Can One Be A Sincere Catholic And A True Socialist?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't see how you can say "by any stretch of the imagination" that it's not socialistic ish. if the government is taking land from a business ower, simply cause he has a lot, and can throw beans to people to work for him and they can't get ahead.... he's not done anything a lassiez faire society wouldn't allow him to do... he's done in fact what's in his best interest, the bedrock of capitalism. if the gov does that then, it's socialistic ish. there's an irony, that in doing so, they are furthering theoretical capitalsm... but at the same time, they are hindering lassiez faire capitalism and the fact still remains it's socialistic ish.

ideally, distributism and a pure capitalism the the best method.
i don't see subsidies etc, in times of transition to a better capitalism, as wrong though, like when there's a health crisis. eg... if people cna't afford doctors,,, the solution isn't only to create more doctors so that one day they will.. but to help them until that day comes. at least, as far as i read what the popes say etc.

also here is something i wrote before. i post it, only cause i want to give the other position to what exactly subsidiarity entails, as i think it's not so clear cut. a main point is that there's also solidarity to consider, and there's also limits on the idea of subsidiarity.

[quote]subsidiarity is known for its vagueness..... you only go up the governmental notch when the lower one is "incompetent", which really can mean lots of things. if hte lowr government isn't doing it even if it could, there's a good chance you should move up. Al talks about how we'd not like the UN to do something gloablly... but in fact it should do something for somethings being the highest level there is if the lower is incompetent.
of course, the further you get away from the local the worse you are so you sholdn't if you can help it move up.
"incompetent" could also mean... if the gov simply can't do it... then you move up... and so, if they could do it but don't... that doesn't count. this is debatable as to whether it's the case or not. the concept is too vague.

solidarity is vague too... teaches the government can help, though admittedly that doesn't say much. even the popes say gov officials are to act as catalysts, in ways beyond simple eminent domains etc.
if you read about all this stuff about solidarity, you can't help but realize that all the world's ills isn't properly placed in the hands of charity alone, which from my experience and opinion seems like a cop out from money hard core conservatives. charity can do somethings and should, and gov should't get involved. charity shouldn't do something, as a matter of justice, but oftne as a matter of practicality.
it's okay to be libertarian and generally a capitalist, but there comes a point where that has to stop- depending on the real situation happening on the ground.

there's a tension between the two doctrines, and to make it seem like there's not and to disregard solidarity is not sound by catholic teachings.[/quote]

people can disagree with what "incompetent" means etc. but it's not clear cut.


also.. i don't see how you can say i don't know what distributionism means... when the concept is as vaguely defined as it is. there's wiggle room there too. gov has its role beyond eminent domain,arguably. especially in a society that can't be defined by access to land etc... when i talk about access to the earth, usually i'm just being metaphorical mostly, cause everyoen can't get that if they wanted to,,, there's just too many people, and it wouldn't be practical. to talk in terms of eminent domain, shows a lack of understanding the real world, today.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do know the wiki article on subsidiarity has evovled a lot since i last saw it... and i wasn't aware of it before... but i did see this from a pope:
[quote]"[J]ust as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so, too, it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies."[/quote]

which would lend itself ot saying... even if hte local gov isn't doing anything but can... the bigger has no say in it or do in it as long as it's possible for the local to do it.
i wouldn't jump to taking that quote to mean that though strictly, from this one quote. i'd have to see the context for what he's saying, as he might just be saying, if they can do it, let them and don't interfere... not that you cna't intervene if they aren't doing what they should etc.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

not in distributivism. Chesterton layed this out when he talked about Ireland as a model for it... he's not talking about seizing property and giving it to the poor, but buying it out and selling it affordably to those who work it.

I believe I already responded to you about subsidarity. subsidarity and solidarity are not at odds at all.

I guess if you extend the definition of socialism to mean absolutely everything other than laissez faire capitalism (thus buying into the false dichotomy) then you gotta label distributivism as a form of it. it is not, however. It respects private property and works for small local business and small local government; it works against large scale distant businesses when they make private property ownership difficult for average people AND it works against large scale distant governments. distributivism allows for correcting mechanisms of punishing those who criminally oppress people and utilizing emminent domain to buy back property that is being unjustly used and sell it to those who can justly use it. It does not make private property into public property the way socialism would do, it engages in a business transaction.

distributivism recognizes the fact that big businesses and big governments are pretty much the same thing sometimes and allows for the pursuit of justice to include hostile takeovers by a government (ie buying someone out) (something which, when done by a business, is considered a perfectly acceptable capitalistic practice) to resell to those who can justly use it.

anyway, I have gone through this with you before about how one can recognize what is within the lower level's competency. it's pretty clear-cut. obviously Smallsville, USA, does not have the competence to determine foreign policy but does have the competence to determine all laws related to what occurs within the town. any intervention against a local competency can only be done when a local law is being unjust, and it doesn't mean the larger entity assuming the responsibility for that local issue but insisting that they themselves do so.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1544565' date='May 27 2008, 02:04 AM']i do know the wiki article on subsidiarity has evovled a lot since i last saw it... and i wasn't aware of it before... but i did see this from a pope:
which would lend itself ot saying... even if hte local gov isn't doing anything but can... the bigger has no say in it or do in it as long as it's possible for the local to do it.
i wouldn't jump to taking that quote to mean that though strictly, from this one quote.[/quote]
that is true. the bigger government doesn't have the right to interfere in the smaller government on such matters. if it is a matter of justice (ie some sort of mass murdering is being performed by a smaller government) it can punish those responsible for injustice; ie temporary interference to restore the ability of the lower level to exercise its just power, but not an assumption by the higher power of that which is rightfully done by the lower level.

I don't see why you think emminent domain is an impractical and radical way of dealing with property injustices but have no problem with the truly radical idea of making the property public.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]criminally oppress people[/quote]

it seems like you're getting too focused on one situtaion when distributionism would work, and not looking at other situations.

the popes do say pepole have a "right" to the land.... not just a right when the person is acting criminally.

so... if a man had a bunch of land, and could throw beans at others and they couldn't get ahead, that's not really criminal. and it'd only be a techincality if they passed a law that said that it was criminal, and that law would be socialistic anyway, proably not what you mean when you say "criminal".
my point anyways bing that distributionism i think could be extended to that man on that land, depriving so many of so much, when he is one man. not saying divide it up equally etc, just that ensuring all have a basic minimum even if he's still got a lot.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the popes do say pepole have a "right" to the land.... not just a right when the person is acting criminally.

anyways... i edited my comments, it's a good idea to see what else i said.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1544570' date='May 27 2008, 12:06 AM'] that is true. the bigger government doesn't have the right to interfere in the smaller government on such matters. if it is a matter of justice (ie some sort of mass murdering is being performed by a smaller government) it can punish those responsible for injustice; ie temporary interference to restore the ability of the lower level to exercise its just power, but not an assumption by the higher power of that which is rightfully done by the lower level.

I don't see why you think emminent domain is an impractical and radical way of dealing with property injustices but have no problem with the truly radical idea of making the property public.[/quote]

"i wouldn't jump to taking that quote to mean that though strictly, from this one quote. i'd have to see the context for what he's saying, as he might just be saying, if they can do it, let them and don't interfere... not that you cna't intervene if they aren't doing what they should etc."

i need to read the actual words. i remember reading things similar to what he is quoated saying and it could be misinterpreted.


i am not for btw, as per the last post, for all property being public...i am not a socialist. i am only for ensuring all have a basic minimum, however that is to occur, using the most subsidiarity means posible and distributionist means first. the popes do say pepole have a "right" to the land.... not just a right when the person is acting criminally. capitalism with socialistic components, sometimes.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1544210' date='May 26 2008, 11:08 PM']Have anything to contribute to this discussion beyond ad hominems?[/quote]

Lay off dude. No need to be rude to someone who agrees with your points.

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus the hang up on the distinction of they "could" v. "should but don't" etc. is really just a smaller matter to the idea that when they can't do it..... that means beyond other than divvying up land only when someone acted criminal, i think is justified.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I'd consider it criminal for someone to hoard land in such a manner. That's the proper interpretation of the papal quotes you've been suggesting about the right for people to the land. If a government is keeping people from their right to own land, then the government is acting unjustly. If someone else is keeping people from that right, then they are acting unjustly and ought to be punished. The best solution is what was done to the English Landlords when the Irish Free State came about: forcibly by out the land that they are hoarding unjustly.

It wouldn't only be true of land, it could also be true of businesses themselves when they begin to monopolize and keep out the ability for the average man to own a business. To a reasonable extent, of course, not everyone's going to be able to own a supermarket... one's gonna win out over the others obviously.

[Aloysius]

[quote]the popes do say pepole have a "right" to the land.... not just a right when the person is acting criminally.[/quote]
people's right to the land is only infringed when someone is criminally hoarding it from them. I'm not using criminally very legalistically I guess... I mean, it was criminal for the English landlords to hold that land when it ought to have belonged to the Irish peasants who worked it... but according to the laws of England it was acceptable. that's what I mean by criminal; hoarding can be criminal when it infringes upon people's right to own.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so if you think it's criminal that a decent man can't get access....

if we were to, we were to fix health care with distributism... since the right extends beyond someone doing criminal things to their workers but simply owning so much to the exclusions of so many...
since they have the right... then it seems like helping them directly is warranted too, to fix their right. we tax the people who have the means, to help the people who don't have the means....until the distributism works itself it. it's their right.

i mean... no one is advocating permanent welfare for welfare queens. only temporary fixes for tranistional periods etc.

do we really disagree with anything then? (otherh than maybe what "can" and "should" stuff as per subsidiarity means on this other point)

i guess you haven't said anything regarding whether direct help, other than divvying up land, is ever justified though.

as i said earlier though... hwen you combine all the ideas i've been saying, with the idea that divvying up land isn't always the solution or can't always be the solution, especially in today's society whe nall can't have land as it's so impractical.... then you have to give direct aid sometimes, right? or are you only going to send them to school, and not help them? or are you not going to send them to school? (sending them to school seems like a distirbutionist idea, as they are participating in capitalism and will function independantly soon enough)
they have the "right", it's not something to do with charity in all cases.

we can't focus only on "criminal" in a narrow sense, and we can't focus only on "divvying up land" as that's not the currency of today, and we can't focus only on being distributionistic when in the mean time they are out in the cold, as it's a "right".

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]that's what I mean by criminal; hoarding can be criminal when it infringes upon people's right to own.[/quote]

duly noted.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]anyway, I have gone through this with you before about how one can recognize what is within the lower level's competency. it's pretty clear-cut. obviously Smallsville, USA, does not have the competence to determine foreign policy but does have the competence to determine all laws related to what occurs within the town. any intervention against a local competency can only be done when a local law is being unjust, and it doesn't mean the larger entity assuming the responsibility for that local issue but insisting that they themselves do so.[/quote]

on this side and smaller issue, i sill do not understand, and i don't think it's so clear. if A gov can help peole get to work, but don't.... can the bigger gov get involved? some say yes, some say no. you use the word "unjust". what does that mean? hwat does incompetent mean? i don't think it's clear.

i still ahve to read the context of the one quote i posted from the pope just a few minutes ago.

Edited May 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

no, I don't agree with socialist healthcare, nor temporarily socialist healthcare... you seemed to totally miss the point. the government can use corrective measures like imminent domain when private property is being denied by some unjust situation. I already said healthcare is an entirely different situation. "distributivist" healthcare would be nothing more than lots of doctors who own their own practices. it's not a government policy, it's an economic system that can be supported by some economic policies including in radical cases corrective imminent domain.

to me, there must be a systematic change in healthcare that includes cutting through all the red-tape regulation and too many malpractice lawsuits that keeps costs so high... perhaps less regulation in the way of health insurance could provide competition to lower health insurance prices... the distributivist stuff might mean more small privately owned insurance providers so that you can deal with someone on your own level. my primary concern at a government level is the inflation of healthcare prices due to self-defeating government systems.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the policy implications i could be getting to... are that... if a gov up the ladder says, this is the minimum for everyone, then that's not necessarily bad. they're just saying what is acceptable and what's not. the locals still do it, and can do more if they want.

i think you and i have discussed... whether the bigger gov should do this...i said they should, as it's minimally intrusive to lay guidelines. and you said we should wait till they fail. but i thought it was impractical to wait until they fail when it's a minimum and merely a guideline, and minmally if not really at all intrusive to the locals.