Is This Outside The Realm Of Social Justice?

[Aloysius]

I didn't ask what your diocese thought was within Social Justice teaching. I understand many Catholics believe large welfare is attached to Catholic Social Teaching. But I believe that you can disagree with big government pulling a Robin Hood to the extreme and still be within Catholic Social Teaching. I believe the best way to help the poor is to help them get into the job market. Robbing from the rich (by giving them the bulk of the taxes instead of asking for a more equal percentage from all) to give to the poor hurts the job market and provides only a quick fix usually for the poor.

By the way, I was editing my last post while you posted.

Pax Amorque Christi

Edited July 5, 2004 by Aloysius

[crusader1234]

Well first of all your definition of 2 Thes 3:10 isn't accurate, and secondly - your whole thing about buying expensive computers and houses benefitting real estate agents and technicians is totally ridiculous. Real estate agents don't 'go poor' if nobody buys 2 million dollar houses. The real estate agents that sell 2 million dollar houses generally live in 2 million dollar houses themesleves. The computer technicians that make 4 thousand dollar computers for Dell and Compaq and what have you make upwards of 80 thousand dollars a year. Now if you call making 40 thousand dollars a year going poor, then I dont really know what to say.

[Aloysius]

Those real estate agents live in 2 million dollar houses themselves because they worked hard and sold a bunch of other 2 million dollar houses.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 5 2004, 12:53 AM'] [Hereforward Item One] I didn't wanna get into the whole environment thing though, so let's change it. What if it's an expensive house? If no one bought expensive houses, Real Estate Agents would all go poor. If no one bought expensive computers, computer makers would go poor. If no one bought cable, the cable guy would go poor. So on and so on.



[Hereforward Item Two] In a socialistic society, people loose the incentive to work hard because everyone else will just end up with the majority of their money. I think capitalism makes more sense, on the basic principle of 2 Thes 3:10 the harder someone works, the better off they are. Their prosperity helps others because they patron others businesses. The real goal is to work to make sure everyone gets into the system of selling some service or good and thus they make money off of the rich without the government taking it from the rich and simply handing it to them even though they didn't earn it. [/quote]
Add to that list in Item One,

If no one got abortions PP would go broke
If no one used Brith Control condom makers would go broke
If there was no Islam Buake (sp?) makers would go broke

My point in this is that something going broke isn't the horrid thing you are making it out to be. Why do we need abortions, BC, Hummers, über fast computers, etc. Some of them are nice to have, but do we need them?


[quote] think capitalism makes more sense, on the basic principle of 2 Thes 3:10 the harder someone works, the better off they are.[/quote]

LOL! I read that and thought Prod theo, lol. Sorry that is just me. LOL!

Item two,

Act Chapter 2 says to sell all of our properity and ownings and share agonmst each other, each one getting to his need.

So yeh. BTW, this verse was one of the things that inspired Marx to write Das Kaptial.

A socialistic society in a pure form should not have that happen. It does if the application is twisted. But in a pure form no. There is nothing that says if we are socialist we are lazy. What socialism is about is giving to each other and sharing. Those most in need get the most. And all jobs and tasks are equal. A doctor is as vitial to the running of society as the farmer as is the stocker at the store. No one is greater than another.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 5 2004, 01:05 AM'] I didn't ask what your diocese thought was within Social Justice teaching. [/quote]
I know you didn't lol. But I had the artcile on my desk and thought... for the Diocese thought it was a good idea they thought it was inside Catholic Social teaching. And if they spearheaded a movement, the Bishop had to be on borad. Therefore, it cannot be way out of CST.

[Aloysius]

perhaps I am blanketing 2 Thes 3:10 too much (my point is that people should work to better their lives) and describing an idealistic capitalism as opposed to the greed-infested society we live in. But I believe it has a better chance of sucess than socialism.

[crusader1234]

[quote]Those real estate agents live in 2 million dollar houses themselves because they worked hard and sold a bunch of other 2 million dollar houses[/quote]

You dont really know much about real estate I take it. Selling a 2 million dollar house is as easy as selling a 200 thousand dollar house - you just make a MUCH larger commision. And, that statement goes against the statement you made before:

[quote]If no one bought expensive houses, Real Estate Agents would all go poor.[/quote]

Buying expensive houses helps out a select (maybe 2 perecent) portion of real estate agents, and they end up making more money for less work than the other 98 percent. Yet you say that if nobody bought them all real estate agents would go poor. Thats Republican economics for ya.

[crusader1234]

[quote]But I believe it has a better chance of sucess than socialism. [/quote]

The standard of living in Canada (socialist) and Sweden (socialist) is higher than that of USA (capitalist) according to the United Nations.

[Aloysius]

i never sugested that the big government big welfare is outside of Catholic Social Teaching. I just think that either way is acceptable within Catholic Social Teaching and we have to figure out which system would best bring about Social Justice.

My point is that we need a variety of fields and all of those fields need consumers. That doesn't mean we should have immoral fields like abortion or pornography. However, legitimate fields of work should be supported.

I don't think it's protestant theology that people should work to better their lives.

That Acts passage is talking about one of the first religious communities. They didn't give that money to their leaders, governers, kings, they gave that money to the apostles who distributed it correctly. If you're for the Bishops becoming the rulers of our country and distributing the wealth, then sure I'll follow you up there. But the fact is this type of living was the seeds of religious communities, and people in 3rd order religious communities still live like that today. They did not entrust the distributing of wealth to their political leaders, and neither should we.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 5 2004, 01:24 AM'] And, that statement goes against the statement you made before:

Buying expensive houses helps out a select (maybe 2 perecent) portion of real estate agents, and they end up making more money for less work than the other 98 percent. Yet you say that if nobody bought them all real estate agents would go poor. Thats Republican economics for ya. [/quote]
Less work, more money?

"Idealistic capitalism"

LOL! That is hard. Capitalism runs on the basis of pitting two people aginst each other. Try something of a mix like the UK or Canada has.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 5 2004, 01:49 AM'] Christiandom [/quote]
*nervous twitch*

Sorry.... *twitch*

Pet peeve of mine...

Christendom. Not Christiandom.

Back to the topic at hand.

[Aloysius]

If nobody bought the 2 million dollar houses what would happen to the land? Does not buidling a house like that help out the construction people?

I'm not actually advocating people buy the most expensive thing out there, but the fact is there are expensive things out there and if you buy them it helps out the people who make them and the people that sell them. No reason to just let expensive houses go to waste.

I'm not sugesting people hoard up money and live in a big mansion with lots of expensive cars, there is such a thing as temperance. But government shouldn't regulate temperance by taking all the money from the rich and handing it out to the poor. (help should be given to the poor, but it should be more on the basis that it is helping them get back on their feet so they can enter the job industry.

People should be given the oppurtunity and means to better their lives, not quick fix handouts.

Edited July 5, 2004 by Aloysius

[crusader1234]

I dont really feel like debating this with you since you don't understand how welfare works.

Peace,

Rich

[Aloysius]

perhaps I wish to be educated on how welfare works.

[crusader1234]

Well, for starters, its not something desireable that you'd chose if you have a choice to work. Its barely enough to get by. Secondly, it comes along with social support to find employment.