Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[thesometimesaint]

A good rich person is one who lives a "middle" class lifestyle while giving everything in excess of that to other people.

 

While I'm not rich by earthly measures. I'm upper middle middle class. I agree, and give most of my excess to other people, along with organizations I agree with.

[pmccombs1]

Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Do you suppose that education might have something to do with why the wealthy guy might get a better deal than the poor guy?

 

Well, education could be a part of it, I admit. Here is what Georg Simmel says:

 

Wealth, indeed, is often regarded as a kind of moral merit, as is indicated by the term 'respectability' and by popular references to the well-to-do as 'upright citizens' or 'the better-class public.' The same phenomenon is shown from the other side by the fact that the poor are treated as if they were guilty, that beggars are angrily driven away, and that even good-natured people consider themselves naturally superior to the poor.

 

Why is this? If you've raised teenagers, maybe you know the frustration that comes when the teenager fails to pitch in around the house. Eventually, parents begin to regard their grown children as peers and not as helpless little ones. When these new peers still demand support in return for hours spent in front of the TV, an injustice ensues that the parents are very cognizant of. Children have a claim on their parents for support, but they also owe a filial duty. That's how the scales balance. 

 

Well, the mature money economy essentially dissolves personal bonds of dependency and moves the value of that relationship into a token representation. So what happens is that the amount of money you have is directly correlated to the value you provide to society. A poor person is then regarded as the "undeserving" teenager, whose laziness is analogous to poverty. Hence the "moral merit" of the wealthy. They are wealthy because they deserve it.

 

So when the poor come to the merchant, even if they can pay the price of the goods, they still have "undeserving" written all over them.

[pmccombs1]

cough (too much government) cough.

 

Exactly. That is a claim of subsidiarity, too: That there is such a thing as too much government. People ought to be able to do things for themselves. So you see, Catholic distributist economics is not a form of socialism.  But neither is it a form of capitalism bent on maximizing profits.

[pmccombs1]

Interesting your reference to unions.  Had a conversation with my wife over lunch, we were discussing a paper I was working on for local economic development...I mentioned that as I worked on it, I had an epiphany that in our town if you really wanted to get some cash flowing in the community, probably the best thing one could do would be to go out and organize the workers in the nursing homes and those working for the various non-profit rehabilitation service organizations in this Town.  The LNA's get paid below the poverty level.

 

Distributists today talk in terms of "guilds" but not of unions. One is interested in protecting and furthering the vocation, while the other is bent on securing the cash flow, as you say.  

[Ahab]

While I'm not rich by earthly measures. I'm upper middle middle class. I agree, and give most of my excess to other people, along with organizations I agree with.

Organizations are composed of people, too.  So that sounds very good.  And why do you give like that?  I would say it's because you have charity for others which prompts you to want to do things to help other people.  Now imagine if the rich people, including rich organizations, felt that way instead of wanting to hang onto their money.   There would be a heck of a lot more giving going on in the world, and soon there would be no more poor people, at least not monetarily.

 

One of the nice things about money is that when you spend it it circulates instead of disappearing into oblivion, and thus that same money can help a lot of people.  The worst thing about it is that if you don't spend it and just let is sit around doing nothing but making more money it's not doing anything to help anybody because money does no good unless it is spent.

[Vance]

So here is the real side conversation that should take place. Is a government program charity.

There is a principle of the Spirit that applies to education. I say it also applies to "charity".

D&C 50:19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

So I say that it is equally true with giving "charity"

19 And again, he that receiveth CHARITY, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth CHARITY, receiveth it as it is GIVEN by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that GIVETH and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

When you VOLUNTARILY give/help others, both you and they are EDIFIED together.

[Vance]

I am one of the 99% who needs some of what the 1% have on this planet.

I seriously doubt that. When you consider that there are 6,000,000,000 (rough estimate) people on this planet and there only 450,000,000 (rough estimate). So, if you above the poverty line (as defined by the US Gov) YOUR ARE IN THE 1%!

BTW, how do you plan to take what you "need" from that 1%? Whether it is by personal force/coercion/extortion or by government force/coercion/extortion, how is it different from plain old THEFT?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Vance

[Ahab]

I seriously doubt that. When you consider that there are 6,000,000,000 (rough estimate) people on this planet and there only 450,000,000 (rough estimate). So, if you above the poverty line (as defined by the US Gov) YOUR ARE IN THE 1%!

Okay, so I'm not in the 99% worldwide, but I am in the 99% of the poorest people in this country.  Or at least I think I am.  If I'm not then I just don't have anywhere near as much as people who have a lot more than I do which is a lot more than they need.  Just 10k more a year and I'd be satisfied, though.  And everyone else should also have about that much as well.

 

 

 

BTW, how do you plan to take what you "need" from that 1%?

By supporting those I appoint to positions in government who want to take more from the rich to give to the poorest among us.

 

 

 

Whether it is by personal force/coercion/extortion or by government force/coercion/extortion, how is it different from plain old THEFT?

THEFT is when people take what rightfully belongs to another person, and God created everything on this planet for ALL of us, collectively, and not just some of us.  The problem is that some people are taking more than their fair share of everything as if they are somehow more entitled to what belongs to all of us equally.  Which is why we need to apoint people who will represent all of us, collectively, taking from those who have too much and distributing it more fairly to those who don't have nearly as much.

 

You have partly the right idea, though.  It is better for people to willingly share with others rather than having somebody play the advocate for our Father who wants us to share everything more fairly, but still, if people won't do it on their own then somebody else will have to take it from them, whether it's our Lord or those who represent him and his will for everyone on this planet.

 

Selfishness and greed should not be tolerated, and if it takes our Lord to come back and set things straight, then so be it.  But I'd rather we try to get things distributed more fairly before that, if at all possible.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Ahab

[Vance]

THEFT is when people take what rightfully belongs to another person, and God created everything on this planet for ALL of us, collectively, and not just some of us.

Really? So, God didn't bless the rich people with their wealth? So where did they get it, if not from God?

So, a farmer who works hard for the harvest doesn't really own that harvest because God didn't give the harvest to him because he obeyed the law of the harvest, but rather God gave the farmers harvest to "ALL of us, collectively"?

Also, how do you square that with the parable of the talents?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Vance

[thesometimesaint]

Very telling.

 

[pmccombs1]

Did we? I didn't ever agree to being taxed.

 

I think you should read Thomas Hobbes, the man who laid much of the foundation of Western-style government, including our own. He thought that people had inalienable rights, specifically those of life and liberty, and that government arises from the consent of the governed. He believed that, lacking a strong central government, we would return to something he called "the state of nature," or the "state of war."  

 

By Hobbes' logic, you have the right to enter the state of war if you wish. Likewise, others have that same right to wage war against you for their own interests.

 

But because this default state is not ideal for humanity, we choose instead to enter into contracts and to invest a central power with our authority. We have abdicated a number of our alienable rights (rights to means) to this power. Because we are many voices, this authorship has more to do with consent than it does with agreement. If you do not agree, you have the privilege to voice that. You must also answer the question of whether or not you will consent to the contract as it stands. If you do not consent, you are in the state of nature and have forfeited the contract. You become free to do as you wish, and likewise others (including the State) are free to do as they wish against you. 

 

For all who consent to live in peace, whether they agree with the contract or not, they are its author. "We, the People" are the author of government whether we like it or not, and it is a known fact that the thing you authorize, by your consent, cannot steal from you. By definition. Whatever authority takes from you cannot be considered theft, because you have authorized it through your consent, even if you do not agree with it.  

 

I so tire of the argument that government "steals" from it's citizens through taxation. That it "forces" charity through social programs (that's not even charity, people!). Just because you do not agree with it does not mean you have not consented to it by virtue of your citizenship and your presumed desire to live in peace with your neighbor. You may peacefully seek to change the contract in order to fulfill a more ideal justice (as pope Francis is doing), or you can break it and re-form a new contract through violence and revolution. But only in the state of war would you be reasonably justified in claiming "theft" or "coercion" from taxes or social programs. To do so otherwise is the stuff of traitors and seditionists.

[thesometimesaint]

I think you should read Thomas Hobbes, the man who laid much of the foundation of Western-style government, including our own. He thought that people had inalienable rights, specifically those of life and liberty, and that government arises from the consent of the governed. He believed that, lacking a strong central government, we would return to something he called "the state of nature," or the "state of war."  

 

By Hobbes' logic, you have the right to enter the state of war if you wish. Likewise, others have that same right to wage war against you for their own interests.

 

But because this default state is not ideal for humanity, we choose instead to enter into contracts and to invest a central power with our authority. We have abdicated a number of our alienable rights (rights to means) to this power. Because we are many voices, this authorship has more to do with consent than it does with agreement. If you do not agree, you have the privilege to voice that. You must also answer the question of whether or not you will consent to the contract as it stands. If you do not consent, you are in the state of nature and have forfeited the contract. You become free to do as you wish, and likewise others (including the State) are free to do as they wish against you. 

 

For all who consent to live in peace, whether they agree with the contract or not, they are its author. "We, the People" are the author of government whether we like it or not, and it is a known fact that the thing you authorize, by your consent, cannot steal from you. By definition. Whatever authority takes from you cannot be considered theft, because you have authorized it through your consent, even if you do not agree with it.  

 

I so tire of the argument that government "steals" from it's citizens through taxation. That it "forces" charity through social programs (that's not even charity, people!). Just because you do not agree with it does not mean you have not consented to it by virtue of your citizenship and your presumed desire to live in peace with your neighbor. You may peacefully seek to change the contract in order to fulfill a more ideal justice (as pope Francis is doing), or you can break it and re-form a new contract through violence and revolution. But only in the state of war would you be reasonably justified in claiming "theft" or "coercion" from taxes or social programs. To do so otherwise is the stuff of traitors and seditionists.

 

Agreed,  and I think Adam Smith said it best in:

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess …. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

[Vance]

en·vy

1.wanting what somebody else has: the resentful or unhappy feeling of wanting somebody else's success, good fortune, qualities, or possessions

2.want what somebody else has: to desire something possessed by somebody else

Rom. 13: 13 walk honestly . . . not in strife and envying.

1 Cor. 3: 3 there is among you envying.

1 Cor. 13: 4 (Moro. 7: 45) charity envieth not.

Gal. 5: 21 Envyings . . . they which do such things shall not inherit.

1 Tim. 6: 4 proud . . . whereof cometh envy.

Titus 3: 3 living in malice and envy.

James 3: 16 where envying and strife is, there is confusion.

2 Ne. 26: 21 many churches built up which cause envyings.

2 Ne. 26: 32 Lord God hath commanded . . . should not envy.

Alma 1: 32 not belong to their church did indulge . . . in envyings.

Alma 4: 9 (Alma 16: 18; 3 Ne. 30: 2; D&C 101: 6) there were envyings, and strife.

Alma 5: 29 one among you who is not stripped of envy.

Hel. 13: 22 hearts . . . swell with great pride, unto . . . envyings.

4 Ne. 1: 16 there were no envyings.

Morm. 8: 36 few only who do not lift themselves . . . unto envying.

It appears that envying is a bad thing.

[Vance]

. . . and your presumed desire to live in peace with your neighbor.

Do those that desire to use the force of government to take/steal from their neighbor live in peace with those same neighbors?

Why is it that those that don't like the government taking their property are the "bad" neighbors and those that like to use the power of government to take from their neighbor are the "good" neighbors?

Isa 5:20 comes to mind.

[Vance]

I think you should read Thomas Hobbes, the man who laid much of the foundation of Western-style government, including our own. He thought that people had inalienable rights, specifically those of life and liberty, and that government arises from the consent of the governed. He believed that, lacking a strong central government, we would return to something he called "the state of nature," or the "state of war."

There is a flaw in your argument. Just because Congress passed something doesn't make it legitimate. And just because the majority agree with something doesn't make it right either.

Helaman 5:2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

[mtomm]

Here is what gives rich people a bad name.

Our ward is putting together some food boxes.  Since I live in the heart of potato country getting potatoes should be pretty simple and really, really cheap.  Our R.S. president contacted a counselor in the stake presidency and asked if he'd donate 10 boxes of potatoes to our ward to give away.  He is a member of one of the wealthiest families in our community.  He said he could sell them to the ward for $10/box--giving us a real bargain.  Well, that's what all potatoes sell for from warehouses.  

Instead we called another farmer (well to-do be certainly not like ^^ family)  who doesn't go to church - ever- and he said he gladly donate all the taters we could use.  

Edited December 19, 2013 by mtomm

[Vance]

The Apostle Paul taught,

2 Cor 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

[Vance]

Here is what gives rich people a bad name.

Our ward is putting together some food boxes.  Since I live in the heart of potato country getting potatoes should be pretty simple and really, really cheap.  Our R.S. president contacted a counselor in the stake presidency and asked if he'd donate 10 boxes of potatoes to our ward to give away.  He is a member of one of the wealthiest families in our community.  He said he could sell them to the ward for $10/box--giving us a real bargain.  Well, that's what all potatoes sell for from warehouses.  

Instead we called another farmer (well to-do be certainly not like ^^ family)  who doesn't go to church - ever- and he said he gladly donate all the taters we could use.

So, but the leftist/progressive/socialist standard, you should organize a mob, go to him and take the potatoes you need. As long as you call it a "tax" it won't be STEALING.

[Stone holm]

I too have a problem with this notion that taxation is stealing. I also have issues with the issue of a persons wealth somehow being truly his own without acknowledging that without the social contract which in democratic countries is the government such would not exist. Much of today's wealth is owned by corporations whose very existence is dependent upon the government. Without a stable government supported by a majority of the populace, the very notion of property being owned by any individual would be a will o wisp sort of thing. Personal ownership of property would be limited to that which each individual could personally defend.

[Vance]

Matt 25:14-30

Apparently, Jesus got it TOTALLY WRONG!

Here is the corrected story,

14 ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; BUT THEN HE TAXED THE ONE WITH FIVE, TAKING THREE, REDISTRIBUTED IT SO THAT ALL HAD TWO, HE KEPT THE REST AS HIS FEE FOR APPLYING SOCIAL JUSTICE, and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he THE FIRST that had received the TWO talents went and traded with the same, and made five talents.

17 And likewise he THE SECOND that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he THE LAST that had received TWO went and digged in the earth, and hid ONE AND SQUANDERED THE OTHER ON RIOTOUS LIVING.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he THE FIRST came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me TWO talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, THOU WICKED AND SLOTHFUL servant: thou hast been SELFISH over a few things, I will make thee SUFFER IN HELL FOREVER.

22 THE SECOND came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, THOU WICKED AND SLOTHFUL; thou hast been SELFISH over a few things, I will make SUFFER IN HELL FOREVER.

24 Then THE LAST came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid ONE talent in the earth AND SPENT THE OTHER ON WINE AND CAKES: lo, there thou hast that is LEFT.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL servant, thou HAST LIVED HAPPILY:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have SPENT THE OTHER AND LIVED EVEN HAPPIER.

28 Take therefore the talents from him WHO GAINED FIVE AND FROM HIM WHO GAINED TWO, and give it unto him which hath NO talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be TAKEN, and he shall have NONE: but from him that hath not shall be GIVEN even that which he hath not.

30 And cast ye the profitable servantS into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

I too have a problem with this notion that taxation is stealing. I also have issues with the issue of a persons wealth somehow being truly his own without acknowledging that without the social contract which in democratic countries is the government such would not exist. Much of today's wealth is owned by corporations whose very existence is dependent upon the government. Without a stable government supported by a majority of the populace, the very notion of property being owned by any individual would be a will o wisp sort of thing. Personal ownership of property would be limited to that which each individual could personally defend.

We don't live in a "democratic" country!

We live in a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule. (Like two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.)

[mtomm]

So, but the leftist/progressive/socialist standard, you should organize a mob, go to him and take the potatoes you need. As long as you call it a "tax" it won't be STEALING

 

Just a simple request for him to help those of whom he has stewardship.  If we can't even do that through our own church how do we think it will ever work through all of society?

[Ahab]

Really? So, God didn't bless the rich people with their wealth? So where did they get it, if not from God?

 

God created everything on this planet for all of us, collectively, and we should share all of it as if each one of us is entitled to a fair share of all that there is. That's what the concept of charity should convey to our minds. When we start thinking that "I" am entitled to more of some stuff than someone else is, as if "I" deserve more of it because "I" have special needs which exempl someone else from enjoying it as if it is also theirs to enjoy, then we're going down the road to selfishness and greed, and we're not justified for feeling that way. 

 

In other words, it's not as if God gave it only to them.  Everything that grows on this planet, and everything that was already here when we got here, is what God provided for all of us, and some people take more than their fair share while feeling like they are entitlled to more than someone else who could also be enjoying whatever there is here for all of us to enjoy.

 

 

 

So, a farmer who works hard for the harvest doesn't really own that harvest because God didn't give the harvest to him because he obeyed the law of the harvest, but rather God gave the farmers harvest to "ALL of us, collectively"?

Yes.  Hedoesn't really "own" that harvest.  He is a steward of that harvest and he should be filled with the spirit of charity as he tries to determine what to do with all that he can get his hands on.

 

 

Also, how do you square that with the parable of the talents?

The premise is that God gave some people more than he gave some other people, and while that is true we're each responsible for sharing all that we have with others as charitably as we can share.  If you have 2 talents, for example, and I have 10, I can share my talents with you so that you will have 12 talents, and I will have 12 talents too.  And then we can get even more talents by pooling our resources with other people too, like getting together with other people who have all of the other talents so we can then enjoy all that we have.   What's mine would be yours and what's yours would be mine, and everything would belong to each one of us, collectively, with none of us having any right to more of it than some others.  It's just that some people don't want to share what they have with others.  And no, selling it doesn't count.  Why would you buy something you're already entitled to have?  Everything here is for all of us to enjoy, collectively, while the scrooges try to hoard what they can to only themselves and a very few select group of people they are willing to share with.  It's a step in the right direction, at least.  They just need to share all they have with everybody, and not only a few people, otherwise what they have could be taken away.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Matt 25:14-30

Apparently, Jesus got it TOTALLY WRONG!

Here is the corrected story,

14 ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; BUT THEN HE TAXED THE ONE WITH FIVE, TAKING THREE, REDISTRIBUTED IT SO THAT ALL HAD TWO, HE KEPT THE REST AS HIS FEE FOR APPLYING SOCIAL JUSTICE, and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he THE FIRST that had received the TWO talents went and traded with the same, and made five talents.

17 And likewise he THE SECOND that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he THE LAST that had received TWO went and digged in the earth, and hid ONE AND SQUANDERED THE OTHER ON RIOTOUS LIVING.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he THE FIRST came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me TWO talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, THOU WICKED AND SLOTHFUL servant: thou hast been SELFISH over a few things, I will make thee SUFFER IN HELL FOREVER.

22 THE SECOND came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, THOU WICKED AND SLOTHFUL; thou hast been SELFISH over a few things, I will make SUFFER IN HELL FOREVER.

24 Then THE LAST came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid ONE talent in the earth AND SPENT THE OTHER ON WINE AND CAKES: lo, there thou hast that is LEFT.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL servant, thou HAST LIVED HAPPILY:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have SPENT THE OTHER AND LIVED EVEN HAPPIER.

28 Take therefore the talents from him WHO GAINED FIVE AND FROM HIM WHO GAINED TWO, and give it unto him which hath NO talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be TAKEN, and he shall have NONE: but from him that hath not shall be GIVEN even that which he hath not.

30 And cast ye the profitable servantS into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

You're funny.  At least a little bit.

[halconero]

We don't live in a "democratic" country!

We live in a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule. (Like two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.)

 

The United States is a democracy, and a constitutional republic.

 

You can have a constitutional republic with little or no input from the public masses, and there are numerous historical examples of this. A constitutional republic is simply a government without an inheritable head of state. 

 

Democracy is a process whereby the people choose its leaders through voting. The democracy decried by the Founding Fathers (which is the mob rule you are referring to) is a direct democracy wherein the populace votes on every issue, for every leader, etc. What the United States has is an indirect democracy, where in the people vote for their leaders, who represent them in Congress, or their vote tells the electoral college who to vote for President.