connecticut (very wealthy) would be able to help those in Detroit, Michigan (poor), so that the poor could live at not even a subsistence level - no healthcare - but so they could eat, at least. This is starting to look a whole lot like mandatory taxation and government social safety nets.

These claims are absolutely groundless. How did the poor and elderly survive in the 1800s before welfare programs got started? There was no centralized organization distributing aid, yet there was no mass starvation. Read The Tragedy of American Compassion.

I’ll stop before I come to why monarchy is the best and most natural form of government and get this thread closed down due to a riot.

It’s much better than democracy, that’s for sure.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Exploitation = slavery and low morale. In a capitalistic system, people at the lower end of the spectrum get exploited. It’s built into capitalism. And people with the money are cursed with greed, power and prestige.

How are they slaves? They choose to work there. Why aren’t you looking at what they would be doing without those jobs? Probably living like serfs of the Middle Ages.

 

[Khalid]

These claims are absolutely groundless. How did the poor and elderly survive in the 1800s before welfare programs got started? There was no centralized organization distributing aid, yet there was no mass starvation. Read The Tragedy of American Compassion.

It’s much better than democracy, that’s for sure.

The poor survived in workhouses and on the streets (and in prisons and asylums), and the elderly survived because families were bigger (abortion was absent and people had many more children), and the family had not experienced the severe dissolution and decay it has by now. Today, families are small and spread out. Then, they were large and local. Another major shift was the final one from any form of agrarianism to urbanism, which was only completed after WWII, although it was underway in the late 1700s/early 1800s. I’m too lazy to spend a page expounding on this, but when everyone had some land, and could, by work, raise enough food to eat, it is much easier than in an urbanized environment where one is dependent on having the skills to work in a specialized job (this is the conversion from manufacturing economy to service economy/knowledge economy, which is almost complete today), and the whims of the market.

As far as democracy, if your statement wasn’t sarcastic, we’re agreed. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Republicanism (i.e. “Western democracy”) are four sheep electing one wolf to choose what’s for dinner.

 

[Vouthon]

“…The tension between East and West is an opposition… between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction… This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism…”

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, 1987, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

In his encyclical letter ***Centesimus Annus ***(n. 34), John Paul II recognizes the merits of free enterprise, private initiative and profit:

"It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs. But this is true only for those needs which are ‘solvent’, insofar as they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which are ‘marketable’, insofar as they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory price. But there are many human needs which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish…

We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called “real socialism” leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development…"

A little further in the same encyclical (n. 42), the Pope explains what is acceptable and what is not, in capitalism:

"Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative…

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed,** there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread **which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces." (Centesimus Annus, 42.)

 

[Vouthon]

“Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism.” [Blessed John Paul II]

"…Besides, Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism.** In fact, although decisively condemning “socialism,” the church, since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, has always distanced itself from capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices (cf. Rerum Novarum, 2). **In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI, for his part, used clear and strong words to stigmatize the international imperialism of money (Quadragesimo Anno, 109). This line is also confirmed in the more recent magisterium, and I myself, after the historical failure of communism, did not hesitate to raise serious doubts on the validity of capitalism, if by this expression one means not simply the “market economy” but “a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality…”

- (Blessed Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 42)

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

The poor survived in workhouses and on the streets (and in prisons and asylums), and the elderly survived because families were bigger (abortion was absent and people had many more children), and the family had not experienced the severe dissolution and decay it has by now. Today, families are small and spread out. Then, they were large and local.

Some, such as myself, would argue that it is due to indiscriminate welfare. Welfare previously was discriminating and would not help those who would not help themselves. They were more concerned with taking care of souls rather than temporal needs. This is a focus that is completely gone from modern charity. Compassion is no longer compassionate.

Another major shift was the final one from any form of agrarianism to urbanism, which was only completed after WWII, although it was underway in the late 1700s/early 1800s. I’m too lazy to spend a page expounding on this, but when everyone had some land, and could, by work, raise enough food to eat, it is much easier than in an urbanized environment where one is dependent on having the skills to work in a specialized job (this is the conversion from manufacturing economy to service economy/knowledge economy, which is almost complete today), and the whims of the market.

There was no mass starvation in cities, either.

As far as democracy, if your statement wasn’t sarcastic, we’re agreed. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Republicanism (i.e. “Western democracy”) are four sheep electing one wolf to choose what’s for dinner.

I absolutely agree, and was not sarcastic. Democracy has been a failure. Monarchy is better, though I see voluntaryism as the ideal.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

In his encyclical letter ***Centesimus Annus ***(n. 34), John Paul II recognizes the merits of free enterprise, private initiative and profit:

A little further in the same encyclical (n. 42), the Pope explains what is acceptable and what is not, in capitalism:

What popes say about economics is not dogma and has often times been undoubtedly wrong (foreign aid). Catholics may in good conscience debate the issue.

 

[Vouthon]

I absolutely agree, and was not sarcastic. Democracy has been a failure. Monarchy is better, though I see voluntaryism as the ideal.

Saint Augustine, Saint Isidore of Seville and Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that an element of democracy is always necessary to create an ideal form of government (as ideal as an imperfect human government can be).

“…Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state [republic] or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all, while under him are others having governing powers. And yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers. Such was the form of government established by the divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue, for it is written (Deut. I, 15): I took out of your tribes men wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers; so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people, for it is written (Exod. XVIII, 21): Provide out of all the people wise men, etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people. Hence it is written (Deut. I, 13): Let me have from among you wise men, etc. Consequently, it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law…All of the people should take some share in the government for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring…”

***- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Doctor of the Church ***

So to remove democracy entirely would be a step backwards.

Maurice de Wulf (a thomist philosopher, one of the pioneers of the historiography of medieval philosophy) back in 1922 in his book “Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages” commented on this passage from the works of Thomas Aquinas:

**"…Thomas, for himself, shows very marked preference for …] a form of government …] in which sovereignity belongs to the people…In this passage, written about 1250, the following political principles are affirmed [by Thomas Aquinas]: universal suffrage, the right of the humblest citizen to be raised to the highest power, the consecration of personal worth and virtue, a representative and elective [government], and the right of the people to delegate, to those who are most worthy of it, that sacred gift of God called power…The most perfect form of delegation of power is [thus] the elective system; for as Thomas writes in his commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, ‘election is a work of reason’…" **

St Thomas Aquinas - like St Isidore of Seville and Polybius before him - believed that the best form of government was a “mixed government” - that is composed of an element of monarchy (a clear Head of State), aristocracy (officials/judges) and democracy (an elected assembly). He believed that sovereignity (or the law-making power) was derived from the people and that the leaders should be chosen by the people, from among the people and that all should be eligible both to elect leaders and to themselves govern.

Thomas called this ideal government, “government by the people”.

The divinely inspired author of the First Book of Maccabees had high praise for the Roman Republic (of which he was a contemporary witness) which is a similar kind of ancient prototype of this form of governance:

1 Maccabees 8

“…Now Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were very strong and were well disposed towards all who made an alliance with them, that they pledged friendship to those who came to them, and that they were very strong …] The remaining kingdoms and islands, as many as ever opposed them, they destroyed and enslaved; but with their friends and those who rely on them they have kept friendship. They have subdued kings far and near, and as many as have heard of their fame have feared them. Those whom they wish to help and to make kings, they make kings, and those whom they wish they depose; and they have been greatly exalted. Yet for all this not one of them has put on a crown or worn purple as a mark of pride, but they have built for themselves a senate chamber, and every day three hundred and twenty senators constantly deliberate concerning the people, to govern them well. They trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they all heed the one man, and there is no envy or jealousy among them…”

**(NRSV) **

 

[Vouthon]

What popes say about economics is not dogma and has often times been undoubtedly wrong (foreign aid). Catholics may in good conscience debate the issue.

The social doctrine of the Church is as binding as any other element of doctrine. To reject it is cafeteria Catholicism of a conservative kind.

We can, yes, legitimately hold private opinions and even express reservations with certain elements however we cannot outrightly reject the teaching of an encyclical without grave reasons for doing so, and far less the consistent teaching of numerous popes on social issues.

The Church has general teaching on social issues from the ordinary Magisterium and that general tradition from the time of Pope Leo XIII should be accepted by Catholics.

I stand completely with Holy Mother Church and the encyclical quoted above by Blessed Pope John Paul II.

An annonymous Catholic on a forum is not going to convince me otherwise with all due respect, I hold the teachings of our Holy Fathers in greater esteem

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

So having people vote for their own welfare has been a success? Having politicians with short terms and only care about short-term issues and not long-term issues like inflation and national debt has been a good thing? These are things that WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN with democracy.

 

[Vouthon]

So having people vote for their own welfare has been a success? Having politicians with short terms and only care about short-term issues and not long-term issues like inflation and national debt has been a good thing? These are things that WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN with democracy.

I’m not American. I am British and we have had a good health care system (NHS) in place here since the 1940s and I am thankful that when I fall down with illness I am assured medical help regardless of my social standing in society.

I thus have absolutely no views on welfare reform in the US, which I think you are referring too when you speak of voting on welfare (correct me if wrong, I only know of healthcare reform in the US not other elements of welfare), since it is not my country, you have a different political system and I have no business to really comment.

BTW The length of a parliament determines the extent to which long-term issues are addressed. I would say 4 year terms or five years is a decent length of time.

The Romans had one year terms for the consuls in the Ancient Republic and this is praised in the Bible!

PS If your not American please accept my apology and explain to me what you are referring to specifically. Since it is usually American Catholics on CAF that I find discussing welfare reform I tend to assume that this is what is being referred too.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

The social doctrine of the Church is as binding as any other element of doctrine. To reject it is cafeteria Catholicism of a conservative kind.

We can, yes, legitimately hold private opinions and even express disagreement with certain elements however we cannot outrightly reject the teaching of an encyclical without grave reasons for doing so, and far less the consistent teaching of numerous popes on social issues.

The Church has general teaching on social issues and that general sense should be accepted by Catholics.

No. Pope Leo XIII: “If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think it can be conclusively demonstrated, not only from Scripture, but certainly including Scripture (OT as well!), that alleviating the suffering of the poor is a prime consideration of God our Father and His Son who also preached that message. That said, the means of alleviating that suffering are not necessarily government. I say that as someone who has not had to pay taxes for several years and will not have to again until 2014, most likely.

As a taxpayer, informed citizen, parent, and someone who has sometimes received social/welfare benefits, I find the government to be an inadequate deliverer of relief to the poor. Who is assumed to be poor (and not) has become increasingly distorted and inaccurate. Sometimes, frankly, the dominance of statistics and statistical surveys is somewhat responsible for this. (i.e., Agency reliance on that.) In addition, the prejudicial assmption that race/ethnicity is always tied to wealth/poverty/income has also compromised relief to the poor and inappropriately aided those who are in no way referred to in either Testament.

In addition, I have observed that public understanding and public responsibility, voluntarily and non-coercively disseminated, has more lasting & profound impact. In a free society whose economy is capitalistic in model, public awareness is more persuasive and more enthusiastically embraced, than government force. Just as many companies are environmentally conscious now (in how they use energy, how they handle & minimize waste, etc.), and those efforts – more than regulation – tend to multiply among industries, so, too, many private companies do more for the truly poor than government agencies do. I believe in government incentives for the latter (tax breaks, rebates, etc.), because I believe that such a model conforms more to a politically and economically free model of society than coercion does, and also because it is much more flexible – accommodating to different manifestations and segments of poverty than governmental assumptions. Private companies and individuals also are more rapid responders. Again, when it comes to individuals, I believe in generous incentives for those who give to agencies (and can prove it materially).

I know myself that when I’ve been “wealthier” (haha), I have definitely given to private organizations for segmented needs (such as domestically abused women re-entering the job market independently, such as rehabilitation agencies for recovering addicts, etc.). It’s a wonderful feeling to be able to do this, and to hear about the happy responses from the recipients. Most people, I believe, want to do this, but as I have said on other threads, they often do not know where/whom to help unless they do the research themselves.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’m not American. I am British and we have had a good health care system (NHS) in place here since the 1940s and I am thankful that when I fall down with illness I am assured medical help regardless of my social standing in society.

I thus have absolutely no views on welfare reform in the US, which I think you are referring too when you speak of voting on welfare (correct me if wrong, I only know of healthcare reform in the US not other elements of welfare), since it is not my country, you have a different political system and I have no business to really comment.

BTW The length of a parliament determines the extent to which long-term issues are addressed. I would say 4 year terms or five years is a decent length of time.

The Romans had one year terms for the consuls in the Ancient Republic and this is praised in the Bible!

PS If your not American please accept my apology and explain to me what you are referring to specifically. Since it is usually American Catholics on CAF that I find discussing welfare reform I tend to assume that this is what is being referred too.

The problems of deficit spending and inflation can sometimes take more than a generation to appear. You’re never going to have that kind of length of term with a democracy unless you make representatives hereditary positions, and then by that point you have a monarchy.