Judge Napolitano and the Pope
#21
When Jesus said the poor would always be with us it was a DESCRIPTION of reality, not a PREFERENCE or PRESCRIPTION.
Reply
#22
But the problem is some seem to wish to change reality's description into impossible-under-x.

We are not promised a Utopia in Christendom until Heaven.

In other words, we WILL always have the poor with us and no system can change that.

Marxism under another title is still Marxist in principle. And FWIW, based on my reading of Traditional writers, poverty in actuality can actually be a preference.

I shudder at temporal success, personally.
Reply
#23
(12-06-2013, 11:48 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(12-06-2013, 11:24 AM)Vincentius Wrote: The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (Lex suprema, sallus animarum est). 

The sole role of the Pope is to feed the flock:

Quote:John 21:17
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

1 Corinthians 13:3
And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre' s sake, but voluntarily:

True, very true. But all His Holiness did was just write in EG that he would like to see more done in the economy to put value in man rather than idolizing money.

Certainly doesn't merit all the hysteria from the Right and denunciations of His Holiness as a Marxist.
The reason for all the hysteria on hte right is taht they idolize money and the Pope called them out on it.
Reply
#24
The "Right" in this case is an Austro-libertarian. Judge Napolitano doesn't idolize money; he understands and upholds property rights. The State cannot give to the poor without first taking--under threats of fines and imprisonment--from somebody else first.

The hallmark of morality is universality. If "thou shalt not steal" is good enough for the rabble of humanity, it's good enough for those exalted personages employed by the State. The natural law is the natural law.

You can carve your exception to the natural law if you choose. You can call your exception socialism, distributism, welfarism, social democracy, the Safety Net, or even the Social (!) Kingship (!!) of Christ (!!!). You can invoke the Overriding Public Interest to defend and rationalize your exception. Just don't expect good to come from the evil entailed by that exception (Romans 3:8).
Reply
#25
A "living wage" is just another example of the just-price fallacy. Supply and demand curves set price in a free market. There is no just price for any good, or resource or service. Neither is there a just price for labor.

If the government intervenes in the market to decrease or increase prices, it creates shortages or excesses. In the 1970s, the government set a ceiling on the price of oil. High oil prices are unjust! The result was a shortage of oil and long lines at the gas pump. Conversely, the government has set a floor on the price of labor. Low wages are unjust! The result has been excess labor, better known as unemployment.

It's one thing to recommend charity for the poor. It's quite another to lobby for laws that serve only to aggravate their plight.
Reply
#26
(12-07-2013, 02:22 AM)Doce Me Wrote: The question (I have no answer) is just what is the "exceeding distress" that the State has the responsibility to address?  Does America (does the Pope want to)  turn any degree of poverty (regardless of opportunities, friends, private charities, etc) into "extreme necessity", so that it is truly necessary to tax and redistribute so much as we do?  Pope Leo praises private property; is the State taking too much away?

The specifics are for each country to decide. It seems that this is the murky realm of politics.
Reply
#27
I can't wait for the next iteration of evil embodied in Austrian economics. I can't wait for the separation widening so it'll be a lot like the So. American slums and the Latafundistas, and their pets in the intelligentsia. I can't wait to see your wives and children picking through mountains of refuse filled with disease to find anything to live.

tim
Reply
#28
(12-07-2013, 10:52 AM)Tim Wrote: I can't wait for the next iteration of evil embodied in Austrian economics. I can't wait for the separation widening so it'll be a lot like the So. American slums and the Latafundistas, and their pets in the intelligentsia. I can't wait to see your wives and children picking through mountains of refuse filled with disease to find anything to live.

tim

In my experience such things only occur when Marxism and its variants are present.

Distributism remains fantasy-laden repackaging of Communism insofar as its talked about today. Frankly, I can't figure out what it is other than Catholic Communism.
Reply
#29
(12-07-2013, 01:01 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Distributism remains fantasy-laden repackaging of Communism insofar as its talked about today. Frankly, I can't figure out what it is other than Catholic Communism.

In a distributist economy, the state encourages as many people as possible to own the means of production.  The result is that small businesses, at or close to home, predominate.  This is not communism.  In communism, the state owns the means of production and discourages private ownership.

Economies of scale are achieved through cooperatives and employee-owned businesses.

You can read more about it here, at the Distributist Review site.
Reply
#30
(12-07-2013, 01:01 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(12-07-2013, 10:52 AM)Tim Wrote: I can't wait for the next iteration of evil embodied in Austrian economics. I can't wait for the separation widening so it'll be a lot like the So. American slums and the Latafundistas, and their pets in the intelligentsia. I can't wait to see your wives and children picking through mountains of refuse filled with disease to find anything to live.

tim

In my experience such things only occur when Marxism and its variants are present.

Distributism remains fantasy-laden repackaging of Communism insofar as its talked about today. Frankly, I can't figure out what it is other than Catholic Communism.

Typical ramblings of another uninformed American who can't think outside the Limbaugh/Breitbart/Fox News crowd. Explain how Distributism can be "Marxist" (do you even know what that means?) if Distributism sees private-property as a fundamental right and Marxism seeks to abolish it and Communism is the state in which private-property is inexistent.

Read up on some actually economic textbooks that don't come from Glen Beck before spouting off such ignorant comments.


(12-07-2013, 01:29 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: In communism, the state owns the means of production and discourages private ownership.

Once again wrong (sorry Claire you are right in your defense of Distributism); Communism is the end-goal of Marxism where the workers owns the means of production, Socialism is where the state controls it.


Americans seriously need to pick up an econ book.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)