Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 18, 2013, 10:27:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
 
Author Topic: Traditional Catholics and Classical Liberalism  (Read 2040 times)
Archbishop_10K
Guest
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2008, 01:52:AM »

Quote from: TTMR
However, without the government stealing people's money via taxation, people would be far more free to donate than they currently do.  

Hmm.... I'd argue that the private economy would be a lot stronger since people would be spending more money on luxuries like new appliances and toys, and perhaps better real estate.... but it's unlikely that most people would donate the money that would otherwise go to taxes to charity instead.

Interestingly, in regard to medieval economics, the choice may very well be out of your hands. Many feudal lands had compulsory taxes that went to the Church. This exists even in Germany today, I believe, but to a much lesser degree than in the past. I personally disagree with the idea, though. It causes clerics to become complacent and dependent on the state, and that is always a bad situation when the state goes rotten (which will always happen, guaranteed).
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2008, 10:51:AM »

I think incrucetrad has a bit of a point here. I think there needs to be some level of a government safety net for folks in his situation who truly need it. We can't simply roll the dice and hope private charities will help him. I think we need government and private charities working together.

If a state is to be truly Catholic, one if its marks would most certainly be to help care for those of its citizens most in need.
Logged
ILikeAugustine
Member

Posts: 135


« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2008, 07:58:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus
I think incrucetrad has a bit of a point here. I think there needs to be some level of a government safety net for folks in his situation who truly need it. We can't simply roll the dice and hope private charities will help him. I think we need government and private charities working together.

If a state is to be truly Catholic, one if its marks would most certainly be to help care for those of its citizens most in need.


The problem is what the state sometimes defines as a charity (eg Planned Parenthood).  Anything can be justified in the twisted logic of government.
Logged
TTMR
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2008, 12:01:PM »

Archbishop10K:
Quote
Hmm.... I'd argue that the private economy would be a lot stronger since people would be spending more money on luxuries like new appliances and toys, and perhaps better real estate.... but it's unlikely that most people would donate the money that would otherwise go to taxes to charity instead.

Some would and some wouldn't, but the fact is it is their money to decide how to spend, and so it should be.  The poor aren't "entitled" to your money; true charity is when one gives of one's own volition, not by external coercion.  If I broke into your house, put a gun to your head with every intention of killing you if you did not comply, and demanded you give me 1/4 of all the money you made this year, it would not make me nor my actions more noble if I gave a portion of the money I stole from you to a homeless man.  Even if I gave all of it to him, it would still be a crime, and a violation of the seventh commandment.

Logged
Catholic777
Guest
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2008, 12:21:PM »

Quote
Even if I gave all of it to him, it would still be a crime, and a violation of the seventh commandment.


But you cant compare taxation to theft. Render unto Caesar. And if Caesar wants to give it to the poor...fine. And he should want to.

People ARE entitled to basic necessities under Catholic thought. We shouldnt give them enough to make life cushy and comfortable lest everyone stop working. If you want any luxuries whatsoever (including television, air conditioning, or even any spending money, etc)...you should have to work.

But I do agree with giving all people who would rather choose (or who can only choose) that option...a minimal. A small apartment and a ration of food and clothing. People have a right to life, and our society certainly produces a net-total big enough to support even those who would be unproductive. Though I wouldnt give them any money outright. Just the goods themselves.

Of course, our current debt-money war-machine system is a big problem with all of this in the first place, and until we get free money out of the hands of private bankers and usurous financiers...nothing's going to work. Now you'd have to pay for all of this through taxes, which probably wouldnt work given all the debt interest we still have to be paying. It's only if the government would pay for it through Social Credit free money that it would really be feasible.

But the State very much should fund healthcare and schools too. Dont get me wrong, those hospitals and schools should ideally be run BY the Church. But paid for by the State through enforcing tithes, etc. And in a non-Catholic state without tithing...funding it through vouchers (so we can still choose Catholic schools) and universal health insurance...is the best we can hope for.

We are Catholics...dont buy into the Anglo-Protestant puritan Calvinist capitalist-serving Work Ethic.
Logged


TTMR
Guest
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2008, 01:08:PM »

Quote
But you cant compare taxation to theft.

The definition of a state is "an entity with a monopoly of force over a given territory."  Thus, the means of support for that state rest entirely on coercion: state agents demand people give their money to the government, otherwise force will be invoked.  The only difference between the above mentioned state of affairs and theft is that the latter can be prosecuted.

Quote
People ARE entitled to basic necessities under Catholic thought.

Yes, hence why families, including extended families, should take care of their own like they once did.  When social security was not around, for instance, elderly people lived in the family home until they either died or had to go to the hospital.  Nowadays they are secluded in nursing homes.  Failing the family, the next steps would involve voluntary community arrangements, and Catholic and secular charities, which, I have no doubt, would be larger and more effectual in a stateless society.  Hospitals, for example, often did not charge for services to very poor people, long before government intervened in health care.

Quote
Of course, our current debt-money war-machine system is a big problem with all of this in the first place, and until we get free money out of the hands of private bankers and usurous financiers

You are right about debt and the military-industrial complex.  The problem with money is more complicated, involving the abolition of the gold standard and private currency, the Federal Reserve (and other similar National Banks in other countries), and fractional reserve banking.

Quote
It's only if the government would pay for it through Social Credit free money that it would really be feasible.

The notion of social credit is a dangerous inflationary scheme.  The government cannot "create more money" without de-valuing the currency.  To an extent it does this already, and that is why we are in a recession which will only become worse.

Quote
But the State very much should fund healthcare and schools too.

In Canada, the health care system is the biggest social program out there, and because services have to be rationed so severely, people die constantly while waiting for tests, examinations, and even in emergency rooms where 8-12 hour waits are commonplace.  The problem with American health care is that it is entangled and constricted by a massive bureaucratic and regulatory apparatus, that, by contrast, makes purely socialist health care systems look good.  However, note that the vast majority of medical advances happen in the partially privately funded United States, not in the areas of the world where health care is nearly universally socialized.  The answer, of course, is to remove those regulations and eliminate the bureaucracy.
Government-run education is so poor as to not merit mention.  Vouchers are only necessary in a system that already has public schools.  Abolish the Department of Education and state public education, and competing private schools will actually educate, as opposed to indoctrinate.  Home schooling should also be liberalized, and its standards would naturally be regulated by necessary accreditation recognition from schools and universities those students will be attending in the future.




Logged
Catholic777
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2008, 04:43:PM »

Quote
The problem with money is more complicated, involving the abolition of the gold standard and private currency, the Federal Reserve (and other similar National Banks in other countries), and fractional reserve banking.


I agree with everything except the "gold standard" part. Pegging the money supply to a commodity is almost as arbitrary as pegging it to debt.

Also, about "private currency"...I agree that allowing a free market on money would be infinitely better than the monopolized artificial market we have now. But still...money is not a commodity in itself, it is a means for exchanging commodities. Therefore, the notion of any sort of "market" of money...is second best, and tends toward usurious notions that distort the nature of money.

Quote
The notion of social credit is a dangerous inflationary scheme. The government cannot "create more money" without de-valuing the currency. To an extent it does this already, and that is why we are in a recession which will only become worse.


The bankers want you to believe it is inflationary. It is only inflationary if they make too much.

If, however, they only make as much new money as needed to keep the money supply in the same proportion to total real wealth (ie, goods and services)...if they only increase the money supply in proportion to the increase in total wealth...everything will work out fine.

People sometimes say, "Oh the government will just ignore that, or fudge its figures"...but the government could also ignore the gold or print more than it really buys gold and try to fool everyone. I'm sure nowadays there'd be a lot of private watchdogs making sure this didnt happen in either case.

Gold and silver somewhat work as a barometer for total wealth. The total amount of new gold or whatever vaguely indicates how much the economy as a whole has increased...but it is not in any sense exact or precise. We can now calculate the increase in total GDP, or GNP, etc...with relative accuracy. So using the gold market as an indirect standard is not necessary.

The government could be bound by law to produce only as much fiat money as needed to keep the supply in the same proportion to the total real wealth.

And of course fractional reserve banking and "lending money into existence" based on debt...would not be allowed.
Logged
TTMR
Guest
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2008, 07:45:PM »

Quote
I agree with everything except the "gold standard" part. Pegging the money supply to a commodity is almost as arbitrary as pegging it to debt.

I'm not in favour of any national "fixed" standard.  In all likelihood, though, metallic commodity money is what would come to be the agreed upon in the marketplace, much as it was in the past.

Quote
Also, about "private currency"...I agree that allowing a free market on money would be infinitely better than the monopolized artificial market we have now. But still...money is not a commodity in itself, it is a means for exchanging commodities. Therefore, the notion of any sort of "market" of money...is second best, and tends toward usurious notions that distort the nature of money.

Again, competing currencies would be localized and probably temporary.  Their value would be second to a more universally agreed upon currency, as the market would naturally seek to unify the money type to facilitate more rapid transactions.

Quote
The bankers want you to believe it is inflationary. It is only inflationary if they make too much.

Inflation is not rising prices and rising wages.  Inflation is the cause of those things.  Inflation happens when the government prints money at a greater rate than the growth in economic activity.  This permits government to spend while the money is at its previous value, and unloads the true costs of this counterfeiting onto regular people, who have to pay at the newer, lower value.  Banks are complicit in this problem because of government policy.  They are permitted to practice fractional reserve banking, and the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates artificially low encouraging banks to lend far more than they otherwise would, hence the current "bust", created by the Fed-introduced "boom" in the 1990s.

Quote
People sometimes say, "Oh the government will just ignore that, or fudge its figures"...but the government could also ignore the gold or print more than it really buys gold and try to fool everyone.

Yes, the Federal Reserve was created to do exactly like that, and it was very successful thanks to the ruse of Keynesian economics, disseminated to the world to cover up this deliberate counterfeiting endeavour.

Quote
Gold and silver somewhat work as a barometer for total wealth. The total amount of new gold or whatever vaguely indicates how much the economy as a whole has increased...but it is not in any sense exact or precise.

Well, a market's growth is indicated by either an increase or decrease in productivity.  Wealth creation only occurs when there is an increase in the productivity of labour.  Theoretically, no new gold would be necessary.  Instead, the purchasing power of a given volume of gold would increase as productivity increases.

Quote
The government could be bound by law to produce only as much fiat money as needed to keep the supply in the same proportion to the total real wealth.

Governments are bound by nothing.  Subsequent governments can change laws.  The constitution set extremely strict limitations on the powers of government, yet the government is omnipresent today.  

Quote
And of course fractional reserve banking and "lending money into existence" based on debt...would not be allowed.

Absolutely.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC