Is This Outside The Realm Of Social Justice?

[Aloysius]

perhaps I am blanketing 2 Thes 3:10 too much (my point is that people should work to better their lives) and describing an idealistic capitalism as opposed to the greed-infested society we live in. But I believe it has a better chance of sucess than socialism.

[crusader1234]

[quote]Those real estate agents live in 2 million dollar houses themselves because they worked hard and sold a bunch of other 2 million dollar houses[/quote]

You dont really know much about real estate I take it. Selling a 2 million dollar house is as easy as selling a 200 thousand dollar house - you just make a MUCH larger commision. And, that statement goes against the statement you made before:

[quote]If no one bought expensive houses, Real Estate Agents would all go poor.[/quote]

Buying expensive houses helps out a select (maybe 2 perecent) portion of real estate agents, and they end up making more money for less work than the other 98 percent. Yet you say that if nobody bought them all real estate agents would go poor. Thats Republican economics for ya.

[crusader1234]

[quote]But I believe it has a better chance of sucess than socialism. [/quote]

The standard of living in Canada (socialist) and Sweden (socialist) is higher than that of USA (capitalist) according to the United Nations.

[Aloysius]

i never sugested that the big government big welfare is outside of Catholic Social Teaching. I just think that either way is acceptable within Catholic Social Teaching and we have to figure out which system would best bring about Social Justice.

My point is that we need a variety of fields and all of those fields need consumers. That doesn't mean we should have immoral fields like abortion or pornography. However, legitimate fields of work should be supported.

I don't think it's protestant theology that people should work to better their lives.

That Acts passage is talking about one of the first religious communities. They didn't give that money to their leaders, governers, kings, they gave that money to the apostles who distributed it correctly. If you're for the Bishops becoming the rulers of our country and distributing the wealth, then sure I'll follow you up there. But the fact is this type of living was the seeds of religious communities, and people in 3rd order religious communities still live like that today. They did not entrust the distributing of wealth to their political leaders, and neither should we.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 5 2004, 01:24 AM'] And, that statement goes against the statement you made before:

Buying expensive houses helps out a select (maybe 2 perecent) portion of real estate agents, and they end up making more money for less work than the other 98 percent. Yet you say that if nobody bought them all real estate agents would go poor. Thats Republican economics for ya. [/quote]
Less work, more money?

"Idealistic capitalism"

LOL! That is hard. Capitalism runs on the basis of pitting two people aginst each other. Try something of a mix like the UK or Canada has.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 5 2004, 01:49 AM'] Christiandom [/quote]
*nervous twitch*

Sorry.... *twitch*

Pet peeve of mine...

Christendom. Not Christiandom.

Back to the topic at hand.

[Aloysius]

If nobody bought the 2 million dollar houses what would happen to the land? Does not buidling a house like that help out the construction people?

I'm not actually advocating people buy the most expensive thing out there, but the fact is there are expensive things out there and if you buy them it helps out the people who make them and the people that sell them. No reason to just let expensive houses go to waste.

I'm not sugesting people hoard up money and live in a big mansion with lots of expensive cars, there is such a thing as temperance. But government shouldn't regulate temperance by taking all the money from the rich and handing it out to the poor. (help should be given to the poor, but it should be more on the basis that it is helping them get back on their feet so they can enter the job industry.

People should be given the oppurtunity and means to better their lives, not quick fix handouts.

Edited July 5, 2004 by Aloysius

[crusader1234]

I dont really feel like debating this with you since you don't understand how welfare works.

Peace,

Rich

[Aloysius]

perhaps I wish to be educated on how welfare works.

[crusader1234]

Well, for starters, its not something desireable that you'd chose if you have a choice to work. Its barely enough to get by. Secondly, it comes along with social support to find employment.

[Aloysius]

i knew that.

i didn't mean to suggest that these people were out of work on purpose. i also didn't mean to suggest that welfare doesn't come with programs to help them get jobs.

I'm more suggesting that big welfare give the poor a chance to become dependent on the government, a chance that oftentimes they take. The incentive for them to become independent and not dependent on the government should remain good. Raising taxes for the poor and increasing government programs like welfare ultimately leads to a more limited freedom.

You claim human nature against the idea that rich people should be allowed to keep the money they earned and choose to do good with it. I claim human nature and the nature of humans in power against the idea that government should take the money away from those rich people and distribute it.

I donno, if I'm not making any sense you can ignore me, I don't mine.

perhaps we'll talk tomarrow
Pax Amorque Christi and good night