Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Black_Rose]

Even considering that a welfare state can be a good thing is ludicrous. It destroys the people that are in this state of living. It drains from them any desire to become a contributing member of society. It handicaps them and their children for they have no desire to better themselves.

Even in this country it is a horrible condition. Women that are already in this system learn from there mothers to pretty up early in life and have at least 3 or 4 kids to maximize their return on welfare checks then when those kids go to school have them play stupid so that they get put in special education and then they get another check from social security.

How do you know those children are malingering by feigning a lack of general intelligence? What if they really are unfortunate members of the -2 sigma tail of the bell curve (or whatever the threshold for admittance into special education)?

My wife is a special education teacher in a low income area and she sees these kids come to her in such bad psychological state and low self esteme with no desire to better themselves. If she asks them that old question “What do you want to be when you grow up?” She is just as likely get a “sit on the couch and pull a check” as she is one of the traditional answers.

What should be the “correct” answer to the question for those who are in special education? Should the children give “realistic” answers or over-optimistically estimate their abilities and choose careers where they lack the talent or ability to enter? Do you want to hear “scientist, doctor, engineer, politician, Senator, Major League Baseball player, actor, investor, trader, or hedge fund manager” as answers? Or do you want them to be realistic by enunciating occupations of low prestige as answers such as janitor or waiter? Perhaps living in a substandard state and being segregated from those who are more intellectual able causes people to be dejected and forces them to have low expectations. How could these students better themselves realistically and have meaningful individual accomplishments? Should they just be miserable with their low-status in life by working mediocre jobs, openly revealing their status to a judgmental society, instead of desiring to conceal themselves by inconspicuously drawing subsistence from the state from the privacy of their homes?

 

[ERose]

How do you know those children are malingering by feigning a lack of general intelligence? What if they really are unfortunate members of the -2 sigma tail of the bell curve (or whatever the threshold for admittance into special education)?

Maybe it is because my wife has had children tell her that their mother told them to act stupid. Also my wife deals with them everyday. She knows how intelligent these children are. Grant there are many she deals with that have legitimate learning disabilities and behavior issues, but she also has a fair amount that have parenting issues.

What should be the “correct” answer to the question for those who are in special education? Should the children give “realistic” answers or over-optimistically estimate their abilities and choose careers where they lack the talent or ability to enter? Do you want to hear “scientist, doctor, engineer, politician, Senator, Major League Baseball player, actor, investor, trader, or hedge fund manager” as answers? Or do you want them to be realistic by enunciating occupations of low prestige as answers such as janitor or waiter? Perhaps living in a substandard state and being segregated from those who are more intellectual able causes people to be dejected and forces them to have low expectations. How could these students better themselves realistically and have meaningful individual accomplishments? Should they just be miserable with their low-status in life by working mediocre jobs, openly revealing their status to a judgmental society, instead of desiring to conceal themselves by inconspicuously drawing subsistence from the state from the privacy of their homes?

So you would prefer a 8-9 year old child aspiring to set on the couch all day and collect a check? The great thing about our country is that if you desire to do something with your life you have the opportunity. No matter what your condition. What the welfare state does is that it eliminates that desire.

The good thing for these kids is my wife is a very good teacher and takes time with these children and has pulled some of them out of the cesspool and got them going in the right direction. So it is possible to save these children, thank God.

 

[Black_Rose]

Maybe it is because my wife has had children tell her that their mother told them to act stupid. Also my wife deals with them everyday. She knows how intelligent these children are. Grant there are many she deals with that have legitimate learning disabilities and behavior issues, but she also has a fair amount that have parenting issues.

So it is just a hypothesis you have without any supporting evidence? Do you know what is the IQ cutoff for admittance into the special education program and the number of students admitted? Is the number of students in the special education class more than one would expect from the population of the school if fitted to the normal distribution of IQ scores assuming a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100? (Although for different races, the distribution of scores is different but does not necessarily reflect a genetic deficit explaining the gaps.)

How do you know they are intelligent?

So you would prefer a 8-9 year old child aspiring to set on the couch all day and collect a check? The great thing about our country is that if you desire to do something with your life you have the opportunity. No matter what your condition. What the welfare state does is that it eliminates that desire.

The good thing for these kids is my wife is a very good teacher and takes time with these children and has pulled some of them out of the cesspool and got them going in the right direction. So it is possible to save these children, thank God.

No, a meritocracy only grants them the opportunity to succeed; it does not guarantee any positive outcomes. Of course, intellectual deficiencies are one impediment for one’s advance in a meritocratic society regardless of the opportunities available to them. Even if they have the desire, they might not have the talent or ability to advance.

What I want for these children (and for other people) is to have reasonable expectations and be content with their lives. For instance, watch video20/20 about Denmark and fast-forward to the part about the garbageman (at 2:15). He is probably not intellectually bright or talented but regardless he is able to live a dignified life where nobody holds him in contempt for his occupation. In the egalitarian culture of Denmark, the citizens do not view him as inferior, but as an equal citizen whom they share the bonds of amity and friendship.

He able to enjoy the benefits of living in a ethnically homogeneous nation with a strong-sense of national identity, high human development, and an equal distribution of wealth where he is able to enjoy the bonds of family and participate other leisure activities such as coaching his daughter’s handball team beyond his economic role.

He is materially well-off and does not have any existential fears because of the generous welfare state. His condition is not due to his talent or ambition (or lack of it) but external circumstances such as the social atmosphere and culture of Denmark.

 

[jewells17]

So it is just a hypothesis you have without any supporting evidence? Do you know what is the IQ cutoff for admittance into the special education program and the number of students admitted? Is the number of students in the special education class more than one would expect from the population of the school if fitted to the normal distribution of IQ scores assuming a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100? (Although for different races, the distribution of scores is different but does not necessarily reflect a genetic deficit explaining the gaps.)

How do you know they are intelligent?

No, a meritocracy only grants them the opportunity to succeed; it does not guarantee any positive outcomes. Of course, intellectual deficiencies are one impediment for one’s advance in a meritocratic society regardless of the opportunities available to them. Even if they have the desire, they might not have the talent or ability to advance.

What I want for these children (and for other people) is to have reasonable expectations and be content with their lives. For instance, watch this 20/20 video about Denmark and fast-forward to the part about the garbageman (at 2:15). He is probably not intellectually bright or talented but regardless he is able to live a dignified life where nobody holds him in contempt for his occupation. In the egalitarian culture of Denmark, the citizens do not view him as inferior, but as an equal citizen whom they share the bonds of amity and friendship.

He able to enjoy the benefits of living in a ethnically homogeneous nation with a strong-sense of national identity, high human development, and an equal distribution of wealth where he is able to enjoy the bonds of family and participate other leisure activities such as coaching his daughter’s handball team beyond his economic role.

He is materially well-off and does not have any existential fears because of the generous welfare state. His condition is not due to his talent or ambition (or lack of it) but external circumstances such as the social atmosphere and culture of Denmark.

If that’s what you want for these children…then you need to send them even more of your money. And who puts down garbage men in America? Who holds contempt for them in America? I never heard anyone do that…ever. Sounds like you might want to move to Denmark…it meets all your standards and you would be happier. Watch Glenn Beck to learn about socialism as well as our Constitution and how the two don’t mix and never will.

 

[ERose]

So it is just a hypothesis you have without any supporting evidence? Do you know what is the IQ cutoff for admittance into the special education program and the number of students admitted? Is the number of students in the special education class more than one would expect from the population of the school if fitted to the normal distribution of IQ scores assuming a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100? (Although for different races, the distribution of scores is different but does not necessarily reflect a genetic deficit explaining the gaps.)

How do you know they are intelligent?

No, a meritocracy only grants them the opportunity to succeed; it does not guarantee any positive outcomes. Of course, intellectual deficiencies are one impediment for one’s advance in a meritocratic society regardless of the opportunities available to them. Even if they have the desire, they might not have the talent or ability to advance.

What I want for these children (and for other people) is to have reasonable expectations and be content with their lives. For instance, watch this 20/20 video about Denmark and fast-forward to the part about the garbageman (at 2:15). He is probably not intellectually bright or talented but regardless he is able to live a dignified life where nobody holds him in contempt for his occupation. In the egalitarian culture of Denmark, the citizens do not view him as inferior, but as an equal citizen whom they share the bonds of amity and friendship.

He able to enjoy the benefits of living in a ethnically homogeneous nation with a strong-sense of national identity, high human development, and an equal distribution of wealth where he is able to enjoy the bonds of family and participate other leisure activities such as coaching his daughter’s handball team beyond his economic role.

He is materially well-off and does not have any existential fears because of the generous welfare state. His condition is not due to his talent or ambition (or lack of it) but external circumstances such as the social atmosphere and culture of Denmark.

So what if he doesn’t want to be a garbageman? And when in this country has a hard working garbage man is viewed as inferior? That is the problem with socialist. You hide your prejudices and arrogance in “I am being compassionate”. What is so compassionate about telling and incouraging someone to be dependent on the government. “don’t worry we will take care of you and you have to do nothing for us except vote for us” That is compassion? No it is a form of slavery.

Granted there are people who by no fault of their own needs to be on longterm welfare, but there is probably 10 others for each legitimate one that are milking the system and these need to be pushed out of the system.

 

[Black_Rose]

So what if he doesn’t want to be a garbageman? And when in this country has a hard working garbage man is viewed as inferior? That is the problem with socialist. You hide your prejudices and arrogance in “I am being compassionate”. What is so compassionate about telling and incouraging someone to be dependent on the government. “don’t worry we will take care of you and you have to do nothing for us except vote for us” That is compassion? No it is a form of slavery.

I do not consider the garbageman hard working nor lazy. He just does his job. and have a sense of dignity, experiencing no humiliating. I do not commend his work ethic, but I do envy and admire the bonds of friendship he shares with his fellow citizens. The main point was that no one holds him in contempt for his occupation and that he lives a contented life. Also, the point is that in a socialist country like Denmark, this way of life is guaranteed to ever citizen regardless of their talent or ability. In contrast, a classically liberal society does not guarantee the “good life” to only; it only attempts to give people the opportunity to a good life. Of course, there is a dark side to the meritocratic society you envision and implicitly advocate, you do not openly acknowledge it at all, since it would reduce its allure and image. If one fails by not securing a decent standard of living a meritocratic society, they society has no obligation to offer them assistance, and it should not be considered a societal problem that a considerable segment of the citizens lives undignified, miserable lives.

I had to look up the definition of “arrogance” on an online dictionary to confirm that the definition not only encompasses a sense of excessive pride and superiority, but that such attitudes are openly displayed:

–noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance

If one hides their “arrogance”, then how can it be arrogance? In fact, the repressive egalitarian culture of Denmark (janteloven) discourages arrogance and open displays of pride.

I do not know exactly is “slavery”, so please define it for me.

Granted there are people who by no fault of their own needs to be on longterm welfare, but there is probably 10 others for each legitimate one that are milking the system and these need to be pushed out of the system.

Most people would not assume that all people on public assistance “deserve” it. But where is your evidence that the children in the special education class are “faking it” or that there are ten people undeserving people receiving welfare for every person?

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality
As Fr John Corapi explains:
“The common error is to think that socialism helps the poor and disenfranchised. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out as long ago as 1891 in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum, socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the very sources of capital.”

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and worse crimes. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West. It’s time to face reality.

No wealth can be created until it is produced – that’s why the Late Scholastic system works so well to enable everyone to produce some wealth and to do with it as they choose through free-will. Economic laws are based on the principles of human action – of cause and effect involving God-given reason.

Free enterprise doesn’t emphasise greed and self over the common good – do you know of any legitimate business that can survive without giving its customers value for money, with other similar businesses competing for the customers’’ patronage? Is the State going to do a better job of allocation of scarce resources?

 

[Black_Rose]

Facing Reality
As Fr John Corapi explains:
“The common error is to think that socialism helps the poor and disenfranchised. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out as long ago as 1891 in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum, socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the very sources of capital.”

Free enterprise doesn’t emphasise greed and self over the common good – do you know of any legitimate business that can survive without giving its customers value for money, with other similar businesses competing for the customers’’ patronage? Is the State going to do a better job of allocation of scarce resources?

In Chinese history, Lin Zexu condemned Western merchants as immoral profiteers (for dealing with opium) in his memorial to Queen Victoria.

But after a long period of commercial intercourse, there appear among the crowd of barbarians both good persons and bad, unevenly. Consequently there are those who smuggle opium to seduce the Chinese people and so cause the spread of the poison to all provinces. Such persons who only care to profit themselves, and disregard their harm to others, are not tolerated by the laws of heaven and are unanimously hated by human beings.
…
We find your country is sixty or seventy thousand li [three li make one mile, ordinarily] from China Yet there are barbarian ships that strive to come here for trade for the purpose of making a great profit The wealth of China is used to profit the barbarians. That is to say, the great profit made by barbarians is all taken from the rightful share of China. By what right do they then in return use the poisonous drug to injure the Chinese people? Even though the barbarians may not necessarily intend to do us harm, yet in coveting profit to an extreme, they have no regard for injuring others. Let us ask, where is your conscience?

academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/com-lin.html

Lin blames Western merchants for coveting profit and regards this as immoral. In fact, in Confucian culture, merchants were regarded as the lowest social class although in practice, it is not uncommon for them to achieve great wealth and power. Besides the individual immorality and greed of the merchants, the British Empire encouraged the opium trade to prevent a trade deficit denominated in silver from paying for Chinese goods in bullion since the Chinese were not interested in.

And as a pro-life Catholic, I am sure you are not to fond with abortion physicians selling their services to pregnant women.

 

[Abu]

The laws of free enterprise developed by the Catholic Late Scholastic philosophers are based on cause and effect. Morality is based in the person engaging with those laws as you should know by now.

Catholic doctrine on faith and morals is not an opinion but part of reality from God through Jesus of Nazareth and His Church.

 

[ERose]

I do not consider the garbageman hard working nor lazy. He just does his job. and have a sense of dignity, experiencing no humiliating. I do not commend his work ethic, but I do envy and admire the bonds of friendship he shares with his fellow citizens. The main point was that no one holds him in contempt for his occupation and that he lives a contented life. Also, the point is that in a socialist country like Denmark, this way of life is guaranteed to ever citizen regardless of their talent or ability. In contrast, a classically liberal society does not guarantee the “good life” to only; it only attempts to give people the opportunity to a good life. Of course, there is a dark side to the meritocratic society you envision and implicitly advocate, you do not openly acknowledge it at all, since it would reduce its allure and image. If one fails by not securing a decent standard of living a meritocratic society, they society has no obligation to offer them assistance, and it should not be considered a societal problem that a considerable segment of the citizens lives undignified, miserable lives.

I do not know where you get the idea that in this country it is degrading to be a garbage man. He is a blue collar worker like the majority of Americans and puts in his time and makes his money. I am pretty sure you can find some contented garbage men in this country as well. The problem of using Denmark as an example is that it is not a completely socialist country. Yes it does have a huge welfare system but economically it is more capitalistic, with private companies, the ability to hire and fire at will and to set their own wages (no minimum wage) The companies are not overly taxed around 28% which is lower than our taxes here and are allowed to be competitive. Like I said they do have a welfare state which includes unemployment, health care, education, child care etc. But the system is setup to keep people employed instead of allowing them to get a free ride, by forcing those that are unemployed to take any available job that they are qualified to do or go back to school and learn a new trade. The income taxes are at 50%. I wouldn’t be using Denmark as an example of a socialist utopia for it is only partially socialist.

I had to look up the definition of “arrogance” on an online dictionary to confirm that the definition not only encompasses a sense of excessive pride and superiority, but that such attitudes are openly displayed:

If one hides their “arrogance”, then how can it be arrogance? In fact, the repressive egalitarian culture of Denmark (janteloven) discourages arrogance and open displays of pride.

Wester defines arrogance as “an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions”. Which I think fits but perhaps I should have used the term self-righteousness, which is defined as “convinced of one’s own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others”

I do not know exactly is “slavery”, so please define it for me.

Here is two definitions for you:

1. submission to a dominating influence
   2 the state of a person who is the property of another.

In the recent stimulus packages that our government has passed the welfare reforms where eliminated and it has gone back to the way it was before which is that states get more federal money if they have more people on welfare. This basically means that it is in the state’s best interest to get people put on welfare. Pretty sad if I say, but that is socialism.

Most people would not assume that all people on public assistance “deserve” it. But where is your evidence that the children in the special education class are “faking it” or that there are ten people undeserving people receiving welfare for every person?

Experience primarily. Our country does not attempt to develop statistics on welfare abuse, so no I do not have statistical data my claims, but you do not have data to support your claims either.

 

[Black_Rose]

Experience primarily. Our country does not attempt to develop statistics on welfare abuse, so no I do not have statistical data my claims, but you do not have data to support your claims either.

What quantitative claims I made in this thread? I supported most of my claims with evidence while you rely on anecdotes…

 

[Black_Rose]

I do not know where you get the idea that in this country it is degrading to be a garbage man. He is a blue collar worker like the majority of Americans and puts in his time and makes his money. I am pretty sure you can find some contented garbage men in this country as well. The problem of using Denmark as an example is that it is not a completely socialist country. Yes it does have a huge welfare system but economically it is more capitalistic, with private companies, the ability to hire and fire at will and to set their own wages (no minimum wage) The companies are not overly taxed around 28% which is lower than our taxes here and are allowed to be competitive. Like I said they do have a welfare state which includes unemployment, health care, education, child care etc. But the system is setup to keep people employed instead of allowing them to get a free ride, by forcing those that are unemployed to take any available job that they are qualified to do or go back to school and learn a new trade. The income taxes are at 50%. I wouldn’t be using Denmark as an example of a socialist utopia for it is only partially socialist.

Ok… fine. Denmark is not a socialist country but it is social democratic. But I am sure, based on your political views, that you are unwilling to support universal health care and child care where the state takes on a substantial burden for providing for the welfare of its citizens through high income taxes. You will make a provision those “unable to support themselves” but they must endure the humiliating process of means testing which alienates them from the general population.

 

[ERose]

Ok… fine. Denmark is not a socialist country but it is social democratic. But I am sure, based on your political views, that you are unwilling to support universal health care and child care where the state takes on a substantial burden for providing for the welfare of its citizens through high income taxes. You will make a provision those “unable to support themselves” but they must endure the humiliating process of means testing which alienates them from the general population.

You are right. Concerning my views I do believe in the free market albeit governed by reasonable laws to protect workers and companies from abuse. You are right I am not excited about the government managing my healthcare. I do not believe that people should get free rides when they have the ability to contribute to society. I do not like my money that I work very hard for going to someone didn’t do a thing and yet has a higher standard of living than I do. You want to know what your tax dollars are going to? Here is some statistics for you from the US census bureau:

• Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

The fact of the matter is that in the United States there are not many true poor people. What I mean by poor is those who do not know when their next meal is coming from, who are living in shacks, etc. I would recommend to you to read the attached article from heritage.org which backs it’s findings from government statistics.

heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

Grant this report was before the socialist, I mean democratic, party took over our country nearly four years ago. Since then I am pretty sure that these numbers are inflated now.

 

[ERose]

You will make a provision those “unable to support themselves” but they must endure the humiliating process of means testing which alienates them from the general population.

Humiliating process? What are you talking about? I believe a medical and/or psychological examination is all that would be required and I doubt it will be televised or done in the city square.

 

[Black_Rose]

You are right. Concerning my views I do believe in the free market albeit governed by reasonable laws to protect workers and companies from abuse. You are right I am not excited about the government managing my healthcare. I do not believe that people should get free rides when they have the ability to contribute to society. I do not like my money that I work very hard for going to someone didn’t do a thing and yet has a higher standard of living than I do. You want to know what your tax dollars are going to? Here is some statistics for you from the US census bureau:

• Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

The fact of the matter is that in the United States there are not many true poor people. What I mean by poor is those who do not know when their next meal is coming from, who are living in shacks, etc. I would recommend to you to read the attached article from heritage.org which backs it’s findings from government statistics.

heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

Grant this report was before the socialist, I mean democratic, party took over our country nearly four years ago. Since then I am pretty sure that these numbers are inflated now.

Why would you call the Democratic Party “socialist” instead of “social democratic” or even further to the right such as being just merely “leftist centrists” (which they are)? I suppose you use the word “socialist” as a negative term while when I was pointing out the good aspects of Denmark, then it is no longer a “socialist” country because “socialism” must always have a negative definition. What they have done recently that is “socialist” or “social democratic”

Strange, what a weird re-definition of “wealth” Rector uses! I suppose having a DVD player that at most costs $200 and a plasma or LCD or plasma television that at most would cost $3000 makes one not poor in a developed country!

The report is interesting because of the topics that Rector chooses *not *to cover, making it a brilliant act of (self-?)deception. I wonder why Rector does not inquiry in his report about the health care of the working poor at all income levels (to make sure that no one falls through the cracks of earning just enough money not to qualify for government aide) or the amount of assets that the poor actually own. I suppose Rector does not use that information because it would not support the argument he is about to make. In the case of the latter, it would should the US being a country marked by rampant income and wealth inequality, supporting the point left-wing people make about the country. I also suppose the cars are not luxury items, but they use those cars to actually transport themselves to their jobs, making them an economic necessity. I am not under any obligation to “prove” that since I am not making an extraordinary claim because it is reasonable to assume most of their automobiles, with a few insignificant anecdotal exceptions, do not have a state-of-the-art stereo system or spinning chrome wheels.

In such a case, how do the poor have a higher standard of living than you?

Well, here is some information, in charts, about income and wealth inequality in the US:







ginandtacos.com/2010/06/16/nothing-to-see-here/

Well, regarding income inequality, Emmanuel Saez’s web page has some interest working about it.

 

[St_Francis]

…* I, using Liu’s definition, do not define “socialism” as pervasive state control of the economy, although it does entail some of that, but the general belief that state should play a role on ensuring the welfare of its citizens as opposed to the libertarian thought this should solely in the domain of responsible, mature individuals…

First of all, using a different definition causes a lot of problems in a discussion. If you say socialism is… then we assume you are talking about actual socialism in which the means of production is owned “in common,” eg, by the government; however, you may or may not be talking about that. I notice this confusion even in your own posts. I suggest that you and we would be less confused if we all stuck to using the same definitions for the same words.

 

[St_Francis]

… the general belief that state should play a role on ensuring the welfare of its citizens as opposed to the libertarian thought this should solely in the domain of responsible, mature individuals…

The Catholic Church totally agrees with this statement

The Church has repeatedly condemned socialism (where the state owns the means of production) for many many reasons. I am currently studying the 1937 encyclical on communism. I would seriously recommend it to you, even tho you said elsewhere that you do not want to study Church documents right now–this one is short and to the point, and clearly shows why the Church condemns communism and by extension socialism.

One of the points made (more than once) in this encyclical is that one of the reasons that communism appeals to people is that under the influence of the same materialist philosophy from which communism/socialism stem, people have been mistreated under a free market system. Those who have been mistreated, and those who see and sympathize with the mistreated, are both easily led into thinking that communism provides the solution for the mistreatment.

Unfortunately, communism/socialism provide only a heavier dose of mistreatment as those who seek to impose it have no moral boundaries in that process. Hence the killing by starvation and other means of tens of millions of people by communist leaders.

 

[St_Francis]

The main problem for Catholics today is that they do not understand that libertarianism and the like stem from the exact same philosophical framework–secular materialism, modernism, En"light"tenment thinking, or whatever you want to call it–from which communism and socialism emerge.

What the Church advocates is not what in the US is pushed as the antidote to overly-socialized party platforms: libertarianism or a Return to Founding Principles or conservatism (whatever that might be?) or whatever is preached by AM radio political pundits, whether pro-death libertarian or die-hard Republican rah-rah or “I’m a Catholic but…”; nor is it distributism as one person suggested on page 1 of this thread.

What the Church advocates is society infused with holiness, which cannot be obtained without the conversion of the nation–not each individual in the nation but the nation as a whole–to the truths of God. And this society would be nothing like anything currently put forth.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
the general belief that state should play a role on ensuring the welfare of its citizens as opposed to the libertarian thought this should solely in the domain of responsible, mature individuals.

Yes, the Catholic Church has always taught that the state must assist in the welfare of citizens, and to equate the free enterprise system, developed by Her Late Scholastics, with “libertarianism”, would be false.

It is the confusion of this great system with the goodness or badness of those engaging in enterprise which leads to false conclusions. As we saw in post #19: Free enterprise is not “greed driven” it is common good driven for the welfare of the greatest number and dependant on consumer satisfaction and competition, dependant on the laws of cause and effect involving God-given reason, and based on a standard social principle of Christ’s Church – subsidiarity.

It is knowledgeable, faithful Catholics who may best work in harmony with God’s natural law in free enterprise to achieve the common good of society, simply because they are open to the fullness of truth.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, the Catholic Church has always taught that the state must assist in the welfare of citizens,

I do not think that the Church has always taught that the state must assist in the welfare of the citizens by giving money to them. For centuries, people were assisted by voluntary organizations (monasteries and convents) supported voluntarily by other people.

In fact, it was not until those resources were stolen by newly-Protestantized rulers that it became necessary for the State to step in.

The state has of course always had the mandate to assist in the welfare of the citizens by virtue of supporting their ascent into Heaven by supporting the Church and Her Teachings.