Who's job is it?:The Main Difference Between the Right and the Left: The Role and Scope of Government in Society

[cmforte]

I didn’t know what forum to post this in, so to the Moderators, if this is the wrong one I apologize and feel free to move it. While this post doesn’t explicitly mention religion, the subject it addresses is one that has been discussed on CAF.

---

Ok, on facebook an fb user, a professed and obvious Liberal (and an agnostic one at that), has this quote in his info section of his profile: "If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” JFK

As if Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and independents who are more to the Right on most issues don’t give a darn about Civil Rights or Civil Liberties, and we definitely don’t care about “the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs,…”

Well, my Liberal friends (and not so friends), I hate to break this to you, but WE DO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!! The main simple, fundamental difference between the Right and the Left is our view on the role and scope of government in society. Those on the Right do care about the welfare of people…their jobs, housing, health, schools, and so on…we simply believe that IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AND THAT WELFARE. The government’s, especially the federal government’s, sole job is to create and regulate the money supply, to provide us with a national defense against enemies foreign and domestic, to be a guardian of our freedom and liberties, even from assault by that very same government, all in order to allow us the opportunity to pursue happiness and comfort, to succeed or fail on our own. It is not the government’s job to provide financial aid, housing, food, health care, etc… to the needy, on the contrary, IT IS SOLELY THE JOB OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS/FAMILIES TO DO THAT…TO HELP OUR FELOW MAN.

We do want to help those less fortunate than us, the difference between us and Liberals is that we believe it is our jobs as private individuals to do so, and not the government’s. That’s all. Basically, our disagreement and opposing ideologies are based around our view on the role and scope of government in society. We both do want to help the less fortunate, the question we are debating is, “who’s job is that?” So lets stop demonizing and villinizing each other, stop debating on who cares about our fellow man and who does not, and focus on that fundamental principle and question: What is the role and scope of government, especially the federal government, in society? Who’s job is it to help our fellow man, especially the less fortunate? Why does a Liberal feel that IT MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT to do so? True we have a republican, a representative-form of government, so by default and extension the government is, even if indirectly, we the people. So are we really only arguing about semantics? Is our federal government us? We the people? Is our federal government “for the people, by the people”? So if we want to help the less fortunate, and the federal government is us (“we the people”), should it then be its job to help the less fortunate…on our behalf?

Or should we distrust our government, consider only a small portion of it a representative of we the people, and all the other bureaucracies upon bureaucracies a perverse, radical, over-development and oppressive part of it, and therefore also believe that in addition to, and because of those bureaucracies , the government is inherently wasteful and corrupt? And therefore feel we must keep its role and scope limited to a few main responsibilities (like the ones I listed at the top of this essay), and keep the responsibility of helping our fellow man to the private sector? That is the question…“to be, or not to be”!!! Thoughts?

-Chris

.

 

[cmforte]

I didn’t know what forum to post this in, so to the Moderators, if this is the wrong one I apologize and feel free to move it. While this post doesn’t explicitly mention religion, the subject it addresses is one that has been discussed on CAF.

---

Ok, on facebook an fb user, a professed and obvious Liberal (and an agnostic one at that), has this quote in his info section of his profile: "If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” JFK

As if Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and independents who are more to the Right on most issues don’t give a darn about Civil Rights or Civil Liberties, and we definitely don’t care about “the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs,…”

Well, my Liberal friends (and not so friends), I hate to break this to you, but WE DO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!! The main simple, fundamental difference between the Right and the Left is our view on the role and scope of government in society. Those on the Right do care about the welfare of people…their jobs, housing, health, schools, and so on…we simply believe that IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AND THAT WELFARE. The government’s, especially the federal government’s, sole job is to create and regulate the money supply, to provide us with a national defense against enemies foreign and domestic, to be a guardian of our freedom and liberties, even from assault by that very same government, all in order to allow us the opportunity to pursue happiness and comfort, to succeed or fail on our own. It is not the government’s job to provide financial aid, housing, food, health care, etc… to the needy, on the contrary, IT IS SOLELY THE JOB OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS/FAMILIES TO DO THAT…TO HELP OUR FELOW MAN.

We do want to help those less fortunate than us, the difference between us and Liberals is that we believe it is our jobs as private individuals to do so, and not the government’s. That’s all. Basically, our disagreement and opposing ideologies are based around our view on the role and scope of government in society. We both do want to help the less fortunate, the question we are debating is, “who’s job is that?” So lets stop demonizing and villinizing each other, stop debating on who cares about our fellow man and who does not, and focus on that fundamental principle and question: What is the role and scope of government, especially the federal government, in society? Who’s job is it to help our fellow man, especially the less fortunate? Why does a Liberal feel that IT MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT to do so? True we have a republican, a representative-form of government, so by default and extension the government is, even if indirectly, we the people. So are we really only arguing about semantics? Is our federal government us? We the people? Is our federal government “for the people, by the people”? So if we want to help the less fortunate, and the federal government is us (“we the people”), should it then be its job to help the less fortunate…on our behalf?

Or should we distrust our government, consider only a small portion of it a representative of we the people, and all the other bureaucracies upon bureaucracies a perverse, radical, over-development and oppressive part of it, and therefore also believe that in addition to, and because of those bureaucracies , the government is inherently wasteful and corrupt? And therefore feel we must keep its role and scope limited to a few main responsibilities (like the ones I listed at the top of this essay), and keep the responsibility of helping our fellow man to the private sector? That is the question…“to be, or not to be”!!! Thoughts?

-Chris

.

As an example, at Mass one day (I’m Catholic), during the “Prayer of the Faithful,” or “General Intercession,” the speaker said, “so that governments distribute resources equally to the needy of the world, we pray…” I struggled to keep from yelling, “THAT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENT"S JOB!!!”

-Chrius

 

[Raskolnikov]

You may consider it a seperate discussion (and to some extent it is), but the other issue that must be brought up in what role the state should play, is what are the limitations of the private sector to provide a service, or what are the limitations of private society in solving a problem. The state is, fundamentally, a instrument through which the constituents orchestrate their collective will in matters that can only be resolved collectively, such as the distribution of public goods (policing being a typical example of a public good, in that a private police force could really police the streets and only protect those people who paid their police fee; it is a good that can only feasibly be distributed to everyone, and therefore it makes the most sense to make everyone pay for the service and for everyone to thereafter recieve the service).

The question, then, is, in any given case, can the private sector fulfil this role, and if so, how well? It is not, contrary to popular belief here, an issue of public charity vs. private charity.

I’ll give you an example. One issue on which I hold what is conventionally thought to be a liberal view is health care. I think state-sponsered reform of the health care system is necessary, and I think a state insurance distributer or some kind of state sanction monopsony on health care would work more effectively than the status quo. I don’t believe in a universal right to health care, and I don’t see it this way because I see it as a state responsibility to help poor people get health care. My reasons are that the most feasible and efficient way for health care to be purchased and distributed is from a single insurance distributor. The unregulated market model has proven inefficient at allocating health coverage, and there are market failures that make it incapable of doing so, imo, and so it must be supplemented.

That’s one example of the case for the state playing a role in an erstwhile private sector of the economy.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Or should we distrust our government, consider only a small portion of it a representative of we the people, and all the other bureaucracies upon bureaucracies a perverse, radical, over-development and oppressive part of it, and therefore also believe that in addition to, and because of those bureaucracies , the government is inherently wasteful and corrupt? And therefore feel we must keep its role and scope limited to a few main responsibilities (like the ones I listed at the top of this essay), and keep the responsibility of helping our fellow man to the private sector? That is the question…“to be, or not to be”!!! Thoughts?

The view that state bureaucracies is a cynical self-fulfilling prophecy, as in the minds of those who hold it justifies refusing to reform. Volumes upon volumes of analyses have been written on the functioning of bureaucracies and more than enough examples abound of previously inefficient agencies rapidly becoming more efficient and more cost effective as a result of new management (at the bureaucratic administative level, not congress; congress, the president, and the SCOTUS do far less than they get credit for) or a change in policies or the stated goals of the agency. Also, many of the most infamously inefficient agencies were once quite functional, but something changed that led to their decline. Bureaucracies are not inherently inefficient (pivate companies, remember, have bureaucracies too, and if you’ve ever had to call for tech support for a computer or deal with mistakes in a credit card bill, you may know that they are not exactly paragons of efficiency). They are quite reformable. They can indeed be made more efficient and capable of providing more or better public services without increasing the cost. Politicians are just unwilling to initiate reform because it doesn’t help them get reelected, since it usually takes longer than 2, 4, or 6 years to do.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

If only things were all that simple.

There are many more differences between “Liberals” and “Conservatives” than this statement claims. In fact, what this statement claims has absolutely noting to do with the differences between “Liberals” and “Conservatives”.

I do not know of any "Conservative’ that does NOT look forward, and that does not see a very bright future for our country, and our society in general.

The biggest single difference, in my opinion, between “Liberals” and “Conservatives” is that Liberals tend to believe that Government should provide virtually everything for everyone, so that no person is ever in poverty, lacks essential medical care, etc., etc., etc.

“Liberals” see an all powerful State as the answer to virtually every problem. But of course, they do not see that ceeding more and more authority to the State, also makes the people in that State more and more controlled BY that State.

“Conservatives” see the government as being something that must be controlled BY the people. They see Government as being essentially the problem rather than the solution. They see government intruding itself into more and more aspects of our lives as being a very BAD thing.

“Conservatives” cherish self control, and the concept of self-responsibility. YOU are responsible for the choices that you make. If YOU choose to go without health insurance, as just one example, that is your free choice to make. BUT, if you DO make that choice, then society does NOT have a responsibility to provide the care that you refused, other than t prevent epidemics, etc.

It comes down to something as simple as the act of choosing to ride a Motorcycle. I love bikes, I have been riding them since the 1950’s. There is a huge division between those that choose to ride without helmets, and the right of the State to require that helmets be worn.

The State argues that when a rider without a helmet is involved in an accident, and sustains significant brain damage, the State is then left to pay for the care of that individual. Therefore, the State has the right to require that everyone that rides a motorcycle within its jurisdiction, MUST wear a helmet that meets basic standards.

Some riders claim that a helmet restricts their vision (NOT true by the way, a properly fitting helmet can not restrict vision in any way), that you can not hear as as well with a helmet as you can without one (True, but the difference is so slight that it is almost impossible to measure). And, then it gets down to the issue of personal rights. I Have the absolute right to not wear a helmet if I don’t want to.

So, what to do, what to do? In actuality, a very simple solution is available. The state could simply require that anyone the rides a motorcycle MUST have medical insurance in the sum of $1,000,000 (or more) in case of an accident. If you have the required insurance, then you get to ride however you choose to ride. If you don’t have the insurance, then you don’t get to ride at all.

That would solve the problem, and let each person choose what they want to do.

And that also illustrates the essential difference between a “Liberal” and a “Conservative”. The Liberal would mandate whatever they believed the correct course of action is.

The “Conservative” would leave the particular course of action 100% in the hands of the individual, while protecting society from the choices that the individual engages in.

Personally, I believe that anyone that gets on a motorcycle, without a helmet and proper clothing, is a walking argument to have their genes removed from the pool.

I NEVER get on my bike (currently a Honda Gold Wing) without a full face helmet, boots, jeans (at a minimum) and a leather jacket, and leather gauntlets. I have ridden well over 400,000 miles over the years in the USA, Canada and Europe. I’ve had more than one episode of “road burn”, and I carry $2,000,000 in catastrophic medical insurance, “just in case”. But I would resent the heck out of anyone telling me that I HAVE to do those things.

It’s just “common sense” to do them. Sadly, “common sense” is not all that common any more.

 

[Bluegoat]

Government in a democracy is meant to enact the collective will of the people. It isn’t just that though, it also is an organ of the state, which is more than just the sum of the people.

And people often forget that government includes not just the highest levels of power in a state, but many levels, down to the most local.

All these levels have appropriate roles, they all have obligations and duties. As do other organizations of people in society, be it churches, community groups, business groups, charities, and so on.

It’s simply impossible to set out in stone what responsibilities belong to each level - it will depend on many different factors. But always we need to keep in mind serving justice, love, efficiency, and the common good and the good of the individual.

One thing I notice about those who choose to call themselves conservatives in the way the OP does, is that they are very concerned about keeping the force of the government out of the individuals life, but they do not worry much about the force of other very powerful groups.

One of the reasons IMO that we need as much interfearence by government (at various levels) is that special interest groups and corporations are so powerful that they can essentially overwhelm normal us.

As an example, I’d give our national broadcaster in Canada, the CBC. I have heard a number of neoliberal/conservatives suggest that the government should not be in the business of owning a broadcaster, as it is unfair competition and just isn’t part of its role. If citizens want to say things they can get into the media themselves. This ignores however that our media is almost entirely controlled by a few huge and powerful corporate interests, and that they can easily overwhelm a small player or individual, or shut down any individual dissenting voice. So far we have no evidence that we can have a real, stable “voice of the people” broadcaster apart from government funding.

Or we might look at advertising, which spends billions of dollars to make us think we should have, need, or want things that are bad for us, and really has no morals about how it gets us to do these things. Maybe we need government reminding us of the perils of eating huge amounts of salt and fat to counteract the fast-food industry advertising, and the deals those corporations have with our schools.

If people want government to withdraw from some of the things it is doing, we also need to talk about giving real political and economic power in the community to citizens. The corporate elite and the super-rich who own our jobs are no more part of a really “conservative” worldview than a government elite are.

 

[St_Francis]

I’ll give you an example. One issue on which I hold what is conventionally thought to be a liberal view is health care. I think state-sponsered reform of the health care system is necessary, and I think a state insurance distributer or some kind of state sanction monopsony on health care would work more effectively than the status quo. I don’t believe in a universal right to health care, and I don’t see it this way because I see it as a state responsibility to help poor people get health care. My reasons are that the most feasible and efficient way for health care to be purchased and distributed is from a single insurance distributor. The unregulated market model has proven inefficient at allocating health coverage, and there are market failures that make it incapable of doing so, imo, and so it must be supplemented.

That’s one example of the case for the state playing a role in an erstwhile private sector of the economy.

See the way I see it is that our medical situation has been totally messed up by government activity.

First there was a salary freeze in the 50’s, which caused “benefits” to be added to salaries to attract good employees. That’s how health insurance (etc) even got into employment.

This skewed things. Since the purchasers were using it as part of compensation, they were not too concerned about the price, until it got completely ridiculous and we had a downturn in the economy.

And since the users didn’t have to pay for it, they didn’t care how much it cost.

Since no one cared about the cost of the insurance, the states started mandating inclusion of various things, like 28-day stays at rehabs. And since it was supposed to be an attraction for good employees, what was covered became more and more everday: health insurance started off covering things like operations and extended hospital stays, what we would today consdier catastrophic, but now insurance covers your every visit, half your prescription costs, etc, to the point that a lady herself (not heard from my mother’s neighbor’s son) said that because it was cheaper for her to get a prescription cold medicine for her sick children instead of OTC stuff, she would take her children to the doctor every time they had a cold!

With the expansion of health insurance, people also weren’t watching the prices of medical treatment. The usual market forces keeping costs down were skipped over because of the use of insurance.

And while all this was going on (!), governments (and the AMA) were restricting the availability of medical care. To open a clinic or hospital requires approval from special parts of the government which regulate the number of hospitals, MRI machines, etc, in an area.

So, what you see as a problem to be solved by the government, I see a problem caused by the government.

 

[St_Francis]

I think you make a number of good points, but I must quickly disagree with you about radio stations–in the US, the price of the license for an AM statiin is $35,000, making it impossible to start small.

However, your bringing up the various levels of government is important, as is your discussion of the large corporations. It seems like we have huge corporations, huge unions, and huge government.

What we actually need is a good dose of subsidiarity and mediating organizations. To me, the government is supposed to protect us from things like bigbox stores grabbing land, but it doesn’t. Unions are supposed to protect the workers, not force a closure of the employer.

But at the same time, society does have a responsibility to the least among us. To me, the government needs to encourage and support that happening, but at times assure that it happens, at the most local level possible. I don’t think the federal government should be involved in education, which should be under the control of the parents and local community, but I do see that the more overarching levels could be helpful in coordinating aide from one community to another.

It’s all a balancing act, and we are terribly out of balance.

Government in a democracy is meant to enact the collective will of the people. It isn’t just that though, it also is an organ of the state, which is more than just the sum of the people.

And people often forget that government includes not just the highest levels of power in a state, but many levels, down to the most local.

All these levels have appropriate roles, they all have obligations and duties. As do other organizations of people in society, be it churches, community groups, business groups, charities, and so on.

It’s simply impossible to set out in stone what responsibilities belong to each level - it will depend on many different factors. But always we need to keep in mind serving justice, love, efficiency, and the common good and the good of the individual.

One thing I notice about those who choose to call themselves conservatives in the way the OP does, is that they are very concerned about keeping the force of the government out of the individuals life, but they do not worry much about the force of other very powerful groups.

One of the reasons IMO that we need as much interfearence by government (at various levels) is that special interest groups and corporations are so powerful that they can essentially overwhelm normal us.

As an example, I’d give our national broadcaster in Canada, the CBC. I have heard a number of neoliberal/conservatives suggest that the government should not be in the business of owning a broadcaster, as it is unfair competition and just isn’t part of its role. If citizens want to say things they can get into the media themselves. This ignores however that our media is almost entirely controlled by a few huge and powerful corporate interests, and that they can easily overwhelm a small player or individual, or shut down any individual dissenting voice. So far we have no evidence that we can have a real, stable “voice of the people” broadcaster apart from government funding.

Or we might look at advertising, which spends billions of dollars to make us think we should have, need, or want things that are bad for us, and really has no morals about how it gets us to do these things. Maybe we need government reminding us of the perils of eating huge amounts of salt and fat to counteract the fast-food industry advertising, and the deals those corporations have with our schools.

If people want government to withdraw from some of the things it is doing, we also need to talk about giving real political and economic power in the community to citizens. The corporate elite and the super-rich who own our jobs are no more part of a really “conservative” worldview than a government elite are.

 

[davidmlamb]

As an example, at Mass one day (I’m Catholic), during the “Prayer of the Faithful,” or “General Intercession,” the speaker said, “so that governments distribute resources equally to the needy of the world, we pray…” I struggled to keep from yelling, “THAT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENT"S JOB!!!”

-Chrius

YES IT IS !

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

*1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17 *

POPULAR PROGRESSO

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups." Pope Paul VI

What is the Common Good?

**CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

THE COMMON GOOD **

*1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25
1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."29

1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.*

Pax Christi,

David

 

[cmforte]

YES IT IS !

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

*1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17 *

POPULAR PROGRESSO

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups." Pope Paul VI

What is the Common Good?

**CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

THE COMMON GOOD **

*1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25
1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."29

1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.*

Pax Christi,

David

I disagree with all this. I certainly take issue with how many times the words “common good” is used and with "Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. " I don’t agree with globalization in the first place or the political unity of “the human family.” To me this sounds like a slippery slope to communism. (yes, I know both Popes have fought Communism…that is why this is so perplexing). And I disagree with this: “it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found”…it certainly is*** not. ***-Chris

 

[davidmlamb]

I disagree with all this. I certainly take issue with how many times the words “common good” is used and with "Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. " I don’t agree with globalization in the first place or the political unity of “the human family.” To me this sounds like a slippery slope to communism. (yes, I know both Popes have fought Communism…that is why this is so perplexing). I disagree with this: “it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found”…it certainly is*** not. ***-Chris

You have subsituted the social doctrines of the Catholic Church for right wing conservatism. This is problematic for the ultimate condition of your soul. The Church speaks the wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) and not neo conservatism.

IN CHRIST,
David

 

[cmforte]

You have subsituted the social doctrines of the Catholic Church for right wing conservatism. This is problematic for the ultimate condition of your soul. The Church speaks the wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) and not neo conservatism.

IN CHRIST,
David

Thanks for your concern, I’ll make sure I run to confession. But I disagree with you. This is all wrong. The government is not our nanny or big brother. And it certainly isn’t so the world. This is the ideaology behind the*** European ***Social Model, not the American one. “Right-wing” conservatives, as you call us, still do believe in helping the less fortunate, just as The Church does, we just don’t believe that that is the government’s job. I only disagree with The Church on the type of social model it advocates, on its view on the role and scope of government, I don’t disagree with its reason for or desired end result of that advocacy.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Of course, I agree that, when possible, we should share our “surplus” “resources” with the less fortunate, no matter where they live in the world. All I am saying is that we should leave that up primarily to NGOs, private charity groups, private corporate charitable wings, and private individuals and families. If government is to have a role in this at all it should be limited and not mandatory or considered an obligation.

I agree with The Church’s core principle, in those with much helping those with less, no christian, “Right-wing” or otherwise, would disgaree there.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Of course, I agree that, when possible, we should share our “surplus” “resources” with the less fortunate, no matter where they live in the world. All I am saying is that we should leave that up primarily to NGOs, private charity groups, private corporate charitable wings, and private individuals and families. If government is to have a role in this at all it should be limited and not mandatory or considered an obligation.

I agree with The Church’s core principle, in those with much helping those with less, no christian, “Right-wing” or otherwise, would disgaree there.

-Chris

I also shouldn’t be forced, through taxes, to support a program, service, or country I disagree with. That is also why I believe that government should not be in the business of helping the less fortunate (on a large scale): what I do with my “surplus resources” should be up to me.

-Chris

 

[Abu]

The prayer: “so that governments distribute resources equally to the needy of the world, we pray…”

That’s frightfully naïve:
Distributing resources equally to the needy is utterly vague, and certainly omits the subsidiarity which is the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching – it implies a Welfare State in every country!

The Welfare State has been condemned clearly and let us recall that Bl Pope John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”
(Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).

Fr Robert Sirico has examined this error.
robertsirico.com/
**Tuesday, May 31, 2011, by Fr. Robert Sirico
Not Whether to Help the Poor, But How **
Extracts:
“The Church’s solicitude for the poor, the marginalized, the unborn, and the elderly is all of a piece.

“When it comes to doing good, however, which is what addressing poverty entails, the Church does not stipulate exactly how such good is to be done. Helping the poor requires a different sort of moral analysis — not because I (or the Church’s teaching) am “dualist,” as some critics suggest, nor because assisting the poor is “less important” than protecting the unborn, but because the two issues possess different characteristics and therefore require different sorts of moral analysis.

“At the root of the incredulity and exasperation of some Catholics who mix fair arguments with vitriol is an incapacity to recognize that we really believe that many government programs aggravate rather than ameliorate poverty and other social ills. Rather than debating the prudence of the policies at hand, detractors resort to ad hominem attacks and pronounce anathemas selectively. Yet there is by this time a vast literature on the damage wrought by the war on poverty and its failure to achieve its goals. Such critics can continue to believe that shoveling government money into welfare programs discharges Catholic social teaching’s obligation to assist the poor if they wish, but their inability to see other views as reasonable, at least, is distressingly myopic.”

 

[cmforte]

That’s frightfully naïve:
Distributing resources equally to the needy is utterly vague, and certainly omits the subsidiarity which is the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching – it implies a Welfare State in every country!

The Welfare State has been condemned clearly and let us recall that Bl Pope John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”
(Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).

Fr Robert Sirico has examined this error.
robertsirico.com/
**Tuesday, May 31, 2011, by Fr. Robert Sirico
Not Whether to Help the Poor, But How **
Extracts:
“The Church’s solicitude for the poor, the marginalized, the unborn, and the elderly is all of a piece.

“When it comes to doing good, however, which is what addressing poverty entails, the Church does not stipulate exactly how such good is to be done. Helping the poor requires a different sort of moral analysis — not because I (or the Church’s teaching) am “dualist,” as some critics suggest, nor because assisting the poor is “less important” than protecting the unborn, but because the two issues possess different characteristics and therefore require different sorts of moral analysis.

“At the root of the incredulity and exasperation of some Catholics who mix fair arguments with vitriol is an incapacity to recognize that we really believe that many government programs aggravate rather than ameliorate poverty and other social ills. Rather than debating the prudence of the policies at hand, detractors resort to ad hominem attacks and pronounce anathemas selectively. Yet there is by this time a vast literature on the damage wrought by the war on poverty and its failure to achieve its goals. Such critics can continue to believe that shoveling government money into welfare programs discharges Catholic social teaching’s obligation to assist the poor if they wish, but their inability to see other views as reasonable, at least, is distressingly myopic.”

Interesting. How does Fr. Robert Sirico reconcile with what the Catechism says about it?

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Abu:

The Welfare State has been condemned clearly and let us recall that Bl Pope John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”
(Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).

That seems to contradict the Catechism that John Paul II signed off on. But I like it!

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Off to bed. Will catch up tomorrow.

-Chris

 

[Abu]

cmforte, #16,17
How does Fr. Robert Sirico reconcile with what the Catechism says about it?
That seems to contradict the Catechism that John Paul II signed off on. But I like it!

There is no contradiction, the previous references to the CCC were simply misinterpreted to fit a prejudice as is evident:
1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

**1883 **Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “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 co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” [Refer CA 48]

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

2431 The responsibility of the state. “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 principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . 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.”
[Refer CA 48]

 

[St_Francis]

The more I read Church teachings, the more I find that the Church teaches us to err neither on the side of deficiency nor the side of excess. (Think: cowardice:courage:foolhardiness). The virtues balance each other oit.

In Rerum Novarum. Pope Leo XIII advocates that people work together not as adversaries but as members of a team (ok, I paraphrased that!). The teachings of the Church reflect a time when everyone was Catholic, when there was lots of subsidiarity, and when lots of different oeganizations existed to fill the various roles in society, most of which the government fills or wants to fill.

Every person should be moved to help the poor. When it takes 1/3 to 1/2 of our work to fill the government quotas, however, we assume the government is helping the poor, but in reality, the poor receive only 27 cents for every dollar we put in: the other 77 cents goes to adminstative costs. I think that we would not give to a charity with this poor a record.

Thinking that the government is helping to poor, we do nothing further to help the poor. We pay to educate, house, and feed them; we pay for their medical treatment. Our obligation seems discharged.

In medieval times, there were those who helped the poor directly, nuns and monks who had dedicated themselves to this. And there were those who supposed the mknasteries and convents and helped the poor in other ways: caring for people very near them, hiring them when they could.

(This system was in place until the Protestant Revolt, when the princes and other rulers stole the Church properties and got rid of the monks and nuns.)

Similarly, guilds brought together workers and employers in a way that helped them and which mediated with other insitutions. People involved in the business worked together to make standards, the employees had support with grievances, and each small business had support in dealing with other institutions.