The Popes Have An Economically Liberal Bias

[dairygirl4u2c]

Quote

"Private

property does not constitute for anyone an absolute or unconditioned

right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does

not need, when others lack necessities"


You are not making a

gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him

what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you

have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to

the rich." (#23)

QUOTE

Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the

necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade,

are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder

it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation.

Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded

as an important and urgent social duty.


QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace


QUOTE

"Individual

initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure

satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and

power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add

to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for

"directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35)

the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. It is for the public authorities

to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed,

and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task

to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. "


QUOTE

�it

has always understood this right within the broader context of the

right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.


QUOTE

Let

the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in

particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there

underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than

any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner.

If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder

conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better,

he is made the victim of force and injustice.


QUOTE

What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.


QUOTE

To

labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary

for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self

preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or

characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is

bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who

acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's

labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live,

and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey.

Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal,

doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of

wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so

is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our

conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element

in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for

him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but

not in reality.


The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.


QUOTE

property

is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work.

This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production.

Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in

the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise

exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and

their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot

even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate

title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in

the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve

labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the

achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal

destination of goods and the right to common use of them.


From

this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of

common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the

socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production.


QUOTE
Legislation is necessary,

but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice

and equality...If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling

of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law

can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued

exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in

solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an

individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to

be answerable for the common good.


QUOTE

In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations.

Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not

affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an

incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially

developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no

longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country

to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce

unfair results.


QUOTE

Given these conditions, it is obvious

that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and

develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and

development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity

and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and

progress.


QUOTE

Interdependence must be transformed into

solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are

meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations

must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of

all peoples and with respect for the differences.

now im sure we can expect someone to quote some popes pointing out that socialism is wrong. they will then ignore the above quotes. even though their quotes and the above are easily reconcilable if you dont assume it;s an either or situation, i guess it's more of a personality flaw on their part they cant and wont and dont address this stuff and say so

[GregorMendel]

These are fantastic, thanks for sharing!

These are all very sound (and succinct) arguments for economic and social justice without delving too far into speak of socialism, which, If I understand you correctly, I agree is indeed not a valid argument to offer against such principles.

Also, sources?

[Maggyie]

It's a mistake to label the popes "economically liberal" just as it's a mistake to use the label "socially conservative" with them. First of all because those are American terms, did you know that in Europe the word liberal means pro-corporation and pro-free trade? Basically the opposite of how it's used in American political terms.

 

The Popes have a Catholic bias, that's all.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i was too lazy to cite each one. but all ya gotta do is copy and paste into google and finding the source will be easy enoguh

[dairygirl4u2c]

understood, as well as liberal beng historcally the free market party.

 

all that said, the popes would fit in well w todays american iberals.... like the popes, no one wants socalism, and like the popes, we're just interested in people bein able to survive etc

Edited February 23, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Amppax]

You can't just cite little snippets from the documents, you have to read them as a whole to understand what is being said.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

please by all means illustrate some of this context we are missing

[havok579257]

understood, as well as liberal beng historcally the free market party.

 

all that said, the popes would fit in well w todays american iberals.... like the popes, no one wants socalism, and like the popes, we're just interested in people bein able to survive etc

todays liberals stand for abortion on demand of any reason, gay marriage, socialism, embryonic stem cell research.  for some reason i don't see the popes supporting those major views that american liberals support. 

 

the pope is niether liberal or conservative, they are catholic.  the catholic church does not agree with all conservative or liberal ideas.  both parties get a lot wrong.  the church does not get it wrong.

[4588686]

todays liberals stand for abortion on demand of any reason, gay marriage, socialism, embryonic stem cell research.  for some reason i don't see the popes supporting those major views that american liberals support. 

 

the pope is niether liberal or conservative, they are catholic.  the catholic church does not agree with all conservative or liberal ideas.  both parties get a lot wrong.  the church does not get it wrong.

 

 

She said economically liberal.  Abortion isn't an economic matter.  Today's liberals are not supporters of socialism.  Many of the Pope's economic and environmental comments would put them on the left wing of American politics.  

[PhuturePriest]

I love the words "We like people surviving." Funny how man cannot possibly live without government. I wonder how the cavemen possibly survived without a guy with a nightstick telling them what to do...

[Nihil Obstat]

I love the words "We like people surviving." Funny how man cannot possibly live without government. I wonder how the cavemen possibly survived without a guy with a nightstick telling them what to do...

We Phatmass libertarians must be getting better at this. I remember just a few short months ago how you thought libertarianism was literally heretical. :smile3:

[PhuturePriest]

We Phatmass libertarians must be getting better at this. I remember just a few short months ago how you thought libertarianism was literally heretical. :smile3:

 

You guys had me at "Ron Paul". :P I still have some lingering republicanisms, though. I still don't support legalizing gay marriage.

 

And for the record, I thought it was heretical because I asked a question on the Ask A Scholar forum and a Church scholar told me it was heretical. :P

[PhuturePriest]

We Phatmass libertarians must be getting better at this. I remember just a few short months ago how you thought libertarianism was literally heretical. :smile3:

 

Might I bring you Exhibit A: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/120962-libertarian-philosophies/

[Nihil Obstat]

There are different sorts of libertarianism. :)

[4588686]

I love the words "We like people surviving." Funny how man cannot possibly live without government. I wonder how the cavemen possibly survived without a guy with a nightstick telling them what to do...

They didn't.  Proportionally violence has severely decreased with the advent of the state.  I don't mind libertarianism.  I once identified quite strongly with libertarian socialism.  That was years ago but I still value the insights and goals even if I don't consider it a fully realizable project.  

 

This is my current political compass map.

 

 

 

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85

 

 

My point is that I do not have a problem with thoughtful libertarianism.  Even right libertarianism can have it's merits.  But this vulgar libertarianism is just dumb and reactionary.  States have curbed violence.  I'm sorry if that fact is ideologically unpalatable but it is true, demonstrably so.  And if you have any substantive understanding of game theory it should be pretty clear why that is so.  That doesn't mean that we should be perpetually beholden to our current legal arrangements.   I think we should be looking beyond the modern state and capitalism and attempting to transition to something more humane and systems that are more democratic and give people greater autonomy to determine their political and economic fates.  But just snidely dismissing states is just intellectually lazy.