Is The Pope A Commie?

[Teallaura]

If you knew more about the history of his Holiness, I think you'd be a bit more careful about firing off as odious a title as what you gave this thread.

The Church rejects both free market economics and marxism as disordered. It proposes a balanced view, rules should be put in place that protect the weak and poor in society, and shows a preference for local production. Beyond this there's no clear political agenda.

Just because its not laissez faire economics, doesn't meant its Marxism.



Its voluntary in the sense that its voluntary to follow God's law. However there's no Biblical mandate against what Francis is talking about. If there is, I want to see it.

Question: Leo, is he proposing the State take on the Church's role or something else?



I'm addressing this specifically because I'm NOT debating the point - I need an answer (if Leo doesn't know, I'll research it if and when I have time).

[Paprika]

Are you always this testy when people answer your questions?

Was this post responding to your answer of my question?

[Teallaura]

Was this post responding to your answer of my question?

You asked about taxation and I answered it directly - so yes, it was an answer to the question asked, and no, it wasn't snarky, off topic or argumentative, so no, you're snapping is not justified. Any other stupid questions? ( <- NOW I'm being snarky.)

[Paprika]

You asked about taxation and I answered it directly - so yes, it was an answer to the question asked, and no, it wasn't snarky, off topic or argumentative, so no, you're snapping is not justified. Any other stupid questions? ( <- NOW I'm being snarky.)

Eh, I didn't ask about taxation, but yeah, my tone was overly sharp. My apologies.

[Teallaura]

You asked Seer. But fair enough, apology accepted.

[robrecht]

Benjamin Franklin on Private and Public Property:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s12.html

There's a reason why our Declaration of Independence guarantees a fundamental right to 'the pursuit of happiness' and not 'property' as some were saying at the time (cf Virginia Declaration of Rights, John Locke). Some of the founders held to a traditional Christian idea that all the benefits of creation belonged to all people. Societal and government conventions may be judged by how well they serve this ideal. Ultimately, happiness is a personal, interpersonal, and communal goal, and not just an individual item. As Richard Cumberland had said, promoting the good of others is essential to the pursuit of our own happiness.

[seer]

If you knew more about the history of his Holiness, I think you'd be a bit more careful about firing off as odious a title as what you gave this thread.

Yes the title was provocative, but that is me. In my defense it was formed as a question and I did note that I really liked him - having read some of his bio in the past.

The Church rejects both free market economics and marxism as disordered. It proposes a balanced view, rules should be put in place that protect the weak and poor in society, and shows a preference for local production. Beyond this there's no clear political agenda.

Just because its not laissez faire economics, doesn't meant its Marxism.

OK

Its voluntary in the sense that its voluntary to follow God's law. However there's no Biblical mandate against what Francis is talking about. If there is, I want to see it.

I didn't say there was a biblical prohibition.

[Joel]

I don't know much about the history, but I speculate that Marxism actually borrowed a lot from Christian social policy. (Anyone who knows better please do correct me.)

Modern Catholic social teaching began to be codified in 1891 with Rerum Novarum.
Marx died in 1883.

They adopted certain ideas from Marx, moreso in Quadragesimo Anno 1931, such as his understanding of "exploitation" and inequality, and class conflict, while rejecting other Marxist ideas. Popes have often advocated state wealth redistribution, and positive universal "rights" (i.e., a right to have others produce and provide you with something). They have advocated nonsense ideas like a "just wage" or "equivalent value". They have often proclaimed things based on terrible understandings of economics.

[Joel]

If we are agreed that under general Christian social policy, the state uses force to ensure tax monies are collected, can you give a reason why some of it shouldn't be used to help the poor?

In addition to Teallaura's answer, I'd suggest that taxation is theft, and is at best a necessary evil, which should be kept to a minimum.
So then your question assumes a bad way of looking at things, I think. It should not be a matter of: Step one confiscate a bunch of money from people, and then Step two decide what to do with all this money. Instead the focus should be on: what is it that makes this evil necessary (or whether injustice can be justified at all); and then figure out the efficient way to do it and fund it, with the least taxation possible. And if you can later cut costs, the response should not be to ask how to use the money saved, but to reduce taxation.

If you can divert tax money from project A to project B, then presumably the level of taxation for project A wasn't as "necessary" as supposed, and thus did not morally justify that level of taxation to begin with (was an unnecessary evil). Thus the mere fact that you were taxing at that level certainly does not imply that taxing for B is morally justified, since justification of the prior taxation level is already suspect.

There are a large number of practical reasons to oppose a welfare state. Here I'm restricting myself to the reason from morality/justice.

Along with what Teallaura said, the state has long been recognized as the legitimate use of physical force (referred to in such phrases as the "power of the sword"). And traditionally the use of the sword has been considered legitimate only in carrying out justice, any other use being unjust and excessive/disproportional.

[Joel]

Benjamin Franklin on Private and Public Property:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s12.html

There's a reason why our Declaration of Independence guarantees a fundamental right to 'the pursuit of happiness' and not 'property' as some were saying at the time (cf Virginia Declaration of Rights, John Locke). Some of the founders held to a traditional Christian idea that all the benefits of creation belonged to all people. Societal and government conventions may be judged by how well they serve this ideal. Ultimately, happiness is a personal, interpersonal, and communal goal, and not just an individual item. As Richard Cumberland had said, promoting the good of others is essential to the pursuit of our own happiness.

Franklin and some others were pretty statist. Franklin's arguments there are pretty bad.

Do you have evidence that that is why Jefferson used "pursuit of happiness"? Jefferson himself was very Lockean, and there are lots of allusions to Locke's Second Treatise in the Declaration. I guess your theory is that Jefferson decided to use a broader term to make more people happy? Another theory is that it has do do with Jefferson's own epicurean philosophy. Another theory is that it has to do with Jefferson's decision to list unalienable rights. But your right to your property is alienable, meaning that you may transfer your right to your hammer to another person. To have a list of unalienable rights, Jefferson would need to replace "estate" with an unalienable right that underlies it including your right to acquire and own property (pursuit of happiness).

And I would think that a more "traditional Christian idea" is that of "Thou shall not steal", which presupposes the existence of private property.
It's also not clear that it makes sense to distinguish between individual happiness and communal happiness. Only individuals are happy. That certainly may involve human interaction and concern others, but that doesn't mean there exists some ethereal happiness in addition to (thus distinguishable from) the happiness of the actual individuals involved.

[Zymologist]

In addition to Teallaura's answer, I'd suggest that taxation is theft, and is at best a necessary evil, which should be kept to a minimum.
So then your question assumes a bad way of looking at things, I think. It should not be a matter of: Step one confiscate a bunch of money from people, and then Step two decide what to do with all this money. Instead the focus should be on: what is it that makes this evil necessary (or whether injustice can be justified at all); and then figure out the efficient way to do it and fund it, with the least taxation possible. And if you can later cut costs, the response should not be to ask how to use the money saved, but to reduce taxation.

If you can divert tax money from project A to project B, then presumably the level of taxation for project A wasn't as "necessary" as supposed, and thus did not morally justify that level of taxation to begin with (was an unnecessary evil). Thus the mere fact that you were taxing at that level certainly does not imply that taxing for B is morally justified, since justification of the prior taxation level is already suspect.

There are a large number of practical reasons to oppose a welfare state. Here I'm restricting myself to the reason from morality/justice.

Along with what Teallaura said, the state has long been recognized as the legitimate use of physical force (referred to in such phrases as the "power of the sword"). And traditionally the use of the sword has been considered legitimate only in carrying out justice, any other use being unjust and excessive/disproportional.

[Paprika]

In addition to Teallaura's answer, I'd suggest that taxation is theft, and is at best a necessary evil, which should be kept to a minimum.
So then your question assumes a bad way of looking at things, I think. It should not be a matter of: Step one confiscate a bunch of money from people, and then Step two decide what to do with all this money. Instead the focus should be on: what is it that makes this evil necessary (or whether injustice can be justified at all); and then figure out the efficient way to do it and fund it, with the least taxation possible. And if you can later cut costs, the response should not be to ask how to use the money saved, but to reduce taxation.

If you can divert tax money from project A to project B, then presumably the level of taxation for project A wasn't as "necessary" as supposed, and thus did not morally justify that level of taxation to begin with (was an unnecessary evil). Thus the mere fact that you were taxing at that level certainly does not imply that taxing for B is morally justified, since justification of the prior taxation level is already suspect.

There are a large number of practical reasons to oppose a welfare state. Here I'm restricting myself to the reason from morality/justice.

Along with what Teallaura said, the state has long been recognized as the legitimate use of physical force (referred to in such phrases as the "power of the sword"). And traditionally the use of the sword has been considered legitimate only in carrying out justice, any other use being unjust and excessive/disproportional.

Your approach assumes that taxation is an evil. I fail to see how it is necessarily or intrinsically so.

[Joel]

Your approach assumes that taxation is an evil. I fail to see how it is necessarily or intrinsically so.

It is theft. (because it is taking that which is someone else's without their consent) In any other context, it is an act that everyone recognizes as theft. Theft by majority vote is theft. Theft by some guy who is the strongest is theft.

If you start with a hypothetical group of people stranded on an island, say, without a government and without the idea of a human government, but understanding morality of justice (don't steal, don't kill, etc.), they would recognize that a powerful guy suddenly going around and forcing everyone to give him money (or goods) is theft/unjust. Likewise a gang (even majority) banding together and forcing everyone else to give them money is theft. The only reason for them to ever come to the conclusion that it's acceptable to appoint a head thief or organize a thieving organization (they'll call it a "government") is if they think the cause is so necessary that it becomes a necessary evil. The most likely original justification for this is something like: that hostile forces are coming to destroy them, and without this mass theft (which they decide to call "tax") they won't be able to amass the means of defense and they will all perish or have everything stolen from them by the hostiles. (Whether they are correct in the assessment of its necessity may be a matter of debate.)

Calling someone or something a "government" or calling theft "tax" doesn't magically turn evil into not-evil. And nobody would consider thinking that it's morally justified unless they thought it was necessary to stop some greater evil, or some such argument that it is a necessary evil.

[KingsGambit]

I am fairly surprised at how many Christians argue that governments are inherently illegitimate and that taxation is inherently theft. I do not personally believe either position is very compatible with Christianity given the biblical support for the legitimacy of both, which is of course not to accuse those holding such positions of anything more than cognitive dissonance.

[robrecht]

Franklin and some others were pretty statist. Franklin's arguments there are pretty bad.

Do you have evidence that that is why Jefferson used "pursuit of happiness"? Jefferson himself was very Lockean, and there are lots of allusions to Locke's Second Treatise in the Declaration. I guess your theory is that Jefferson decided to use a broader term to make more people happy? Another theory is that it has do do with Jefferson's own epicurean philosophy. Another theory is that it has to do with Jefferson's decision to list unalienable rights. But your right to your property is alienable, meaning that you may transfer your right to your hammer to another person. To have a list of unalienable rights, Jefferson would need to replace "estate" with an unalienable right that underlies it including your right to acquire and own property (pursuit of happiness).

And I would think that a more "traditional Christian idea" is that of "Thou shall not steal", which presupposes the existence of private property.
It's also not clear that it makes sense to distinguish between individual happiness and communal happiness. Only individuals are happy. That certainly may involve human interaction and concern others, but that doesn't mean there exists some ethereal happiness in addition to (thus distinguishable from) the happiness of the actual individuals involved.

I don't think Franklin is presenting an argument so much as merely expressing his view. The point is, one could easily make the accusation that he was much more of a socialist than Obama and somewhere up there with Pope Francis.

I think its common knowledge that Jefferson was influenced by both Locke and the Virginia declaration. He was from Virginia. It was written earlier that same year, and if you look at the language it seems obvious the Declaration of Independence was partially dependent upon (and therefore only partially independent of) it and that that 'property' was left out as a fundamental right:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgini...tion_of_Rights

I don't see any real difference between 'inalienable' and 'inherent and cannot be deprived or divested'.

I do not see any necessary contradiction between the commandment not to steal and the notion of private and public property as societal norms meant to realize the larger ideal of creation being the gift of God for all people. Did Adam and Eve own the Garden of Eden?