The Vatican is Proposing a World Central Bank

[Sparko]

Are we done burning strawmen? OK, good. Now we can get serious. Each person should, in order not to place an undue burden on others (because they love them), provide for themselves as much as possible. If you are demanding that someone else pay for that which you yourself can provide, you are exercising a rather cynical manipulation of their charity. There is nothing that says that we cannot put structures in place to facilitate this charity or to improve accountability, but unless they operate with some degree of charity, corporations will fail in the same way government programs do: their un-charity will be their undoing.

I am not burning straw, Sparty. I am using "reductio ad absurdum" to show you how your proposed stance is just, well, wrong, buddy.

And when I do, you back off and start saying stuff like we should not place undue burdens on people. Well if I have a RIGHT to healthcare and a RIGHT to shelter and and RIGHT to food, then I am not putting any undue burden on anyone. I am only claiming what is mine by right.

If I have a right to liberty and life, am I putting an undue burden on the government by claiming that right and exercising it? Of course not.

So if I have a right to your charity and love and a right to food and shelter and medical care, then I am not doing anything "undue" by exercising those rights and you have nothing to complain about.

You seem to think it is fine as long as I make claims on the "government" to get my rights, yet when I make a claim upon YOU, then you see how personal it really is and you don't like it. You don't want people taking what is YOURS without your permission.

Yet when the government gives people free rides and so on, you don't seem to realize that it is exactly the same thing. Instead of Sparko taking your money to pay for my medical bills, it is the government taking your money to pay for my medical bills and paying middle management bureaucrats to do the dirty work. So instead of 100% of your charity going to help someone, only about 20% of your taxes goes to help someone and the rest ends up in paying for the "programs".

It is just a more inefficient way of stealing your money.

[joel]

In case we were unclear, I understand your reasoning; I just reject it in favor of Christ's teachings. It is not Objectivist logic itself but the way in which you reconcile it with Christ's commands and example that escapes me.

I'm sorry, I don't see how Christ's teachings conflict with what I'm saying.

If "rights" really have nothing to do with what is right, that is, the will of God, why bother with them at all?

This amounts to, "If justice is not all of morality, then why bother with the concept of justice at all?"

Because distinguishing different aspects/subsets of morality is necessary to reason correctly about it.

It is the lack of love that makes government programs fail

Hm, for the most part I'm going to have to disagree.

Going back to the Pope's encyclical, a lot of the time it's not a lack of caritas but caritas in veritate (in truth). That is, it's not sufficient to have good intentions if your means are counterproductive. For example, price control programs have often been imposed with the intention of helping people. But the price controls end up making the problem worse. (or at best benefitting some at the expense of others) It's not a matter of the price-setters being virtuous enough, it's that price control itself must necessarily make the problem worse. It's inherent to the program itself, rather than the virtue of the people running the program. Take minimum wage laws, which make low-skilled workers unemployable. Some people mistakenly impose minimum wage laws out of a desire to help low-skilled workers (though their policy will end up hurting them). Others have imposed minimum wage laws for the purpose of harming low-skilled workers or benefitting others at their expense. But whether the policymakers have the former loving intention or the latter evil intention, the negative effect of the policy is the same.

Another example is how economist Ludwig von Mises proved that socialism is doomed to failure no matter how virtuous the people are, because socialism makes economic calculation impossible. All the loving each other possible isn't going to help meet people's needs if the calculation necessary to maintain the productive structure cannot be done.
Wealth redistribution programs similarly are inherently likely to worsen poverty, regardless of how loving are the people running the program.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The American Constitution is a fundamentally liberal document.

You're equivocating here.
Sparko was clearly using the modern meaning of "liberal", while you are using the older meaning of the word. The two meanings are incompatible. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ern-liberalism

When it comes to medical bills, can you honestly say that you could exploit the sincere love of people who have given themselves entirely to God? If you really are that much of a sociopath, well, it'll be on your soul, not mine.

But what you have said is that it is Sparko's fundamental right to do so! Then you call him a sociopath for exercising the right you claim he has? Do you see the reductio ad absurdum now?
Our point is that Sparko does not in fact have that right that you claim he has.

[Thersites]

Obviously, you're imparting more meaning to that than the average reader would see, Spart.
That would be the duty of the Christian, but our government, sadly, is not "Christian".

Christ is our King, the creator and rightful ruler of the world. Christian life is not a subversion, but an affirmation of the true nature of Creation. It is the world that is in rebellion against God. We Christians are called to recognize Christ as our true King, which means living in Christ's Kingdom here and now as well as in Heaven.

[Sparko]

I think we SHOULD help our fellow man. Not because they have any right to our help, or because we have any obligation to THEM, but because we have a DESIRE to be like Christ and an obligation to follow him and be like him. We love others because God first loved us. Not because that person has a right to our charity, but because God loved us despite our not having any claim upon that love ourselves. When we deserved justice, he gave us mercy instead. So we should show others that same mercy.

[Cow Poke]

Christ is our King, the creator and rightful ruler of the world. Christian life is not a subversion, but an affirmation of the true nature of Creation. It is the world that is in rebellion against God. We Christians are called to recognize Christ as our true King, which means living in Christ's Kingdom here and now as well as in Heaven.

You're preaching to the choir, brother. We are also called to share the gospel with others and make believers. Are you doing that? I am.

So, what's your beef?

[Thersites]

You seem to think it is fine as long as I make claims on the "government" to get my rights,

Stop right there, cowboy. I never said that. I've already stated multiple times that I don't believe that a secular government is the best vehicle for this stuff. You are most definitely burning a strawman here.

Yet when the government gives people free rides and so on, you don't seem to realize that it is exactly the same thing. Instead of Sparko taking your money to pay for my medical bills, it is the government taking your money to pay for my medical bills and paying middle management bureaucrats to do the dirty work. So instead of 100% of your charity going to help someone, only about 20% of your taxes goes to help someone and the rest ends up in paying for the "programs".

At the risk of repeating myself, I see no reason to believe that any program operated under this secular government will see any form of success that would make the investment worthwhile. I don't like government welfare, subsidies, or price controls of any kind, so if you're going to keep criticizing them, well, heck, I ain't arguing with you except for the fact that you seem to think that I think they're good ideas

[Thersites]

Another example is how economist Ludwig von Mises proved that socialism is doomed to failure no matter how virtuous the people are, because socialism makes economic calculation impossible. All the loving each other possible isn't going to help meet people's needs if the calculation necessary to maintain the productive structure cannot be done.
Wealth redistribution programs similarly are inherently likely to worsen poverty, regardless of how loving are the people running the program.

And yet I am no socialist, and until you can comprehend that, you'll just be burning strawmen.

You're equivocating here.
Sparko was clearly using the modern meaning of "liberal", while you are using the older meaning of the word. The two meanings are incompatible. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ern-liberalism

I don't subscribe to either version of liberalism; Sparko, at least, had fully embraced one of the two, but his application of the term to me- whether or not it was meant as a pejorative- was grossly inaccurate.

But what you have said is that it is Sparko's fundamental right to do so! Then you call him a sociopath for exercising the right you claim he has? Do you see the reductio ad absurdum now?
Our point is that Sparko does not in fact have that right that you claim he has.

Even if it's not a "right" as any form of liberalism understands the word, it is nonetheless "right" to take care of those in real need because it is what God wants us to do.

[joel]

And yet I am no socialist, and until you can comprehend that, you'll just be burning strawmen.

I did not say you are a socialist. I was just using socialism as another example to illustrate the point I was making.

Even if it's not a "right" as any form of liberalism understands the word, it is nonetheless "right" to take care of those in real need because it is what God wants us to do.

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with that.

But I don't think the concept and analysis of "a person's right" (Latin ius) originated with the enlightenment. I am of the understanding that natural law theory of human rights goes back at least to the Scholastics, and at least somewhat to the ancients. And as I've been saying, rights language is a way of talking about justice, and justice (respecting, for each person, what is his) certainly was discussed by the ancients, Plato, the Scriptures. Thou shall not steal, thou shall not murder. It's not like this is a modern invention.