Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Black_Rose]

No charity primarily finances services that are not either provided by or inadequately provided by the government. Individuals collectively give far more to poor and downtrodden than governments do.

Well, that claim is easily quantified and easily falsified:

$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

These expenditures seem to be purely redistributive, unlike Social Security and Medicare. Even assume some inefficiency due to bureaucracy and unworthy people acceptable aide, these programs seem to be more effective than charity, even assuming that all $300 billion of charity in 2007 given directly to the poor.

All I care about is my family’s well being.

You said earlier:

The big statements on the left is that liberals are more compassionate and more loving than those evil conservatives who only care for themselves and to h*** with everybody else.

Thanks for admitting you are selfish, confirming the stereotype that conservatives are selfish, only caring for themselves and their kin, in your tirade when you lost your equanimity. I’ll define liberalism (for the purpose of this post) as caring for others who are not genetically related to you. This does not mean that those who vote Democratic are “liberal”. For instance, if one votes for the Democratic Party in the expectation of receiving more government benefits, then it would not be liberalism since the motivation for casting that vote is for selfish reasons.

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.
…
The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

 

[TenBobNote]

Black Rose, A couple of comments, from assumptions of mine(quite possibly false) from browsing through this thread.

It seems you are concluding that capitalism can only produce charity and it is solely up to the individual to provide for the poor. Charity is likely the least capitalism can provide for the poor. It is in the allocation of resources and production that the poor benefit most from.

When an individual is encouraged to be an entrepreneur by the free market system he will find the best way to allocate the scarce resources we have been given. A socialistic government will never be able to improve and use our God given resources in the most effective way, they will only be redistributed.

Imagine, for a moment, recent history; cars, computers, cell phones,and air conditioning. Now further back, a decent heating system, a light bulb, and electricity. All provided by entrepreneurship, the market forces, and even by selfishness.

These items have increased the standard of living tremendously! Never would any of these come from a time of socialism.

 

[Monk21]

Thanks, although a chart shows that the US .07% of its GDP to foreign aid. Norway is fourth, and Sweden is first, giving .5% of its GDP to foreign aid.

Interesting, The U.N. shows it differently;
Over 1.0% of GDP is:
Sweden
Norway = 5 Billion
Luxembourg

0.9%
Denmark

0.8%
Holland

0.3%
Canada =4.5 Billion

0.2%
United States which = 28 Billion

 

[ERose]

Well, that claim is easily quantified and easily falsified:

$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending

Sorry for baiting you on this one but where do you think the government gets it money? It comes from taxes on individuals and private companies. Governments do not make money they get it from it’s citizens. Here is the biggest problems with liberals and socialists. You have a disconnect with where government money comes from. You believe it comes out of thin air and not out of the pockets of hard working citizens and companies that are generating wealth. It is my and every other tax pay citizen and company that pays for Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc. through the government.

These expenditures seem to be purely redistributive, unlike Social Security and Medicare. Even assume some inefficiency due to bureaucracy and unworthy people acceptable aide, these programs seem to be more effective than charity, even assuming that all $300 billion of charity in 2007 given directly to the poor.

Some inefficiency? It is well documented the inefficiency and abuse in all of the systems ran by the government you listed above. What most charity organizations have shown the ability to do is maximize the bang for buck which our government cannot do.

Thanks for admitting you are selfish, confirming the stereotype that conservatives are selfish, only caring for themselves and their kin, in your tirade when you lost your equanimity. I’ll define liberalism (for the purpose of this post) as caring for others who are not genetically related to you. This does not mean that those who vote Democratic are “liberal”. For instance, if one votes for the Democratic Party in the expectation of receiving more government benefits, then it would not be liberalism since the motivation for casting that vote is for selfish reasons.

I am selfish for taking care of my own. Nice. Thank you for showing us how you really think. Let me look at you difinition of liberalism. I define it as a mental disorder that twists peoples preception of reality to think up is down and down is up. I have already shown that liberals are not as giving than conservatives so your definition is incorrect.

 

[Monk21]

Sorry for baiting you on this one but where do you think the government gets it money? It comes from taxes on individuals and private companies. Governments do not make money they get it from it’s citizens. Here is the biggest problems with liberals and socialists. You have a disconnect with where government money comes from. You believe it comes out of thin air and not out of the pockets of hard working citizens and companies that are generating wealth. It is my and every other tax pay citizen and company that pays for Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc. through the government.

Some inefficiency? It is well documented the inefficiency and abuse in all of the systems ran by the government you listed above. What most charity organizations have shown the ability to do is maximize the bang for buck which our government cannot do.

I am selfish for taking care of my own. Nice. Thank you for showing us how you really think. Let me look at you difinition of liberalism. I define it as a mental disorder that twists peoples preception of reality to think up is down and down is up. I have already shown that liberals are not as giving than conservatives so your definition is incorrect.

It seems to me that the conservatives give from their excess and the liberals give from the own needs.

 

[jimpres]

It seems to me that the conservatives give from their excess and the liberals give from the own needs.

I think that is a misnomer many conservatives give and do not have excess. That is a liberal misconception. I live on SS and give, and trust me that is not excess.

 

[ERose]

It seems to me that the conservatives give from their excess and the liberals give from the own needs.

The data does not support this. The data shows that liberals in the USA make on average 9% more than conservatives yet conservatives give 30% more than liberals. So it seems to me that conservatives give more and liberals give little.

 

[Monk21]

The data does not support this. The data shows that liberals in the USA make on average 9% more than conservatives yet conservatives give 30% more than liberals. So it seems to me that conservatives give more and liberals give little.

Well I guess Canadians are different than Americans…I stand corrected

 

[ERose]

Got proof of that Monk or are you guessing?

 

[Black_Rose]

Sorry for baiting you on this one but where do you think the government gets it money?

No need to apologize for that, but you should apologize for pushing the partisanship too far and baiting me. For example:

I have noticed that no liberal has even commented on my thread comparing charity donations between liberals and conservatives. I wonder way that is?

I was willing to let it drop simply by not responding, since I did not view it as relevant towards my initial post.

I am selfish for taking care of my own. Nice. Thank you for showing us how you really think. Let me look at you difinition of liberalism. I define it as a mental disorder that twists peoples preception of reality to think up is down and down is up. I have already shown that liberals are not as giving than conservatives so your definition is incorrect.

Ok, maybe Brooks uses a somewhat more lax definition of “liberalism” that is just political (i.e. has a tendency for voting for Democratic candidate) while Satoshi Kanazawa using a more stringent definition, saying is altruism for genetically unrelated people. Just because liberals, under the Kanazawa definition, do not donate as much to charity as “conservatives”, it does not make them less altruistic because they support government programs that support the welfare of genetically dissimilar people.

As I pointed out, charitable giving is not highly correlated to altruism because sometimes charitable donations are done to increase one’s status/avoid social stigma. It is probably moderately correlated with it though. Maybe it can be used to examine variance of altruism *within *certain cohorts, not between them. Maybe higher charitable giving means more altruism between liberals and conservatives within each group, but might not be so useful in explaining group differences in altruism. Again, this is speculation.

 

[ERose]

No need to apologize for that, but you should apologize for pushing the partisanship too far and baiting me. For example:

I believe we have both been partisan don’t you think? I have been pushing a conservative viewpoint while you have been pushing a liberal one. As I said in a previous post I like partisanship. It is good for the country.

I was willing to let it drop simply by not responding, since I did not view it as relevant towards my initial post.

No it was relavant and you or another liberal needed to comment on it because it is important to the debate. I wanted to destroy a misconception and I believe I effectively done that.

Ok, maybe Brooks uses a somewhat more lax definition of “liberalism” that is just political (i.e. has a tendency for voting for Democratic candidate) while Satoshi Kanazawa using a more stringent definition, saying is altruism for genetically unrelated people. Just because liberals, under the Kanazawa definition, do not donate as much to charity as “conservatives”, it does not make them less altruistic because they support government programs that support the welfare of genetically dissimilar people.

Conservatives by and large do support a form of temporary government supplied welfare system for those who are down that helps an individual or family financially until they can get back onto their own feet and start supporting themselves, even if it requires work related training and schooling. I am all for that, I think that would be fantastic. We also recognize that there are individuals who through no fault of their own are unable to work because of some form of mental or physical disability and these should be taken care of as well. What we are against is the abuse of the welfare system, which is highly rampant. The way the system is setup financially in my opinion is stupid because the amount of money a state gets from the government for their welfare services is based upon the number of people that are on welfare. So what do you get? You get state beaurcrats encouraging people to get into the system. The system is not setup to encourage people to get out of it. The Repubs tried during the Clinton years and actually passed reform, but since the Dems have taken back over most or the reforms have quietly been trashed. I and most Conservatives out there are for a welfare system but all we want it to be is a support mechanism not a lifestyle.

As I pointed out, charitable giving is not highly correlated to altruism because sometimes charitable donations are done to increase one’s status/avoid social stigma. It is probably moderately correlated with it though. Maybe it can be used to examine variance of altruism *within *certain cohorts, not between them. Maybe higher charitable giving means more altruism between liberals and conservatives within each group, but might not be so useful in explaining group differences in altruism. Again, this is speculation.

I still disagree with this point. I know that there are alot of people out there that give their money to charity and flunt it to everyone in range and as Jesus said these people already have their reward. But I think that the far majority of people out there give of their time and money without care who notices and who doesn’t. I know that we volunteers are needed at my church, people just show up do what needs to be done, maybe socialize for a little while and go home. If money is needed then that money is placed in an envelope and placed in a basket and that is it. No body telegraphs how much money they put in the basket. It is just done. In my family’s case the only people that know how much money and time we donate is us.

I coach youth sports. Why, because I feel like I need to give something back to the community. The kids I enjoy coaching the most are the ones that need it. The kids who don’t have fathers in their lives and for two to four months they have one. The realization on their faces that someone cares for them is priceless in my opinion. I do get something personal out of it, but I believe the get something out of it as well. One kid I coach in basketball is a child that has some serious physical issues. Doctor basically told his parents that this 10 year old boy has the bones of a 70 year old man. He is had so many surgeries, has to take growth hormones, he has to get shots everyday. You feel for the kid and what he is going through. But what I do for him is I treat him like he is just another one of the kids. I make him do everything that the other kids do. I do not pull him back on anything. I do not pamper him. And he has responded. He goes out there and gives me everything he has. He has developed into one of my best shooters, even though he has a crazy looking shot, and has learned to work through his disabilities and contribute. To see the pure enjoyment on his face is amazing to me and his parents and grand parents. Because he knows and they know that there will be a point that it will all come to an end. That is why I volunteer. I could give many more stories as well.

Do I get something out of it? Yes. Am I doing this just because I get something out of it? No. And I believe that the wide majority of people out there that give of their time and money think the same thing. Maybe I believe in people too much which is what you are thinking. I just don’t believe that people are inherently evil and selfish. That is what conservatives in this country for the most part believe. They believe in people and that most people will do the right thing most of the time.

 

[Black_Rose]

I believe we have both been partisan don’t you think? I have been pushing a conservative viewpoint while you have been pushing a liberal one. As I said in a previous post I like partisanship. It is good for the country.

No it was relavant and you or another liberal needed to comment on it because it is important to the debate. I wanted to destroy a misconception and I believe I effectively done that.

I’ll only give you this: you have destroyed the “misconception” that “liberals” give a larger proportion of their income to charity than “conservatives”. No more, no less! It is just an empirical statement. Ok, I never promoted that “misconception”, to my knowledge, on CAF.

Am I partisan? One cannot deny that I am to a limited extent, and I only bring up partisan issues (defined as anything having to do with organized political parties on a reactionary basis, since I never bring it up myself, only when others being it up.) You tend to bring it up with alacrity in this thread, taking delectation at “exposing” any alleged “hypocrisy” of liberals. So when did I bring up organized political parties on this thread? You even perceive others to hold political views, when they are not explicitly stated or implied by their written material, such as saying that Joann McNamara is a “liberal”. I usually do bring up ideology, but I keep discussions limited, only criticizing ideologies themselves, and rarely attacking the adherents of an ideology. If I am self-righteously arrogant, which you have accused me of being earlier, at least I keep it concealed and do not speak in a condescending tone.

Comparing our relative frequency of bring up partisan issues, you habitually do it.

 

[CPA2]

Well, that claim is easily quantified and easily falsified:

$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

These expenditures seem to be purely redistributive, unlike Social Security and Medicare. Even assume some inefficiency due to bureaucracy and unworthy people acceptable aide, these programs seem to be more effective than charity, even assuming that all $300 billion of charity in 2007 given directly to the poor. QUOTE

There you go again with your false assumptions about socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare! Remember what Thomas Jefferson said. Government should be an umpire, not a participant. There is a legitimate role for the government. However, participating in the economy in the form of **minimum wage laws and social security is not a legitimate role of government. **

Such activities cause a misallocation of resources. Remember that resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship) are scarce. Government cannot suspend the laws of economics. **Government can only cause shortages and surpluses **through price floors and price ceilings.

I am always amused when politicians say that they are going to “save” Social Security. If you are 35 years old, you will receive a 2% return on Social Security. If you are a retiree, you are receiving a 20% return on Social Security. Social Security is just another Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal unless the government is running one!

 

[ERose]

I’ll only give you this: you have destroyed the “misconception” that “liberals” give a larger proportion of their income to charity than “conservatives”. No more, no less! It is just an empirical statement. Ok, I never promoted that “misconception”, to my knowledge, on CAF.

I do not know if you came out and directly made that claim. But you have indirectly or I and others on this thread would not have made that assumption. You attempted defense whether you wanted to or not also highlights that you initially did not want to accept it.

Am I partisan? One cannot deny that I am to a limited extent, and I only bring up partisan issues (defined as anything having to do with organized political parties on a reactionary basis, since I never bring it up myself, only when others being it up.) You tend to bring it up with alacrity in this thread, taking delectation at “exposing” any alleged “hypocrisy” of liberals. So when did I bring up organized political parties on this thread?

I don’t recall making this a party vs. party issue unless it was to use as an example. It is pretty much recognized that the Democratic party is ran by their liberal wing even though not all Democrats are liberal and that the Republicans are for the most part ran by the moderates even though a large % of Repubs are conservative. So if I used a party it was only secondary to make a point.

You even perceive others to hold political views, when they are not explicitly stated or implied by their written material, such as saying that Joann McNamara is a “liberal”.

I accept that I jumped the gun on this one and I concede that point about Joann McNamara. I jumped to that conclusion because certain points of her document had a left leaning feel to it and I should not have done that. But I am not looking at political views I am referring to idealogies. There is a difference there.

Comparing our relative frequency of bring up partisan issues, you habitually do it.

I am a conservative and a capitalist and I am not ashamed of being either. I know from your posts that you are a liberal and a socialist. For the most part that means that you and me are on opposite sides when it comes to the subject of whether or not the USA should embrace socialism or hold to capitalism.

I apologize that I injured your feelings. But there are things that must be pointed out and some things that cannot be ignored, if there is to be a good debate on these issues which this thread is about. I apologize that I do not pull punches and I thank you for not pulling any punches and Monk as well. It has been a good debate until it became personal. I have no problem continuing in the intellectal debate but I will no longer be involved in the personal stuff.

 

[Black_Rose]

I do not know if you came out and directly made that claim. But you have indirectly or I and others on this thread would not have made that assumption. You attempted defense whether you wanted to or not also highlights that you initially did not want to accept it.

It is ultimately of minor relevance, since charity is not at all effective when compared to a welfare state. And charity cannot be exactly correlated to altruism or virtue since Pablo Escobar, a poignant counterexample, was a charitable person, too, since he donated an enormous amount of money to the poor.

 

[ERose]

Here is an update for all of you in the states if you haven’t seen it yet. My company’s health insurance rates increased 17% for next year due to Obama-Care. Just want to let everyone know.

 

[jimpres]

Here is an update for all of you in the states if you haven’t seen it yet. My company’s health insurance rates increased 17% for next year due to Obama-Care. Just want to let everyone know.

Seems like all the rates are going up about $2K a year because of Obama care, plus he is cutting Medicare by $500B.

Time to buy books on medicine or find a medicine man.

 

[Sandy_Kay]

I have tried very hard to follow the comments on this issue but some of you are making it very hard to do so by going off topic so much. The issue is Why is socialism bad by Church teaching? The ten commandments are God’s laws of how we are to love one another like He loves us. One commandment says we aren’t to steal. To take things from one person and give it to another is still stealing. We are called to give what ever we can afford to others but, taking from others or redistribution of wealth is stealing! Another commandment says not to covet thy nieghbors goods. Socialism promotes class envy and class envy is a sin. Another commandment says their is only One God. Deciding who is entitled to what is making yourself into God. Socialism is playing god with the lives of others. Another thing, God created us to live in freedom. Not the freedom to do as we please but the freedom from tyranny. When we give any govenment the responsibility to care for us we give them authority over us, loosing our freedom from tyranny. Sandy Kay
www.sandy-truthalwayswins.blogspot.com

 

[jimpres]

When we give any govenment the responsibility to care for us we give them authority over us, loosing our freedom from tyranny. Sandy Kay
www.sandy-truthalwayswins.blogspot.com

Exactly correct we have given control away and we must correct the situation. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. Vote in November or lose more of your freedoms.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hello,

I was reading in my AP European History textbook about the beginning of socialism in England in the 1800s, and I was curious why socialism is bad by the Church’s teachings. I see how socialism (allegedly) helps the poor and needy, and everyone would be doing things equal. Is it because we wouldn’t have freedom of religion? Help me out please, I’m not trying to be a heretic, just I’m curious to know why socialism is bad. I already know why socialism is bad in terms of euthanasia, but I’m ignorant in other areas.

Thanks!

I’m sure no one ever said socialism is bad – at least no real Christian who has compassion for his/her fellow beings. I guess it’s all in how you define socialism. Some would say we (the US) are socialistic, bec we have a federal postal system, social security, and medicare. Others would say socialism means an atheistic autocratic society in which religious and all other freedoms are abolished.

I learned in school socialism was something between our system (with its gov programs) and Communist Russia, that it was the system the Western European nations followed – allowing capitalism, but ensuring people are taken care of when they need it.

Now if you read the writings of BXVI, esp his Caritas et Veritatis, and read it carefully, you will see that he supports a “caring and sharing” people and society…which is another name for socialism (as I would define it), a society that is democratic, allowing for ownship and capitalistic ventures, and into subsidiarity (allowing lower levels, like the family or town, to perform their duties, when they do them best, without interference from higher levels). Some Catholics I know propose “distributionalism” (which is a form of capitalism in which all the peoples own interests in the businesses, and thus have a stake in them and in society). That also sounds like a good idea, and a bit like the good form of socialism I would imagine. ((I think there are serious problems with bureaucracy, whether in a capitalistic or socialistic society, that need to be constantly corrected – however, in the huge societies of today, we need bureaucracy, and cannot live like band or tribal societies of 20-50 people, each his/her own boss.))

It is true that we all have to do our individual parts in helping our fellow humans, but a truly caring person would also want others to be helped – others he/she can’t help, or doesn’t even know about, who need help. They would be supportive of both NGOs that help people and their own government helping people – not in a condescending handout way, as our gov does to welfare people, disgracing them, but in the way of “you have a right to share in the earth’s bounty, as a dignified, loved person, who has just fallen on hard times.”

Once people understand that they live in a caring and sharing society, and will be taken care of, heaven forbid, they ever fall on desperate times, and will be helped without losing their dignity, then perhaps people won’t be so pettily concerned with hording & hording for themselves, suppressing any compassion they might have for others. I think right now in these economic hard times our society (the US) is somewhat in that mode – scared, not much willing to care and share.