John Maynard Keynes thinks that the people ought to spend 100 percent of their paycheck so that it will create new jobs whereby those workers will spend 100 percent of their paycheck creating this elaborate however unrealistic and unachievable pyramid. Keynes policies penalize thrift and savings and trigger measures where the government should engage in spending, to include deficit spending if the people don’t spend enough money. Keynes policies fail to recognize and address the hidden dangers of this unrealistic model and the naturally occurring 6 percent unemployment rate that happens to be unavoidable. It also fails to recognize the implications of year over year deficit spending and the eventual debasement of the currency under a central bank scenario where the bank creates paper wealth out of thin air, essentially destroying the purchasing power and eventual hyperinflation the currency which occurs from monetizing the debt. Mainly one is not entitled to keep the fruits of his labor and the value of their money is stolen for the use of the government. Mostly everyone gets screwed in this system.

Karl Marx, where do I begin? Look at his life and the lives of his children. Here is a guy who never worked a day in his life, telling everyone else how the business model should work. Here is a guy who relied upon the benevolence of his friends and relatives who gave him charity and in some cases willed their estates and fortunes to him. Marx lived off of the labor, blood, sweat and tears of others, meanwhile he allowed several of his children to starve to death, and later a few committed suicide. Here is a system adopted by the Soviet Union under Stalin where 6 or 7 generations of people in the Soviet Union died waiting for the euphoria promised by redistribution of income and forced labor for the good of the merciless state. Man has no right to own property as it all belongs to the state, has no right to the fruits of his labor and all aspects of business and society are owned and controlled by the state.

The founding fathers of the United States of America were extremely learned men who understood the principles of liberty, equal justice, freedom, property rights and the means to protect those rights and incorporated those rights in a document which restated what they already knew, but put it into writing as a contract for the future generations who would not understand those rights, the document was called the United States Constitution and later added the bill of rights and subsequent essential amendments. The founders lived under tyranny, understood persecution, injustice, mob rule, the loss of property rights, to have free speech stifled and to have a state mandated religion as well as the dangers of a entirely religion controlled state. The founders understood that the rights of man are given to them by their creator, and are not created by man, government or any other institution. The founders understood that all men were created equal at least spiritually, as in each man possess a soul and the free will to choose to serve God or not. The founders understood the dangers of mob rule upon society and created a form of government called a Democratic Republic, which recognized and protected the rights of the minority, even if that minority were just one person. This form of government recognized the rights of man as given to them by God and recorded in the Bible as being natural rights which are derived from natures God. This form of government recognized that when people join a group that they yield the use of certain rights to that group to use, but that no group can exercise rights that it does not have, as those rights were not embodied in the people, and the same understanding of the use of those right is carried over into every institution. Coincidentally this form of government and Adam Smiths’ Free Market capitalism go hand in hand.

Redistribution of wealth = Stealing

Yeah, that’s an informed opinion.

One objection: I fail to see how Leo XIII’s critique of 1) Marxism and 2) State collectivism is an argument against all forms–local and State–of wealth distribution. Perhaps I’m not following Blackadder well, but it seems to me that a more equitable distribution of wealth is a chief tenet of Catholic social teaching (and largely the result of Leo XIII’s thought).

I totally agree with Blackadder. I don’t see “redistribution of wealth” to be a tenet of Catholicism, that is code for “robbing from the rich to give to the poor”. Stealing legitimately earned wealth is immoral except in the graves of necessity to save life. On the other hand, ensuring that every person has a reasonable opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty is a specific aim of the type of program that Blackadder mentions that does not have “redistribution of wealth” to be an end in itself, the taxation is for a just purpose.

It’s interesting, can we all on this blog agree that it would be a good use of taxpayers money to give vouchers to lower and middle income parents so that they could see to their children’s education in the way they see fit? That seems to be perfectly in line with the Church’s teaching on the rights and duties of the parent.

God Bless,

Matt

I thank you for consulting the encyclical. I respect those who seek to verify in matters disputed.

One objection: I fail to see how Leo XIII’s critique of 1) Marxism and 2) State collectivism is an argument against all forms–local and State–of wealth distribution. Perhaps I’m not following Blackadder well, but it seems to me that a more equitable distribution of wealth is a chief tenet of Catholic social teaching (and largely the result of Leo XIII’s thought).

“Since the nineteenth century, an objection has been raised to the Church’s charitable activity, subsequently developed with particular insistence by Marxism: the poor, it is claimed, do not need charity but justice. Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world’s goods and no longer have to depend on charity. There is admittedly some truth to this argument, but also much that is mistaken.”

“The modern age, particularly from the nineteenth century on, has been dominated by various versions of a philosophy of progress whose most radical form is Marxism. Part of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment: in a situation of unjust power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to some extent tolerable. This in turn slows down a potential revolution and thus blocks the struggle for a better world. Seen in this way, charity is rejected and attacked as a means of preserving the status quo. “