• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them"?

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If majority says, it is ok to steal, it is still stealing.
"Stealing" is a legal term and the laws are established by the jurisdiction one lives in.

And it was voluntary.
Not under Jewish Law, nor under countries that became Christian. Catholicism requires that the state get involved in helping the poor as do other forms of Christianity in countries whereas they're dominant.

It is good, if people voluntary help others. But it is not good, if people are forced to give.
Under the Articles of Confederation, volunteerism was tried and it failed, which led to the writing of the Constitution. And in the Preamble of the latter, it states that one major role of government is "...to provide for the general welfare...".

No country in the world today operates at only using charity, and there's good reason for that-- it doesn't work.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm extremely skeptical since the only people I ever see Libertarians actually defend are the oppressors. That includes on every issue across the board. People have the right to persecute and hate whoever they want apparently- but victims don't have the right to a benevolent government that cares they're persecuted. The government will defend your oppressor, seems to be the Libertarian approach.
That can be well true for many of the "Right-Libertarians" but not the "Left-Libertarians" like Gandhi.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs

St. Ambose (De Nabuthe, c.12, n.53, cited in Populorum Progressio of Paul VI):

You are not making a gift of your possessions to poor persons. You are handing over to them what is theirs. 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.

Agree or disagree (with these early church fathers of the fourth century AD)?

Papal precursors of Marx. And given the wealth accumulated by the Catholic Church, this has got to be prima facie evidence of capital hypocrisy.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Umm... expand on the Gandhi bit.
I gotta be quick.

Gandhi felt that the best government and basic economic system should be mainly local, not national, thus mainly relying on cottage industries and "town hall" government. He felt that this is a grass-roots approach that encourages involvement from all and for all.

Gotta go.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I gotta be quick.

Gandhi felt that the best government and basic economic system should be mainly local, not national, thus mainly relying on cottage industries and "town hall" government. He felt that this is a grass-roots approach that encourages involvement from all and for all.

Gotta go.

Theft is still theft. And how much is enough? As we're seeing, it's never enough.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Papal precursors of Marx. And given the wealth accumulated by the Catholic Church, this has got to be prima facie evidence of capital hypocrisy.
You really don't know what you're talking about as the Church never endorsed Marxism, nor is the anti-religious aspect of Marxism anything the Church endorsed-- quite the opposite.

Secondly, the "wealth" of the Church is owned by all Catholics since they're the ones who payed for it through either donations or through taxes in some countries. Since I can assume you're not Catholic, what concern of what Catholics have chosen to do is of your concern? Do you always go around telling people what they should do when you yourself have "no irons in the fire"?

Thirdly, the Church is not opposed to capitalism, but it was slow to endorse it because of the question of what happens to the poor who "lose" in the competition whereas so many did suffer with some even starving to death? Eventually, all countries built safety-nets, and it is then that the Church backed off on its opposition.

Sharing was mandated by Jesus and also Jewish Law, so do you oppose both? Taxes are a form of sharing, and monies accrued go to a whole variety of places, including to help the poor, so should everyone just stop paying taxes?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Theft is still theft. And how much is enough? As we're seeing, it's never enough.
.

Democracies work on the basis of majority rule, with ours here in the States also being guided by a constitution. Therefore, taxes, if levied legally, are in no way "theft". Show us any country that doesn't have a tax structure of some type.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I gotta be quick.

Gandhi felt that the best government and basic economic system should be mainly local, not national, thus mainly relying on cottage industries and "town hall" government. He felt that this is a grass-roots approach that encourages involvement from all and for all.

Gotta go.
Yes he believed in strong local communities based on virtue and self-governance. But he believed that the community would jointly share all the resources and individual properties would be minimal.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes he believed in strong local communities based on virtue and self-governance. But he believed that the community would jointly share all the resources and individual properties would be minimal.
To a point, yes, but not in absolute terms as he felt that some competition is not only inevitable but was undoubtedly necessary. After all, he actually competed as well.

His drift was to see each other as being integral to a community based on mutual agreements and with heavy emphasis on sharing, but he fell short of going as far as complete socialism (no private property whatsoever). To enforce that would be too repressive for his blood, but he hoped that seeing each others as equals and being essential to each other would make a much more harmonious and egalitarian society with only limited restrictions.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
To a point, yes, but not in absolute terms as he felt that some competition is not only inevitable but was undoubtedly necessary. After all, he actually competed as well.

His drift was to see each other as being integral to a community based on mutual agreements and with heavy emphasis on sharing, but he fell short of going as far as complete socialism (no private property whatsoever). To enforce that would be too repressive for his blood, but he hoped that seeing each others as equals and being essential to each other would make a much more harmonious and egalitarian society with only limited restrictions.
Is there any precedent of calling this left Libertarian?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Is there any precedent of calling this left Libertarian?
Yes as there's tests one can take as some of us here have done, and when certain notables are listed, Gandhi shows up as "Left-Libertarian".

Maybe someone here can post the chart as I do gotta go? PLEASE!
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes as there's tests one can take as some of us here have done, and when certain notables are listed, Gandhi shows up as "Left-Libertarian".

Maybe someone here can post the chart as I do gotta go? PLEASE!
No worries do it later.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
You really don't know what you're talking about as the Church never endorsed Marxism, nor is the anti-religious aspect of Marxism anything the Church endorsed-- quite the opposite.

I don't know what I'm talking about, but those quotes were from centuries before Marx, thus "endorsing" Marx's economic principles ahead of time. And of course that wouldn't include his and communism's attitude on religion--which I said nothing about, but you just have to try bolstering your argument with a flaming straw man.

Secondly, the "wealth" of the Church is owned by all Catholics since they're the ones who payed for it through either donations or through taxes in some countries.

So that which the Church has "arrogated to itself" doesn't belong to the common slush fund, according to your interpretation of church Marxism?

Since I can assume you're not Catholic, what concern of what Catholics have chosen to do is of your concern? Do you always go around telling people what they should do when you yourself have "no irons in the fire"?

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black. Rule for Radicals #1, accuse your opponent of that which you yourself are doing.

Thirdly, the Church is not opposed to capitalism, but it was slow to endorse it because of the question of what happens to the poor who "lose" in the competition whereas so many did suffer with some even starving to death? Eventually, all countries built safety-nets, and it is then that the Church backed off on its opposition.

So which is it, do they endorse capitalism or not? And corporations under capitalism are no different than individuals, some are good and some are evil, and both must be subject to criminal law administered by the government. But if the government is its own watchdog, the door is wide open to corruption.

Sharing was mandated by Jesus and also Jewish Law, so do you oppose both?

I don't believe in either, and neither do I believe in the absurd concept of mandatory charity, which even Jesus didn't preach.

Taxes are a form of sharing, and monies accrued go to a whole variety of places, including to help the poor, so should everyone just stop paying taxes?

Some taxes, especially, income/property taxes are a form of "legalized" theft. Tariffs and especially consumption taxes are more moral forms of taxes, and don't include the invasion of privacy and human rights that income taxes do.

I don't disagree with economic relief, but not for able-bodied individuals who should at least work to earn their charity, instead of becoming part of the multi-generational welfare class who watch other people do the landscaping outside their section 8 house/public housing with heating, a/c, food stamps, indoor plumbing, big screen TV, healthcare and fridge full of beer, etc. There are no involuntary "poor" in the US, and the ones elsewhere live under oppressive socialist governments in fact, regardless of the oligarchs running it.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
I disagree with that. Stealing is, to take something that belongs to another person, without permission.

Yes, that is stealing, so how do you disagree?

All things, including money, belong to God.
When a few individuals amass vast quantities of anything due to their unquenchable selfishness, and others are left with too little to survive, then it is stealing.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't know what I'm talking about, but those quotes were from centuries before Marx, thus "endorsing" Marx's economic principles ahead of time
These quotes do not amount to what we can call "communism", but what they are saying is that we have a social responsibility since what we may think is "ours" is not made in a vacuum, plus we have a social responsibility because we live in a society. None of the church teachers that I have ever read suggested that we all needed to turn all of our money over to the government or the church.

So which is it, do they endorse capitalism or not?
Yes, as long as there's a safety net.

neither do I believe in the absurd concept of mandatory charity, which even Jesus didn't preach.
False, as is covered in his Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25).

I don't disagree with economic relief, but not for able-bodied individuals who should at least work to earn their charity,
And I have no problem with that, nor does any religious institution that I'm aware of. Matter of fact, I'm all for work-projects even if they're handled by government.

There are no involuntary "poor" in the US,...

That's so terribly delusional that it's no wonder your rants make so little sense. To blame the poor for being poor, even though in some cases it's undoubtedly true, is a malicious stereotype that I find utterly sickening. But then I doubt if you really care about that either.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...No country in the world today operates at only using charity, and there's good reason for that-- it doesn't work.

And that tells people don’t love as they should. Still, I think stealing is wrong and I think socialism is evil.
 
Top