Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Monk21]

I’m slanting Monk? Come on now. Go back and read your posts yourself. God read the definition of Socialism yourself. Don’t tell me you are loosing your edge too? I really have loved our debate to be honest. I have learned a great deal from you and Black Rose particularly because you have forced me to not assume and I thank you. So hopefully we can keep this up.

Maybe the next time up in Canada we can meet up and have lunch (on me). That is if I am close enough to where you live that is.

I have enjoyed this too. Hey, I am 60 miles from Toronto and I would love to be your host to a lunch or dinner to fill in the gaps of our talk here. Typing has it’s draw backs. In Ham Radio terms we call getting together “Eye Balling” each other. It gives the best form of communications.
Cheers

 

[Monk21]

Hey folks if you have more (name removed by moderator)ut…let’s hear it.

 

[RonGawthorp]

Why do people always take the worst possible thoughts when discussing the pros and cons of this or that.
Tell me when and where here in Canada there have been deaths of countless people because we have some socialistic programs such as Fire, Police, schools and medical looked after by the government.
What you are talking abt is communism and usually with dictators running the show. You go from one extreme to another.
I am not at odds with the church and you have no right to judge me on that.
I have never talked of total socialism, I have argued for socialistic programs that help the people as a whole particulary medicine.
What Pope has called this a matter of faith or dogma?

1. What I am talking about was directly quoted from one of the Pope’s encyclicals. It is a part of his regular teaching, which is authoritative. This means it is binding on Catholics. Dogma and communism are irrelevant to the conversation.
2. The matter in question is socialism; not democracy or the republic, which obviously includes fire, police, etc. The original question was about socialism, plain and simple.
3. I have every right to judge whether what you say is, or is not, at odds with the church. Everyone has that right.
4. If the original question was about socialism, then why would you direct the topic to defend socialism as something it is not?
5. We have to be prudent here and realize how terrible acts are perpetrated against the public in the name of government, and especially in the beginning of the rise of socialistic control.
6. If we want to talk about why Capitalism is bad, we should begin a new thread. Capitalism isn’t the answer to all the problems. Nor is Socialism, or communism. Morality as defined by the Church must be adhered to in any form of government for society to be safe from dictatorship, or from self destruction.
7. I never said anything about Canada. If you are happy in Canada, by all means live in Canada. The question was about socialism and why the Church says socialism is bad. If you think Canada is not a socialist state, I don’t know why you would bring it into the conversation about socialism.

Monk, no offense, but everyone has the right to analyze your statements and judge them on their merits.

What I mean to convey is: the original question was why the church says socialism is bad, and within this context you seem to be defending socialism (or degrees of socialism) without reference to the original premise which assumes that the church has condemned socialism, and asks the question ‘why’.

Others have endeavored to answer that question, and you seem to have taken the opposite point of debate. If you have been the devil’s advocate for the sake of debate, and do not mean to oppose the original intent of the thread, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. If you intend to defend socialism in the original context of the thread, then I think I’ve understood correctly that you dissent from the Church’s stance on socialism. In that case, I have every right to speak to that point.

All in charity of course. I mean no offense. Facts can sometimes be disinterested and in this case I apologize if I’ve hurt your feelings.

 

[Pitcharan]

Don’t mind my barging in please!

If the original question was about socialism, then why would you direct the topic to defend socialism as something it is not?

I think Monk merely objected to clubbing or mixing “extreme dicatorial communism” with “democratic socialism”.

… The question was about socialism and why the Church says socialism is bad. If you think Canada is not a socialist state, I don’t know why you would bring it into the conversation about socialism.

While talking about the good side of socialism we cannot avoid reference to the bad side (or rather inhuman side) of an unsocialistic system like Canada.

 

[Cricket123]

Hello John (OP) -

I can’t help replying here, but I have read many of the replies in this thread, and I think one point needs to be made clear. If you read the Church teaching (CCC 2419 - 2463) and/or Rerum Novarum (available online), you will find that the socialism condemned by the Church and the “socialism” condemned by Fox “News” is not the same thing.

The Church condemns totalitarianism, atheism, the abolition of private property, and that sort of thing. And yet, consider these passages:

Man is himself the author, center, and goal of all economic and social life. The decisive point of the social question is that goods created by God for everyone should in fact reach everyone in accordance with justice and with the help of charity. CCC 2459

Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs. The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity. CCC 2446

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages. CCC 2434

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended. CCC 2425

I really recommend reading those sections of the Catechism and Rerum Novarum. Yes, the Church rejects socialism. However, just because Fox “News” condemns a policy as socialist does not mean that it is, at least in the eyes of the Church. For example, re: Social Security:

It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.
CCC 2436

On politics:

It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity “to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.” CCC 2442

On “welfare”:

The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. Rerum Novarum

Now, Rerum Novarum also states:

The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.

On the other hand, the Church makes no assertion as to what is fair. That question is left to be answered by us. It is an important distinction, I think. Yes, the Church condemns socialism; however, what the Republican party considers socialism is not necessarily the same thing. Nowhere does the Church condemn, for example, single-payer health care. That is a political issue, to be decided by us: social action can assume various concrete forms.

There is, of course, the question of subsidiarity. To this, I will just say that I believe Chesterton to be correct in asserting that big business makes big government necessary. If big government is a violation of subsidiarity, big business is even more so.

My $.02. Hope you find some of this useful.

May God bless you in your studies.

 

[Geowitz]

A rant…

Cricket 123 - Lets make another distinction…

Atleast in the United States(which is where most of us are relating this to) we have a republic. Each of our states are seperate sovereign entities. Or atleast that was the original intent now perverted by the left. The states created the federal government - The federal government did not create the states. The idea was that each individual state could not repel the massive power of the British. They knew they could survive only if they banded together to create a defensive union. That was the start of it and other federal responsibilities followed, BUT there were only 18 enumerated powers originally given to the federal government which are meant to restrict the federal government and only the federal government. From this design we can practically apply the principle of subsidiarity as it was intended. If your state wants to have social security, “free” healthcare, etc., go ahead. I have no problem with that. The problem with social programs on such a grand national scale is that once it starts and fails we are all stuck. We can’t move to another state to escape it. We are all painted with one broad brush stroke from sea to shining sea. Sure, some may say move to another country, but who can really do that?.. only those rich enough to do so. Again, we end up hurting the poor in the long run because we are so “compasionate”. And if people think that something is so big that only the federal government could handle it I’m sorry they think that the people in their state are too stupid to organize themselves. Take education for example - More children suffer today from the chains of the national department of education than from anything else…no child left behind…Why can’t each state handle education as it was originally intended? Why did it change to what it is now? Because someone in Washington thinks they are smarter than you and they want your tax money to flow up to them so they can redistribute it back to you as they see fit. Of course you have to beg for it back or it will just go to whichever state lobbies the hardest for it. Why can’t we keep it local? Subsidiarity also applies to charity. The federal government should not be providing welfare because it is a function the states or even counties or even US in our communities are perfectly capable of doing. The problem now is that we have relinquished our responsibilities as good neighbors expecting the federal government to take care of it.

Also from the catechism…

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.

Government should govern through freedom not control. We must have the abillity to choose to do the right thing and those choices must be made with the priciple of subsidiarity in mind. Why does everyone think that those in Washington are so much smarter than us? Why can’t the states(or counties, or cities, or communities, or families, or individuals) handle our issues? Socialism does work when coupled with the right meaning of subsidiarity. As a matter of fact I would say that my household is communistic in nature.

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.

Subsidiarity does not apply to big business the way you are seeing it because what you are calling big business is not really “business”. It’s corporatism where the government partners with corporations which of course leads us closer to tyranny and loss of control. This is actually a lack of subsidiarity. Our economic system today is a hodgepodge of rules, regulations, and loopholes. True capitalism where the state protects our rights and stays out of the business world except to bring justice upon those who have offended our rights is the most free and fair economic system ever.

Subsidiarity is about freedom and control. The less control you have, the less freedom you have. Where would we be without free will? We would not be able to love God.

Socialism is bad because it always tends towards the growing control of government. This violates the principle of subsidiarity. Government must be restricted.

Cricket 123 - Oh yeah…And I love how you slide subsidiarity in there at the end. Not giving it much weight except to apply it to business. Nice one, but it’s an underlying principle neccessary to the true understanding of government and society.

 

[Geowitz]

Cricket 123 - Are you a distributist?

 

[RonGawthorp]

“The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.” Pope John Paul II

The Pope here recognizes the practical consequences of socialism, whether it be in more communistic forms, or liberal forms such as in GB. The fact is, whether or not the Church ‘condemns’ something or not does not mean that what the Church has not yet condemned is perfectly acceptable. I know many who take the view that if the Church has not formally condemned something, it is perfectly acceptable. But that doesn’t follow.

What the Church has said through the ordinary Magisterium is certainly critical of socialism in any form.

Government programs have always existed and will always exist… the existence of these programs does not make a state ‘socialist’. Even tribes have chieftans and systems to support the sustainance of the community. Bringing government programs into the fray only confuses and misunderstands the topic.

1. The Church has a very poor view of socialism.
2. The US has programs for taking care of the poor without the government taking control of the healthcare system or any other system.
3. The problems with US healthcare has less to do with nationalized control than it has with misuse, abuse, waste, fraud, and overuse of the court system… all of which are remedied by correcting the moral life of individuals.

Post modern socialism (and certainly modern socialism) doesn’t work well.

“The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.” Pope John Paul II

Having said this, nothing works well when the moral life of individuals is in decay or is altogether dead.

 

[Cricket123]

Cricket 123 - Are you a distributist?

I am a Catholic. Distributist is not a label I usually use, but I don’t object to it.

Each of our states are seperate sovereign entities.

I’m not sure about “sovereign.” I mean, we’re not the EU. Texas, for example, can’t conduct business with Mexico independently. I understand what you mean, though.

There were only 18 enumerated powers originally given to the federal government which are meant to restrict the federal government

True, but one of these was the power to tax to promote the general welfare.

If people think that something is so big that only the federal government could handle it I’m sorry they think that the people in their state are too stupid to organize themselves.

Well, not quite. For myself, I think problems that are national in scope should be addressed at the national level.

Take education for example - More children suffer today from the chains of the national department of education than from anything else…no child left behind…Why can’t each state handle education as it was originally intended? Why did it change to what it is now? Because someone in Washington thinks they are smarter than you and they want your tax money to flow up to them so they can redistribute it back to you as they see fit. Of course you have to beg for it back or it will just go to whichever state lobbies the hardest for it. Why can’t we keep it local?

I agree with this in part. However, this isn’t exactly how it works. In my state, federal funding only accounts for 10% of funding. The rest comes from the state and, in the main, local property tax. The problem is not federal tax dollars; the problem is the federal government has asserted control over the schools: how they will be run, what standards are mandated. They don’t pay for it; they just want control. They’re telling us how we have to spend our local money.

*The federal government should not be providing welfare because it is a function the states or even counties or even US in our communities are perfectly capable of doing. The problem now is that we have relinquished our responsibilities as good neighbors expecting the federal government to take care of it.
*
This is debatable:

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, “the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.” The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1908 …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.

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.

Subsidiarity also applies to charity.

True. Yet is the question one of charity, or of justice? Certainly, charity is more proper to individual expression, yet I have no problem with the idea of using our political institutions to create a more just society. The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.

Collectivism here refers to the communal ownership of property: the idea that there should be no private property in the interest of establishing a classless society. It does not mean we cannot subsidize a function of society through a federally funded program.

*Subsidiarity does not apply to big business the way you are seeing it because what you are calling big business is not really “business”. It’s corporatism where the government partners with corporations which of course leads us closer to tyranny and loss of control. This is actually a lack of subsidiarity. Our economic system today is a hodgepodge of rules, regulations, and loopholes.
*
I’m not sure if I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me here. This, I agree with, for the most part, except the first sentence. I think subsidiarity does apply to big business, and I agree with the rest.

I love how you slide subsidiarity in there at the end. Not giving it much weight except to apply it to business.

Well, not exactly. I apply it to both big government and big business. As I’m sure you know, subsidiarity says an institution of a higher order should not perform functions proper to an institution of a lower order; i.e. the State should not perform a function proper to the family. The problem here is, I think, big business operates on a super-national level. Almost 50 of the world’s top 100 “economies” are private corporations. They are citizens of everywhere and nowhere and operate across borders in a predatory manner. What institution is even capable of dealing with these but the federal government, and yet multi-national corporations are often beyond the reach of any national laws.

(continued)

 

[Cricket123]

Even within our borders, a corporation is a legal person - a kind of super-citizen. They operate both nationally and internationally. Again, what institution can deal with such an organization. This is why I believe big business makes big government necessary. Even so, a multi-national corporation will always have the advantage.

Even after all this, we seem to be addressing two different subjects: what is socialist, and what is Constitutional. My point in the original post was simply this: the Church condemns socialism. It does not, however, condemn everything that is called socialism here in the US.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I single out the Republican party and Fox because they are the ones who usually cry “socialism” to describe any policy they do not support. An example: I support Canadian style, single-payer healthcare which could arguably be called socialist. Yet this is not condemned by the Church. You don’t hear the Church speaking out against Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden.

I oppose “Obamacare.” On the other hand, it is not socialist. It’s mandated capitalism. It’s as if you make widgets, and now there’s a law that says I must buy your widgets. If I can’t afford one, the government will help me buy one, but the money goes to you, and I have to buy a widget, of whatever quality. No thanks, but not socialism, either. Just a big pile of money for you.

We may well disagree on what is Constitutional; that’s fine, and you are entitled to your views on that. My own position on that might even be wrong . I just don’t think my views are inconsistent with the teaching of the Church. And I stand by my original position, which is simply that calling a policy socialist for the purposes of American politics does not mean that it is necessarily condemned by the Church.

Maybe this is more clear? Or maybe not? Either way -

Respectfully yours,

Cricket

 

[TenBobNote]

Even within our borders, a corporation is a legal person - a kind of super-citizen. They operate both nationally and internationally. Again, what institution can deal with such an organization. This is why I believe big business makes big government necessary. Even so, a multi-national corporation will always have the advantage.

So called “big business” that I suspect you are referring to is only possibly THROUGH big government. Corporatism is government collusion with big business to give the business an unfair advantage(Big pharma, military industrial complex, hospitals, insurance companies, oil, etc…).

If there where no government involvement in business to keep competition at bay there would be no monopolies.

Even after all this, we seem to be addressing two different subjects: what is socialist, and what is Constitutional. My point in the original post was simply this: the Church condemns socialism. It does not, however, condemn everything that is called socialism here in the US.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I single out the Republican party and Fox because they are the ones who usually cry “socialism” to describe any policy they do not support. An example: I support Canadian style, single-payer healthcare which could arguably be called socialist. Yet this is not condemned by the Church. You don’t hear the Church speaking out against Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden.

I oppose “Obamacare.” On the other hand, it is not socialist. It’s mandated capitalism. It’s as if you make widgets, and now there’s a law that says I must buy your widgets. If I can’t afford one, the government will help me buy one, but the money goes to you, and I have to buy a widget, of whatever quality. No thanks, but not socialism, either. Just a big pile of money for you.

We may well disagree on what is Constitutional; that’s fine, and you are entitled to your views on that. My own position on that might even be wrong . I just don’t think my views are inconsistent with the teaching of the Church. And I stand by my original position, which is simply that calling a policy socialist for the purposes of American politics does not mean that it is necessarily condemned by the Church.

Maybe this is more clear? Or maybe not? Either way -

Respectfully yours,

Cricket

Is it moral, efficient, or even beneficial to have government involvement in health care? lewrockwell.com/steinreich/steinreich12.1.html

 

[Cricket123]

Is it moral, efficient, or even beneficial to have government involvement in health care?

Well, I think it could be, if it were done properly. Following is an excerpt from an email conversation I had with a friend in Ontario who I asked: “do you like your healthcare?” and “do you know anyone who would prefer ours?” It’s anecdotal, of course, but this was her answer to me:

*Our health care system: I can’t think of a single reason not to have it in place. It has saved lives and financial woes for so many. I think there are subtle variances between provinces but I’ve lived in Quebec and here in Ontario, and the two systems are very similar. Regardless of income, health care is never compromised. If earning more than $20,000, deductions will be taken from pay. If unemployed, you’re still covered. Everyone will be treated by the doctor of the patient’s choice (meaning that there aren’t just certain lists from which you can chose your health care professional) at the hospital of their choice (provided the chosen doctor is associated with that particular hospital).

What’s not covered are prescription meds (outside of the hospital setting), elective cosmetic surgery, private or semi-private rooms (unless wards are full and they have to place you there), some specialty consultations which often has a comparatively small charge, requested letters from the doc, most dentistry and a few other things which I’m probably not remembering.

Many folks do indeed also possess private insurance so that they can ensure a private room if need be, get significant price cuts on prescriptions, dental care and to cover those specialist charges.

I’m very happy with the care for the most part and I do believe there’s a lot of BS told about our system. We don’t have to think twice if we’re concerned about a lump, an unyielding headache, a persistent cough… etc. I will almost always have an appointment within hours for my sons (when they were younger) or for myself if I’m at all concerned, or within a week or so if I know it can wait. Preventative care is therefore highly encouraged which helps reduce the need for urgent care. On the down side, it’s true that for some tests, it might take a long time - often months, until you get an appointment. That’s very rare when it comes to life-threatening illnesses or acute injuries.

I’ve had hospital stays (pre-natal issues, and two childbirths) where my only bill was something like $12 for the television use. The same with long term palliative care for my mother years ago. The only significant “medical” bills I’ve had to pay over the years would be thousands of dollars in veterinary expenses.

Anyway, that’s probably more than you wanted to hear. But as an aging baby boomer, I quite like the notion that I won’t have to worry too much about medical expenses (aside for meds) through declining years. There’s plenty else to worry about. One less thing is fine by me.

I don’t know how it’s going to play out in your world. But the vehement resistance I’m hearing is perplexing to me. I suppose history dictates anticipation of a less than favourable outcome but if they followed and enforced our system (or that of any other number of countries) I think most folks would wonder why they’ve waited so long.

Your sub-question: I sure can’t speak for anyone else but I’ve never personally heard anyone say that they’d prefer the Amurikan way. We love our neighbours to the south but occasionally, some of your ways are true head-scratchers. *

I don’t know tons of Canadians but all the ones I know responded similarly.

 

[Cricket123]

Oops. Left this part out:

*So called “big business” that I suspect you are referring to is only possibly THROUGH big government. Corporatism is government collusion with big business to give the business an unfair advantage(Big pharma, military industrial complex, hospitals, insurance companies, oil, etc…).

If there where no government involvement in business to keep competition at bay there would be no monopolies.
*

Well no, not really. Business always comes first. It does what it wants, then government responds:

First, unsafe working conditions, then OSHA
First, unfair labor practices, then labor unions, then the NLRB
First, unsanitary food handling, then the USDA
First, rampant pollution, then the EPA

Then, following any regulation, the corporation gradually co-opts, through lobbying and campaign finance, the agency that was set up to regulate it in the first place. Government colludes with big business after it has been corrupted by big business.

Sometimes government keeps competition at bay, i.e.: sugar tariffs. Even so, deregulation also contributes to the formation of monopolies. The unregulated free market always tends, through mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers, toward monopolies.

“…regulating [the economy] solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.” CCC 2425

Beyond creating monopolies, the free market creates perverse incentives. Consider these two examples:

According to the statistics I have seen, there are more housing units than households here in the US, yet 1 in 9 properties are vacant, and we have a serious problem both with homelessness and in the real-estate market. Granted, some people own more than one house. Still, there are several half-finished developments near me, mostly empty. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s one near you as well.

The market determines that the most profitable housing should be built, thus favoring the 4 bedroom, 4.5 bath “starter castles” over the moderately sized, moderately priced housing that most of us need. I don’t know what the solution to this is, but the market has not served the actual needs of society either.

Similarly, consider diabetes, a common illness that affects most of us, one way or another. Imagine I invented a cure for it. Would that be a good thing? Not according to the marketplace. According to the marketplace, it would be an economic disaster; the multi-billion dollar diabetes “industry” would be wiped out. For a drug company, it is far more profitable to treat a chronic illness than to make any attempt to cure it.

I think most of us would prefer cures to long-term treatment though.

Again, just my $.02

 

[Geowitz]

I’ll adress the parts that you seem to be mentioning as fact which I disagree with, otherwise I would consider some of the rest to be your opinion and debatable while actually agreeing with you on much.

There were only 18 enumerated powers originally given to the federal government which are meant to restrict the federal government

True, but one of these was the power to tax to promote the general welfare.

Actually, “to promote the general welfare” is not in the constitution. It’s in the preamble which is not law. It’s a general directional statement and even then if you wanted to promote the general welfare it’s only allowed within the confines of the eighteen enumerated powers. You can’t just add on things because you think they promote the general welfare.

If people think that something is so big that only the federal government could handle it I’m sorry they think that the people in their state are too stupid to organize themselves.

Well, not quite. For myself, I think problems that are national in scope should be addressed at the national level.

Like what? Education, welfare, healthcare, labor laws, student loans, etc? These are all items that states and local communities are perfectly capable of handling.

*The federal government should not be providing welfare because it is a function the states or even counties or even US in our communities are perfectly capable of doing. The problem now is that we have relinquished our responsibilities as good neighbors expecting the federal government to take care of it.
*
This is debatable:

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, “the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.” The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

This does not prove that welfare should be handled by the federal government. First you must prove your mode of serving the “legitimate good of commmunities that adopt them” is in accordance with the last part of #1901 and they have to be freely adopted. Welfare without a basis in subsidiarity is contrary to natural law, the public order, and to the fundamental rights of those providing the resources to make welfare possible. Even when these requirements are met this should not be our end goal. Our end goal should be true charity provided by individuals and communities closest to the need. A problem arises when we focus on what we “can do” and not what we should do. This has created a dependent apathetic society.

1908 …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.

State and community level stuff…subsidiarity…

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.

Again, state and community level stuff…subsidiarity

Subsidiarity also applies to charity.

True. Yet is the question one of charity, or of justice? Certainly, charity is more proper to individual expression, yet I have no problem with the idea of using our political institutions to create a more just society. The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.

Exactly! Justice demands equal protection of rights. Justice is not charity, but you seem to imply that federal welfare is “just”. It is exactly the federal and even state programs in many instances that actually hurt the poor. I would say they are unjust because of their nanny state/control issues that create more problems than they hope to solve.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.

Collectivism here refers to the communal ownership of property: the idea that there should be no private property in the interest of establishing a classless society. It does not mean we cannot subsidize a function of society through a federally funded program.

As long as the function is not within the capability of the lower orders of society. Not many are…

 

[Geowitz]

The new healthcare law is not forced capitalism. It’s the partnership of corporations and government creating tyranny/socialism. Capitalism is not about tyranny with the threat of force if you do not comply. Apples to oranges.

 

[luvzminis]

Jumping in late here, but a quick answer to the original question.
In a nutshell, socialism is bad because it’s never equal, as we’re supposed to believe. Just ask the many people who have had to escape from socialist nations! Some people are trying to draw a pretty picture of “all things equal” but that’s just to draw the unsuspecting into a land of all things UNequal so we can basically become slaves to the government. No thanks!!

 

[Geowitz]

Oops. Left this part out:

*So called “big business” that I suspect you are referring to is only possibly THROUGH big government. Corporatism is government collusion with big business to give the business an unfair advantage(Big pharma, military industrial complex, hospitals, insurance companies, oil, etc…).

If there where no government involvement in business to keep competition at bay there would be no monopolies.
*

Well no, not really. Business always comes first. It does what it wants, then government responds:

First, unsafe working conditions, then OSHA
First, unfair labor practices, then labor unions, then the NLRB
First, unsanitary food handling, then the USDA
First, rampant pollution, then the EPA

Then, following any regulation, the corporation gradually co-opts, through lobbying and campaign finance, the agency that was set up to regulate it in the first place. Government colludes with big business after it has been corrupted by big business.

Sometimes government keeps competition at bay, i.e.: sugar tariffs. Even so, deregulation also contributes to the formation of monopolies. The unregulated free market always tends, through mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers, toward monopolies.

“…regulating [the economy] solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.” CCC 2425

Beyond creating monopolies, the free market creates perverse incentives. Consider these two examples:

According to the statistics I have seen, there are more housing units than households here in the US, yet 1 in 9 properties are vacant, and we have a serious problem both with homelessness and in the real-estate market. Granted, some people own more than one house. Still, there are several half-finished developments near me, mostly empty. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s one near you as well.

The market determines that the most profitable housing should be built, thus favoring the 4 bedroom, 4.5 bath “starter castles” over the moderately sized, moderately priced housing that most of us need. I don’t know what the solution to this is, but the market has not served the actual needs of society either.

Similarly, consider diabetes, a common illness that affects most of us, one way or another. Imagine I invented a cure for it. Would that be a good thing? Not according to the marketplace. According to the marketplace, it would be an economic disaster; the multi-billion dollar diabetes “industry” would be wiped out. For a drug company, it is far more profitable to treat a chronic illness than to make any attempt to cure it.

I think most of us would prefer cures to long-term treatment though.

Again, just my $.02

You are completely ingnoring the fact that the reason the housing market was inflated was because of the governments involvement in subsidizing the purchases of homes.

Here’s the bottom line. The natural laws of economics are just that - laws. The market did not accurately determine the number of houses to build because the reality of the market was perverted when government affected demand. It’s a simple curve of supply and demand. Anytime the governement does ANYTHING that affects the supply or demand of ANYTHING it is doing it artificially. It is exactly the government you are defending that caused the artificial market you describe as “perverse”. This goes against the common good.

You may also want to consider this from Cardinal Ratzinger in his book, “Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church”. It’s an important point not usually mentioned in a message board catechism “quotarama”…

"*The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27].

Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions **(esp. in the area of social teaching), *there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."

And lastly, if you invented a cure for diabetes and were not allowed to bring it to the market. Who would be the ones not allowing you to do so? Your point about a economic disaster again ignores where government is involved and where it shouldn’t be involved. Actually your previous arguments would say that if you did invent a cure for diabetes, but it would destroy the market and jobs that the catechism proves you shouldn’t bring it to market because it would go against the economic common good.

 

[Cricket123]

Actually, “to promote the general welfare” is not in the constitution. It’s in the preamble which is not law. It’s a general directional statement and even then if you wanted to promote the general welfare it’s only allowed within the confines of the eighteen enumerated powers. You can’t just add on things because you think they promote the general welfare.

OK… “provide for the… general Welfare,” then:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

*The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. <ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.*

I admit, every instance of federal welfare, as the term is used today, may not be Constitutional. However, it does seem to me it could be argued that a single-payer healthcare system is within even the original parameters of the Constitution. I suspect you disagree, as is your right.

This does not prove that welfare should be handled by the federal government. First you must prove your mode of serving the “legitimate good of commmunities that adopt them” is in accordance with the last part of #1901 and they have to be freely adopted.

Well, yes. I suggest that single-payer health care (not Obamacare ) does serve the legitimate good of the community, and that we freely adopt it. Again, I suspect you disagree, which is your right.

Even if I accept the idea that most social functions should be left to the individual States or communities, I don’t see that either of these has provided any real solutions either. Where is the evidence that these functions are within the capability of these lower orders of society? I don’t see it.

Again, I have chosen my examples for the sake of argument. But my point here is not to defend socialism, as such, or even really to argue for a specific policy, such as healthcare. My point is that calling something “socialist” does not make it so. Obamacare may well be tyranny and a violation of subsidiarity, but it is not a socialist policy. That’s what I’m saying.

Remember, too, I’m talking about Canada, not the former Soviet Union. Canada is a nice country, very comparable to America - walking around Toronto, you would not immediately know you weren’t here. Neither is Canada a socialist country. It’s a capitalist country with more extensive social services. Some of which, I believe, we would do well to adopt.

 

[Cricket123]

You are completely ingnoring the fact that the reason the housing market was inflated was because of the governments involvement in subsidizing the purchases of homes.

Actually, the market was inflated by Wall Street’s insatiable desire for mortgages which it could then securitize and sell. Although, this happened with assistance from the government which Wall Street had co-opted and corrupted.

It’s a simple curve of supply and demand.

There is nothing simple about supply and demand.

there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."

Yes, but this would apply, I think, to us both. I quote the Catechism to show where i think my views are supported by it. Perhaps I am wrong , but I am not convinced of that.

And lastly, if you invented a cure for diabetes and were not allowed to bring it to the market. Who would be the ones not allowing you to do so? Your point about a economic disaster again ignores where government is involved and where it shouldn’t be involved.

No. My point here is that a drug company has a vested interest in not finding cures. Treatment, and its resulting long-term sales, is far more profitable. The government doesn’t really enter into it.

Something tells me we will never fully agree, here, but that’s ok. I can live with that.

Yours in Christ,

Cricket

 

[Bub]

There is a movement called Christian socialism .Jesus had socialist ideas.