Why do many Americans dislike the UN?

[Caldera]

GENEVA, Dec. 19 - Tomrorow [Today], the United Nations General Assembly will adopt a resolution ratifying all of the 2012 resolutions and decisions of its subsidiary, the 47-nation Human Rights Council.

While a handful of these decisions were good, many were despicable. One stands out for its ignominy: the appointment of a top official whose life’s work—authoring books on World War II that make Germans the victims and the Allies the war criminals—has made him a hero to Holocaust deniers.
…
unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=3667745&campaign_id=63111

 

[sandomenico]

There seems to be some confusion, maybe it’s mine, between communism and the Soviet and Chinese experiments, and some of its other forms.

I’ll read Leo XIII’s opinion. But, I don’t really see how monastery life is sinful. I don’t see how a village in rural south east asia which shares the means of production, labor and distribution in the rice field is sinful. These are valid examples of alternatives to capitalism, which do not deny the dignity of man (or woman). Indeed, these examples are more likely to take care of the elderly or disabled in their community, than naked capitalism will.

I also think that, to his credit, Benedict XVI has spoken out to call for more equitable distribution of wealth, and for adequate health care for all.

This is not about owning the means of production, universal healthcare, the redistribution of wealth, or anything like that.

This is about Charity, of which Justice and Prudence are an integral part. The Church does not condemn gathering and owning wealth – becoming rich, if you will – which is the building block of Capitalism. Gathering and owning goods is a neutral action and can be used to good or bad ends. What is more, those who are rich can be tempered towards Charity, and can do great good by their giving.

When the Church condemns Socialism, it is on these two counts: because it is imprudent and unjust. If all the wealth of the world were redistributed among the peoples of the world, then the whole world would be poor and incapable of offering much help to itself. What is more every man has the right to own private property. Socialism flatly denies that right in favor of some ersatz “charity” which forces people to give all their wealth to others, which no one is asked to do even by Christian standards.

I do not judge a socialist’s honest concerns for economic justice; I merely question the soundness of his economic solution.

I don’t recall Leo XIII saying anywhere that monastic life is sinful. Monastic life is not small-time socialism. It is a voluntary denial of the ownership of goods for the sake of eternal life. It is the supreme exercise of Charity, since it voluntarily proclaims: “what’s mine is yours” and offers Charitable services to others.

And it seems to me the example of the rice fields is not socialism either; or if it is, it is a mild form that allows for some form of private ownership, in which case it isn’t pure socialism anyway.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[Sarcelle]

This is not about owning the means of production, universal healthcare, the redistribution of wealth, or anything like that.

This is about Charity, of which Justice and Prudence are an integral part. The Church does not condemn gathering and owning wealth – becoming rich, if you will – which is the building block of Capitalism. Gathering and owning goods is a neutral action and can be used to good or bad ends. What is more, those who are rich can be tempered towards Charity, and can do great good by their giving.

When the Church condemns Socialism, it is on these two counts: because it is imprudent and unjust. If all the wealth of the world were redistributed among the peoples of the world, then the whole world would be poor and incapable of offering much help to itself. What is more every man has the right to own private property. Socialism flatly denies that right in favor of some ersatz “charity” which forces people to give all their wealth to others, which no one is asked to do even by Christian standards.

I do not judge a socialist’s honest concerns for economic justice; I merely question the soundness of his economic solution.

I don’t recall Leo XIII saying anywhere that monastic life is sinful. Monastic life is not small-time socialism. It is a voluntary denial of the ownership of goods for the sake of eternal life. It is the supreme exercise of Charity, since it voluntarily proclaims: “what’s mine is yours” and offers Charitable services to others.

And it seems to me the example of the rice fields is not socialism either; or if it is, it is a mild form that allows for some form of private ownership, in which case it isn’t pure socialism anyway.

God love you,
sandomenico

The keyword being voluntary. Charity functions best at the grassroots level with individuals voluntarily caring for the less fortunate. This should be encouraged, rather than the top-down, confiscatory approach that is socialism.

 

[epan]

This is not about owning the means of production, universal healthcare, the redistribution of wealth, or anything like that.

This is about Charity, of which Justice and Prudence are an integral part. The Church does not condemn gathering and owning wealth – becoming rich, if you will – which is the building block of Capitalism. Gathering and owning goods is a neutral action and can be used to good or bad ends. What is more, those who are rich can be tempered towards Charity, and can do great good by their giving.

When the Church condemns Socialism, it is on these two counts: because it is imprudent and unjust. If all the wealth of the world were redistributed among the peoples of the world, then the whole world would be poor and incapable of offering much help to itself. What is more every man has the right to own private property. Socialism flatly denies that right in favor of some ersatz “charity” which forces people to give all their wealth to others, which no one is asked to do even by Christian standards.

I do not judge a socialist’s honest concerns for economic justice; I merely question the soundness of his economic solution.

I don’t recall Leo XIII saying anywhere that monastic life is sinful. Monastic life is not small-time socialism. It is a voluntary denial of the ownership of goods for the sake of eternal life. It is the supreme exercise of Charity, since it voluntarily proclaims: “what’s mine is yours” and offers Charitable services to others.

And it seems to me the example of the rice fields is not socialism either; or if it is, it is a mild form that allows for some form of private ownership, in which case it isn’t pure socialism anyway.

God love you,
sandomenico

None of these “systems” operate in their pure form. Libertarian Capitalism in its pure form, is less evil than Marxism only in that it does not deny the existence of God, but it is an evil economic system, for the suffering it causes. This is why it is not practiced on a large scale, anywhere on Earth. People and governments recognize this fact.

By the same logic, I reject your view that that practice of socialism needs be worldwide to be called socialism, if that is what you are saying. I believe that different economic systems suit different people, in different places, and at different times in history. Village life, where the rice paddy is a shared community resource, and where the labor is shared in the community, and the distribution of the rice is based on need, is indeed a form of communism, or socialism. No, it is not evil. Yes, it is widely practiced. No, it does not deny the dignity of the individual.

If you don’t think that monastic life is a flavor of communism, then we disagree. To me, communism is: (1) the elimination of private property; (2) a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. Maybe I am mistaken. How does this not characterize monastic life?

 

[sandomenico]

None of these “systems” operate in their pure form. Libertarian Capitalism in its pure form, is less evil than Marxism only in that it does not deny the existence of God, but it is an evil economic system, for the suffering it causes. This is why it is not practiced on a large scale, anywhere on Earth. People and governments recognize this fact.

By the same logic, I reject your view that that practice of socialism needs be worldwide to be called socialism, if that is what you are saying. I believe that different economic systems suit different people, in different places, and at different times in history. Village life, where the rice paddy is a shared community resource, and where the labor is shared in the community, and the distribution of the rice is based on need, is indeed a form of communism, or socialism. No, it is not evil. Yes, it is widely practiced. No, it does not deny the dignity of the individual.

If you don’t think that monastic life is a flavor of communism, then we disagree. To me, communism is: (1) the elimination of private property; (2) a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. Maybe I am mistaken. How does this not characterize monastic life?

The monk voluntarily gives up his right to private property in favor of eternal goods. It is not enough to say that communism is merely the elimination of private property: it is the elimination of private property by force.

The socialist demands that everyone – no matter if they are so inclined or not – relinquish that right to the government so that the it can re-distribute those goods in an egalitarian fashion. Note, they don’t say “to those who need, let more be given”; socialism simply demands the redistribution of privately owned goods. And yes, socialism does demand that this be done on a worldwide scale. Otherwise the system will not be complete for them, because some people will not be putting their “fair share” towards the good of the world. (They don’t seem to notice that the poor benefiting from that wealth would not be contributing anything to that cause, either). It can be practiced on a smaller scale, but every socialist worth his salt aims to share the world’s wealth, not just his next-door neighbor’s.

Socialism reacts out of envy and jealousy to the greed and avarice that plagues Capitalism. Those who do not have naturally want to share in the wealth of those who have. And in a world endowed with Charity, those who have would naturally give what they can to the betterment of those who do not have.

Socialism on any scale goes by that name. I pointed out that sharing labor, wealth and the means of production need not go by the name socialism, if it is not forced by the government. If it is entirely voluntary, then it would be something else, perhaps even small-level distributism.

For clarity’s sake, here’s how I define communism/socialism: 1)government regulated elimination of private property, which aims at 2) enforced redistribution of economic power to a tyrannical majority and 3) results in the redistribution of economic and political power to a tyrannical minority.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[doormouse73]

this thing about socialism.

my dad used to say to me as a lad,you know what son,you could share out all the riches of the world to every living person on this earth.but within a month,you will have homeless people to millionaires.

sorry for talking it off topic…

 

[epan]

The monk voluntarily gives up his right to private property in favor of eternal goods. It is not enough to say that communism is merely the elimination of private property: it is the elimination of private property by force.

You’re mistaken. Communism and socialism are economic systems. Just as any governmental system, religion, etc… can be imposed by force. It is not a requirement, at all.

You could just as easily say that capitalism is imposed by force, just by looked at the colonization of many countries in the past. But that is not a characteristic of capitalism, any more than it is of socialism or communism.

I also disagree with your characterization that an economic system must be imposed in its most extreme way. This is not the case. There is no large scale purely capitalistic system. If you know of one, name it, please.

 

[sandomenico]

You’re mistaken. Communism and socialism are economic systems. Just as any governmental system, religion, etc… can be imposed by force. It is not a requirement, at all.

You could just as easily say that capitalism is imposed by force, just by looked at the colonization of many countries in the past. But that is not a characteristic of capitalism, any more than it is of socialism or communism.

I also disagree with your characterization that an economic system must be imposed in its most extreme way. This is not the case. There is no large scale purely capitalistic system. If you know of one, name it, please.

Of course, nearly anything can be imposed by enough force. But some things still require the imposition of force in order to work fully, and still others require force in order to work at any level.

Capitalism has been imposed by force on many countries, but what capitalist philosopher has written as Karl Marx has written, and called for some class-based world-wide redistribution of goods? They have a different creed.

Socialism and communism require top-down administration to handle the nationalization of goods. They both boil down to a small group of men holding all the reins of power, which adds up to a lot of force in precious few hot little hands.

Capitalism comes to a similar end through different means: individuals gather enough power and wealth, and often exercise that power to their explicit benefit. In the end, you have a few individuals holding all the reins of power, and they use that power to maintain their positions and wealth.

Either form can happen: bottom-up, or top-down. It’s just that, force must be used in order to get socialism off the ground.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[epan]

Of course, nearly anything can be imposed by enough force. But some things still require the imposition of force in order to work fully, and still others require force in order to work at any level.

Capitalism has been imposed by force on many countries, but what capitalist philosopher has written as Karl Marx has written, and called for some class-based world-wide redistribution of goods? They have a different creed.

Socialism and communism require top-down administration to handle the nationalization of goods. They both boil down to a small group of men holding all the reins of power, which adds up to a lot of force in precious few hot little hands.

Capitalism comes to a similar end through different means: individuals gather enough power and wealth, and often exercise that power to their explicit benefit. In the end, you have a few individuals holding all the reins of power, and they use that power to maintain their positions and wealth.

Either form can happen: bottom-up, or top-down. It’s just that, force must be used in order to get socialism off the ground.

God love you,
sandomenico

You are confusing Marxism with communism and socialism.

You are also not paying attention to what I have written. I pointed out that a lot depends on when and where. The examples I gave were small scale implementations, such is in a monastery, which you disagreed with. But, there are other examples, any small commune setting, or small communal village, etc…

Marxism failed. Large attempts at communism have failed. I agree with what you say about large scale implementations. However, you are completely missing my point.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The United Nations’ five worst moments for life and the family in 2012

lifesitenews.com/news/the-united-nations-five-worst-moments-for-life-and-the-family-in-2012

 

[sandomenico]

You are confusing Marxism with communism and socialism.

You are also not paying attention to what I have written. I pointed out that a lot depends on when and where. The examples I gave were small scale implementations, such is in a monastery, which you disagreed with. But, there are other examples, any small commune setting, or small communal village, etc…

Marxism failed. Large attempts at communism have failed. I agree with what you say about large scale implementations. However, you are completely missing my point.

I agree, it seems like I have been talking past you. My apologies. Here are a few clarifiers:

Do the principles that apply in the big picture apply in the little picture?

How do Marxism, communism and socialism differ from each other? And how do their large scale applications differ from those on a smaller scale (besides in simple size)?

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[epan]

I agree, it seems like I have been talking past you. My apologies. Here are a few clarifiers:

Do the principles that apply in the big picture apply in the little picture?

How do Marxism, communism and socialism differ from each other? And how do their large scale applications differ from those on a smaller scale (besides in simple size)?

God love you,
sandomenico

Maybe we can continue this later. Work has kept me up for the past 36 hours, and I am exhausted.

 

[KarenAnne]

ivn.us/2012/05/30/24355/

The U.N. is a corrupt organization run for the benefit of thugs.

Amen

 

[Wedded_to_God]

The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French and Spanish), is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

The UN currently has a total of 193 member states. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The UN’s most prominent position is Secretary-General which has been held by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea since 2007.

The United Nations Headquarters resides in international territory in New York City, with further main offices at Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

:angel1:

 

[aragonjohn1]

The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French and Spanish), is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

The UN currently has a total of 193 member states. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The UN’s most prominent position is Secretary-General which has been held by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea since 2007.

The United Nations Headquarters resides in international territory in New York City, with further main offices at Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

:angel1:

hopefully the UN’s mission to find peace will be successful. But, as venerable Fulton Sheen said “one must make war on the self before there is going to be peace on earth.”

i also hope that a few within the UN can find out what they are not doing before they find out what they are doing.

Merry Christmass
God Bless

 

[Edward_H]

The UN is a pro abortion organization. It wants your money and your freedom to pursue its collectivist agenda.

 

[LisaA]

I am just curious since it has done much to ensure peace in the world for the last 65 years. I can see that it does support objectionable causes and of course this should be resisted. Yet I hear on LifeSiteNews and similar sites that the UN shouldn’t exist at all, that “world government” is evil when the Church has no objection to it. I would like to understand the reasoning behind these arguments agianst it from an American (and indeed any other country) perspective. Thanks.

I read through the posts and have nothing much to add. I would love to turn around the question and ask why Europeans LIKE the UN? And hey if you DO like the thugs, dictators, and lunatics who routinely find a world platform there, please offer to host the organization in your country! We’d LOVE to get rid of the whole bunch of them.

Lisa

 

[Edward_H]

I read through the posts and have nothing much to add. I would love to turn around the question and ask why Europeans LIKE the UN? And hey if you DO like the thugs, dictators, and lunatics who routinely find a world platform there, please offer to host the organization in your country! We’d LOVE to get rid of the whole bunch of them.

Lisa

Great way to frame the question.