Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[dairygirl4u2c]

Pope demands "legitimate redistribution" of wealth

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis is calling for governments to redistribute wealth to the poorest and for a new spirit of generosity to take hold.

Francis made the appeal during a speech Friday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who are meeting in Rome this week.

The pontiff has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much of humanity.

On Friday, he called for the United Nations to promote an "ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor and a new spirit of generosity that also addresses the root causes of poverty and hunger.

He called for "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20140509/eu-rel--vatican-un/?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=sports

 

http://time.com/94264/pope-francis-redistribute-wealth/

===================================

questions, comments, words of wisdom? do those staunch conservative catholics here see this as a change in social teaching? it shouldn't be seen that way, to anyone who's familiar with the history of catholic social teaching, as ive posted about here many times. but it is a lot more vocal and specific in teaching than usual coming from a pope.

 

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

im pretty sure it's becoming next to impossible to claim this stuff isn't part of catholic social teaching, as often is tried to be argued.

 

the only other step is to argue that catholics can disagree with the pope on social teaching etc.

[Anomaly]

Yet another shift and doublespeak from religious. It just goes to show how the Church shifts with the winds of times and with whichever power cabal claws its way to a position of influence and control.

It can't run its own finances without corruption, can't coherently address criminal bishops, but followers will swear by and joyously cheer this revolutionary advice on world economics and hammer it into or out of whatever political goal can be imagined.

La sigh.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Anomaly

[Credo in Deum]

I hope the pope gave them my address.  I could use some walking aroun...I mean food money. 

[4588686]

It can't run its own finances without corruption, can't coherently address criminal bishops, but followers will swear by and joyously cheer this revolutionary advice on world economics and hammer it into or out of whatever political goal can be imagined.
 

 

 

Wealth redistribution (aka taxation) is not even close to revolutionary.   

[Anomaly]

Lol. Never has been, but to hear it from the Pope and qualify it with an amorphous "legitimate", its now a fresh effort to make the old idea the new concept.
Who can legitimately discern who "can't work" from who "won't work"? When you see someone's that got more, did they get it via "legit" means? It all depends on what side of more you think you're on.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Anomaly

[4588686]

Lol. Never has been, but to hear it from the Pope and qualify it with an amorphous "legitimate", its now a fresh effort to make the old idea the new concept.
Who can legitimately discern who "can't work" from who "won't work"? When you see someone's that got more, did they get it via "legit" means? It all depends on what side of more you think you're on.

 

 

Any policy that promotes any sort of wealth redistribution carries an implicit qualifier that the redistribution is 'legitimate.'  I don't think that any proposed redistributive policy (from food stamps to using tax money to buy guns for the army) is described as 'illegitimate.'  

 

Wealth redistribution is not just about supporting the poor.  It's also about preventing oligarchy.  As plenty of rigorous empirical studies have demonstrated again and again, extreme concentrations of wealth translates into sever political inequality (i.e. oligarchy).  

 

Although, since we already live in a (at least) quasi-oligarchy* I don't think you have anything to worry about (as far as redistribution, obviously oligarchic system lead to all sorts of awful outcomes that we will all have to deal with).  

 

 

 

 

* https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[Anomaly]

Any policy that promotes any sort of wealth redistribution carries an implicit qualifier that the redistribution is 'legitimate.' I don't think that any proposed redistributive policy (from food stamps to using tax money to buy guns for the army) is described as 'illegitimate.'

Wealth redistribution is not just about supporting the poor. It's also about preventing oligarchy. As plenty of rigorous empirical studies have demonstrated again and again, extreme concentrations of wealth translates into sever political inequality (i.e. oligarchy).

Although, since we already live in a (at least) quasi-oligarchy* I don't think you have anything to worry about (as far as redistribution, obviously oligarchic system lead to all sorts of awful outcomes that we will all have to deal with).




* https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

I had already said "legitimate" is an amorphous term.

There's always somebody saying they'll make things more "fair" and it is going to come from the other guy, don't worry. Been hearing that longer than you could control you bladder.

It is always dependent upon what side of having what you think is legitimate you believe youre on.

My reality is I work harder for less while someone who has more than me finds a way to legitimately take and give it to someone that has less than either. Hope and change, what God desires, the masses always fall for it when they hear it. Whether from a pope or a president, it is about the same BS.

[4588686]

I had already said "legitimate" is an amorphous term.

There's always somebody saying they'll make things more "fair" and it is going to come from the other guy, don't worry. Been hearing that longer than you could control you bladder.

It is always dependent upon what side of having what you think is legitimate you believe youre on.

My reality is I work harder for less while someone who has more than me finds a way to legitimately take and give it to someone that has less than either. Hope and change, what God desires, the masses always fall for it when they hear it. Whether from a pope or a president, it is about the same BS.

 

Right.  So you've just reiterated the points that:

 

1-politics is largely a conflict of interests (hey, I wonder if extreme income inequality effects that capacity of some of those conflicting interests to engage in rent-seeking behavior and structure the system in their favor)

 

2-Society is complicated.

 

Are you an anarchist? 

[4588686]

I mean, I agree with both of those points however unless you believe that the current political system should be totally abolished and a system with no redistribution of any kind should exist at all (so, some form of extreme right libertarianism) I don't see what your overall argument is.  

[Vitamin]

This topic is boring. We should all settle in and watch Eurotrash instead.

Conchita Wurst - Rise Like a Phoenix (Austria) 20…: http://youtu.be/SaolVEJEjV4

[CrossCuT]

Go Papa Frank! Woot woot

[Anomaly]

I mean, I agree with both of those points however unless you believe that the current political system should be totally abolished and a system with no redistribution of any kind should exist at all (so, some form of extreme right libertarianism) I don't see what your overall argument is.  

I'm not an anarchist or Winny.   

Government should have a limited role, especially in social engineering.  The bigger the institution, the more dangerous it can be because it can then operate beyond the intentent of society and be manipulated by a few.  Like Winny, I see the danger of a State, but also accept the need.  To be punny with Winny in mind, it's like fire.  

 

Look at CrossCut's post of support.   She has no clue if the Pope means a redistribution policy should be meted out by the State by confiscation, a call for social organizations to provide food, a change to international banking, a change to employment policies, ending any and all emmigration/immigration restrictions.   But she'll support the change as long as she thinks it comes from an authoritative voice claiming divine credentials.  

 

The sadly funny thing with leaders is, they all think they know better or get us to believe they do, then regardless of their motives (philanthropic or greedy) both work to quash questioning and challenges from the rabble.  Societies are complicated and difficult and require effort.  

 

And no, the answer isn't a complete dismantling of the current system nor abolishing all redistribution.  My kids used the same false extreme choices when they argued as teens. You know that's a stupid ploy. 

Edited May 11, 2014 by Anomaly

[John Ryan]

Yet another shift and doublespeak from religious. It just goes to show how the Church shifts with the winds of times and with whichever power cabal claws its way to a position of influence and control.

It can't run its own finances without corruption, can't coherently address criminal bishops, but followers will swear by and joyously cheer this revolutionary advice on world economics and hammer it into or out of whatever political goal can be imagined.

La sigh.

 

How is this an example of the Church shifting with the winds of the times? The Church has always been anti-capitalist. For crying out loud, so many priests in South America are Marxists.

[Benedictus]

How is this an example of the Church shifting with the winds of the times? The Church has always been anti-capitalist. For crying out loud, so many priests in South America are Marxists.

 

Yes, exactly. I'd describe myself as socialist (some would disagree as I belong to the British Labour Party :hehe2: ) but I know a couple of priests that describe themselves as Communist or Marxist. The Jesuits, from those I've met, are full of marxists and some are definately more left wing than me. But all religious leaders will have their own political views. The problem, and arguement I've had to often make, is that you could use the Bible to support many political positions. Margaret Thatcher did so to support her ideas -  saying everything had to be down to individual choices. I don't really like church being party political or biased.  But we should expect religious leaders to call governments, representatives and social/ economic systems out when they are unfair or create generational injustices. I don't think the current economic and political structures will hold out as the world is changing and demanding new ways of being and operating. .