i am a political liberal - and i prove it

[Iacobus]

About 15 years ago JPII wrote about how communionism had major flaws and hurt people. In the same work he wrote about how captialism had major flaws and hurt people.

The way I see it, and this is what makes me a "Marxist," is that to me, for the large part, capitalism, esp in a laissze-faire system, leads to a great deal of human suffering and proverty, that is, for the large part preventable. LF says that proverty is the mother of inovation, which it is/was. What Marx comments on is that it no longer can work that way.

The laborer, because of the "Iron Law of Wages," which, according to Ricardo, says that workers should not be paid more then the bare miniuium amount to live, thereby "preventing" human suffering in future generations. This Iron Law makes it impossible for the common laborer to earn enough capital to step out of proverty.

Moreover, classical liberalism (which is what LF is, in case you didn't trust the others about the word's meanings changing, it went from laissez-faire capitalism to, well, something slightly less then LFC, but by no means Marxism), just brushed the issue aside. Like the GKC quote Al posted, they (the classical liberals, now the modern cons) refused to address the problem and try to solve it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 16 2005, 04:28 PM']About 15 years ago JPII wrote about how communionism had major flaws and hurt people. In the same work he wrote about how captialism had major flaws and hurt people.


[right][snapback]760418[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Typos are funny

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 16 2005, 05:34 PM']Typos are funny
[right][snapback]760428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Aloysius]

anything that even remotely infringes upon the right to private property is absolutely immoral. read Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII.

That means that no matter how bad Capitalism is, it CANNOT be legitimately solved by the 'steal from the rich and give to the poor' mentality of modern liberal progressive policy.

"conservatives" in the GKC quote prevent them from being corrected because their attitude starts to 'conserve' the liberal errors of the past. liberals just want to keep changing and changing, but every change they make is still attempting to rob from the rich and give to the poor and in the extreme cases completely abolish the concept of private property. then the conservatives decide to defend the status quo.

but we need to go FURTHER RIGHT than the conservatives. the conservatives defend the status quo of property as it is today-- as the liberals of the past turned it into-- but we need to advance a view of private property that is [b]INVIOLABLE[/b] as Leo XIII called it.

too many modern conservatives are also very federalist-- something that should not be conservative. these federalist conservatives are in effect defending the errors made by the liberals of the past.

that's what the GKC quote means. the liberals will continue to make errors and further the bold frontier of erroneous policy. such erroneous policy's will be so well-established in a couple decades, that the conservatives will be preventing them from being fixed.

we need small government, government that works on subsidarity getting things done at the lowest possible level. the only purpose of a federal government is international policy and disputes between multiple states. period. individual states can sufficiently accomplish the things that go on within their own borders.

those individual states should only tax transactions. taxing property itself ultimately means that everyone is renting property from the government and thus does not have private property which should be an inviolable right. governments should not put red tape in the way of starting businesses. governments should not build elaborate safety nets. all of this ultimately turns around to infringe upon personal freedom.

oh, and unions should act more like the ancient guilds than like a modern mafia.

"All government is an ugly necessity" -G.K. Chesterton

[Era Might]

[quote]The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and [b]the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone[/b], 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.

--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Rerum Novarum"[/quote]

The right to private property is not absolute. As Pope Leo notes, the State has a right to regulate the use of private property, in the interests of the common good. But this must not exceed just limits. What he condemns here is the idea that man cannot have private property in any sense; the government can give and take his property as it pleases.

The government can set just standards on private property (eg, taxation), as long as it does not deprive man unjustly. Eminent domain, for example, still demands just compensation; the government doesn't just take your property and not worry about anything else. (Although I think there are other problems with eminent domain.)

Edited October 16, 2005 by Era Might

[philothea]

Exactly right, Era. :applause:

I kept meaning to say something like that to Al, but I kept forgetting.

[Aloysius]

it is not the government's property if it is private property, that is the probelm with the statement "the government can give and take its property as it pleases"

if it were the government's to give and take then it wouldn't be [b]private[/b] property.

notice that the state has the right to control [b][i]its use[/b][/i]

the state does not have the right to control private property, but rather the use of private property.

as I said, it may tax transactions that take place in the public domain. it may tax produciton of goods. it may not tax property as merely property that is not being USED in the public domain, because there the state would be overstepping its bounds into the private domain where it does not have jurisdiction... becuase by subsidarity the PRIVATE DOMAIN should be governed PRIVATELY. (where you draw the line to private domain can slightly vary I suppose)

in regards to emminent domain, there are certain [i]very limited[/i] just uses of it. it all goes back to subsidarity and whether the common good can be sufficiently (not necessarily stupendously, but sufficiently) accomplished without imposing on someone's property. most times it can... most times the government's just seeking convenience over individual rights.

ps... this is the worst thread to post in, it appears on the homepage and the phorum index after I post as "Aloysius: I am a political liberal" and "I am a political liberal -Aloysius"... lol it drives me nuts!

[Era Might]

[quote]it is not the government's property if it is private property, that is the probelm with the statement "the government can give and take its property as it pleases"[/quote]

Technically speaking, it's not your property either. You will die and it will go on to someone else, whether your family or a stranger.

The government has charge over the civil realm. What is, in a certain sense private, is still under the care of the rightful civil rulers. This includes people as well. Otherwise, the world would be nothing but anarchy.

[Aloysius]

actually yes it is yours, until you die. in the same way you are married... until you die. that doesn't mean you were never married. same way it doesn't mean it was never yours.

the government may tax transactions and production, all things that go on in between mulitple individuals go under the government's jurisdiction.

I know the word "use" is easy to brush over in that quote, but I think in Latin it's a longer word. lol. it's important that Leo is saying the government may control its use in the interest of the public good.

it is wrong to tax property just for it being owned by someone. that amounts to a rent paid to the government which infringes upon private property. it is alright to tax what they produce on it to sell to others. it is alright to tax the exchanges of property in between people.

like I said, taxing transactions and production are just. taxing property just because it's property when it is not being used in the public domain is not.

to say something is "private" is under the care of the government is ludicrus. it ceases to be private the moment the public government is caring for it. that's the very nature of the word private. only when the property is voluntarily entered into the public domain does it fall under the public government's jurisdiction to care for the public good.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 16 2005, 06:52 PM']to say something is "private" is under the care of the government is ludicrus.  it ceases to be private the moment the public government is caring for it.  that's the very nature of the word private.  only when the property is voluntarily entered into the public domain does it fall under the public government's jurisdiction to care for the public good.
[right][snapback]760491[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not at all. The government has the duty to make sure children are not abused by their family, for example. The family has its own private authority, but it is not a law unto itself.

In the same way, property is truly private, but that does not mean the government has no care over it whatsoever. If you're living in filth, the government will rightly demand you clean it up, or else it will condemn your house.

[MichaelFilo]

i voted the third option. I assumed you meant the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

God bless,
Mikey

[Jaime]

[quote]ps... this is the worst thread to post in, it appears on the homepage and the phorum index after I post as "Aloysius: I am a political liberal" and "I am a political liberal -Aloysius"... lol it drives me nuts! ninja.gif
[/quote]

Serves you right

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 16 2005, 03:16 PM']Madam, actually.

Thanks.  I guess, for me, the choice gets down to do I personally force someone to do evil, and partake in it myself, or not.  A pro-(unjust) war president forces participation in evil.  A pro-abortion one -- though I'd prefer otherwise!! -- does not.
[right][snapback]760409[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
For me, when it comes to abortion, you have this action that the law says people can do, people want to do, and the Bible says is wrong. Changing the law won't make people not want to do it and those that don't because of the law would probably do so more because of weighing the consequences rather than some moral basis for not favoring it. In other words, their decision would not because of the reasons that I would wish for, moral conviction, attitudes, personal belief and desire to live in accordance with that. I would rather see that change in the people of this country more than just the laws. Laws don't and can't regulate what is in one's heart. Anything short of that just doesn't seem like enough to me. Maybe I'm wrong about something there, but I really prefer to see people themselves change and see their actions influenced by that rather than just their actions changed by legal measures.

[Anastasia13]

Can someone please explain the point of this poll? Are we trying to see who really is a political liberal?

[Aloysius]

lol

yes it should be a criminal offence to abuse your children. that is a mater of crimes against the natural law, the state must enforce laws against immorality.

but that doesn't mean it has the right to tax private property. this is not a matter of crimes, this is a matter that can be sufficiently handled at the level of individuals and families. the state should only come in on property when property is in the public domain.

as I have consistenltly defined my main driving principle when it comes to government- subsidarity- as letting things be done at the lowest possible they can be sufficiently accomplished at, I would say that abusive parents obviously cannot be sufficiently dealt with at the level of family (unless the kids' grandparetns is involved and has a shotgun) (and we're talking real physical or mental abuse, not light corporal punishment). families are not above the law, they are below it on all things that pertain to the judgement of their criminal actions.

I didn't intend to say that the state's laws did not have jurisidciton. perhaps I should not have introduced the word "jurisdiction", I simply meant it does not have the just right to infringe upon private property at all. that only when property is IN USE may the government tax it. that property is indeed owned by individuals and not by the government (at least it should be).

sigh... and now the phorum page will announce again aloysius as a political liberal.