Pope Francis says "Libertarian Economics Sucks!"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

3% for 2000 years, assuming proper investment... God is one rich son of a...

**-Shrike-**

LordofHats wrote:
3% for 2000 years, assuming proper investment... God is one rich son of a...

He knew exactly what to do...

**Manchu**

LordofHats wrote:
Benedict seemed at times to be almost too afraid to say much about anything.

On the subject of economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caritas_in_Veritate

For example:

Then, the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

The exclusively binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it, build up society.

etc etc etc

This encyclical was so disturbing to right-wing Catholics that at least one of them went so far as to deny the Pope even wrote the parts he objected to.

The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new nor broaching this topic for the first time in recent years. This is an authentic Catholic message that will be difficult for some Catholics to hear, especially considering that once again it comes from the bishop of Rome. With Francis, however, there is no denying it is he himself who thinks these things.

**Co'tor Shas**

juraigamer wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
This pope is amazing.
He's not homophobic, he cares about the poor, and he is a generally nice person.

It's like he's a Christian. Not just in name.

*glares at most of the US*

I'm a little late, but that is hilarious.

...as in I actually laughed not just said "LOL" but didn't actually laugh

...I hate it when people do that

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new

So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?

**Kovnik Obama**

Ahtman wrote:
Manchu wrote:
The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new

So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?

i) Because to many Catholics, being a Catholic stops at going through with all the Sacraments and, sometimes, with attending church on Sunday. Just like every other religion.
ii) Because most of the outcry comes from people who are neither Catholics, nor informed on Catholic doctrine.
iii) Because people have the attention span of lobotomized monkeys.

**Ahtman**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Manchu wrote:
The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new

So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?

i) Because to many Catholics, being a Catholic stops at going through with all the Sacraments and, sometimes, with attending church on Sunday. Just like every other religion.
ii) Because most of the outcry comes from people who are neither Catholics, nor informed on Catholic doctrine.
iii) Because people have the attention span of lobotomized monkeys.

While some of that is certainly true, it seems a bit of a No True Scotsman as well as ignoring any other possibilities, such as the Church being fairly awful at getting the message out in a meaningful way.

**Kovnik Obama**

Ahtman wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Manchu wrote:
The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new

So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?

i) Because to many Catholics, being a Catholic stops at going through with all the Sacraments and, sometimes, with attending church on Sunday. Just like every other religion.
ii) Because most of the outcry comes from people who are neither Catholics, nor informed on Catholic doctrine.
iii) Because people have the attention span of lobotomized monkeys.

While some of that is certainly true, it seems a bit of a No True Scotsman as well as ignoring any other possibilities, such as the Church being fairly awful at getting the message out in a meaningful way.

Well, the encyclicals aren't required readings. And while they aren't ''Harry Potter''-style litterature lite, the message and the language is incredibly clear, coherent and accessible. And it's really engaging, if you compare to other social studies works

Holy Father Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891 wrote:45. 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. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

46. If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

47. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.

**sebster**

It's interesting to see the argument that Francis isn't saying anything new, but somehow when he says it the stuff is put first and foremost. I wonder if its a bit like the Dalai Lama, who has some views on social issues that are downright authoritarian, and yet he's the darling of social progressives over the planet.

Anyhow, however this is happening, it's still great to see the church be publically seen to shift towards concern for economic equality.

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
So, is the Church going to give back the vast sums of money they took from most of the western world over the last couple of thousand years so they could wear silver and gold dresses and build vast stone churches while everyone else lived in hovels and worked as serfs?

Wo wo wo, lets not get crazy now...

Hang on, wasn't that a criticism of a christian group? Aren't you supposed to be freaking out and moaning that people are just bashing christians again when someone says something like the above?

**Co'tor Shas**

sebster wrote:
...I wonder if its a bit like the Dalai Lama, who has some views on social issues that are downright authoritarian, and yet he's the darling of social progressives over the planet...

I would love to hear about that. He didn't seem to be like that at all.

p.s. I'm not trying to catch you or something, I'm legitimately interested.

**Manchu**

Ahtman wrote:
Manchu wrote:
The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new
So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?

The simple answer, as Kovnik O has already more or less laid out, is that most people know far more about what they think about the Church than about the Church itself. The more complex answer, which takes into account your retort, is that the Church is not like a corporation or a political campaign in the sense of generating a monolithic marketing campaign. Why? Because the Church isn't like those other institutions -- specifically, it is not external to the experience of the Faithful. What I mean is, Christianity is in the first place a personal experience rather than set of information beamed at persons like government regulation or advertisements.

Perhaps what is most surprising to many people about Pope Francis is that he seems to be saying things that they already agree with. This is evidence that the message of Christianity has been effectively communicated even unbeknownst to those to whom it has been communicated. The element of surprise, I think, comes from a forgetfulness about the sources of Western morality -- which are and remain overwhelmingly Christian. That forgetfulness is the result of some pretty complex historical developments that can be summed up under the heading of secularisation. To just touch on one very recent aspect of this phenomenon, there has developed since the 1950s a very striking consensus that figures of religious authority bear little relevance in society.

Another issue of forgetfulness is a factor of how contemporary popular media shapes our understanding of the world. We have a tendancy to project the present onto both the past and the future. Criticisms of the popes being out of touch would have seemed quite out of place during most of John Paul II's reign. But towards the end of his reign, he was unable to speak or really even move too well. In Ratzinger, the cardinals elected a man who was relatively hostile to personally leveraging the capacities of mass media. Unlike his predecessor, Benedict XVI preferred formal, sustained dialog over sound bytes and photo ops. This personal idiom, while indicative of a sincere intellect, did not prove suitable to deal with the sexual abuse scandals. Indeed, those scandals only further deafened most ears.

In this context, it became easy to believe that popes were outmoded, irrelevant if not totally sinister. It became easy to believe that the Church itself shared the qualities. It became easy to believe that whatever one considers offensively archaic is probably held and taught by such men. Then Francis began to speak.

**Ahtman**

There are certainly some interesting things to mull over there, but I do want to respond to this:

Manchu wrote:
What I mean is, Christianity is in the first place a personal experience rather than set of information beamed at persons like government regulation or advertisements.

It also isn't an entirely insular, or solipsistic, experience either. Last I heard spreading the Gospel of Jesus was a fairly important thing, and one does not have to be selling ads on TV to share ideas with others. Just because it doesn't disseminate ideas in the same way as government or business doesn't mean that those ideas aren't being passed on.

**Manchu**

Well, that's exactly my point.

**sebster**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I would love to hear about that. He didn't seem to be like that at all.

p.s. I'm not trying to catch you or something, I'm legitimately interested.

He's stated homosexuality is wrong, because it involves other holes than the ones used to make babies. Expanding on this, he clarified that the use of those other holes, even by straight married couples, is wrong. So no more Steak and Blowjob day.

He's stated that sex during the day is wrong. So no more sky rockets in flight.

He's stated that masturbation is wrong. And that means no-one gets to post on dakka anymore.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying the Dalai Lama is a bad guy, because I don't believe that at all. It's more to point out the tendency we have of simplifying certain public figures in to being abstract notions of good or bad, instead of being the complex human beings that they really are. Ultimately the Dalai Lama has sexual beliefs that you'd expect of a virgin who was thrust in to a position of moral and religious leadership from a very early age.... but those views are ignored by much Western media and most of the population, because we want a nice simple story about a guy who's pure good.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Perhaps what is most surprising to many people about Pope Francis is that he seems to be saying things that they already agree with. This is evidence that the message of Christianity has been effectively communicated even unbeknownst to those to whom it has been communicated. The element of surprise, I think, comes from a forgetfulness about the sources of Western morality -- which are and remain overwhelmingly Christian.

You don't get to claim charity and empathy as purely Christian in origin. When the early Christians went out spreading the word people didn't hear it and think 'Holy gak, charity? Why didn't anyone think of that before?'

**LordofHats**

And that means no-one gets to post on dakka anymore.

Did not know that stuff about the Dalai Lama. Probably helps his image that he's a leader fighting those mean Chinese folk over the mountains.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
You don't get to claim charity and empathy as purely Christian in origin. When the early Christians went out spreading the word people didn't hear it and think 'Holy gak, charity? Why didn't anyone think of that before?'

Actually, I do rather think that was the Roman reaction.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
Actually, I do rather think that was the Roman reaction.

The history of philanthropy says you're wrong. Any how, more importantly, are you actually saying that christianity is the only reason we value charity? Because that's what your statement seems to boil down to, and that can't possibly be right.

Oh, and just on protocol, I noticed you referred to Ratzinger as, well, Ratzinger. Is that what's been agreed to as a term for him now he's no longer pope? He reverts to his old name?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Did not know that stuff about the Dalai Lama. Probably helps his image that he's a leader fighting those mean Chinese folk over the mountains.

I think it helps that appears to be a genuinely nice guy with all sorts of wise and kind things to say aboutl lots of stuff. But he's also got some downright whacky views that people try hard to ignore, because complexity is not something we handle well in our major figures.

**Manchu**

As to protocol, the popes take regnal names and I don't mean to suggest any "reversion" so much as to remind everyone that they are people with pasts and personalities rather than television presenters.

As to your "history of philanthropy," I think you are underestimating the radicalism of Christian morality -- as is your privilege as a Westerner. And in any case, the West today is not the moral or ethical heir of any tradition aside from the West's own, which is Christian.

I don't say that no man ever did another a kindness before Jesus spoke; just that the Gospel reframes the whole idea of it. When the Almighty Himself is a person, one has quite another level of obligation to persons generally.

**Grimskul**

Manchu wrote:
As to protocol, the popes take regnal names and I don't mean to suggest any "reversion" so much as to remind everyone that they are people with pasts and personalities rather than television presenters.

As to your "history of philanthropy," I think you are underestimating the radicalism of Christian morality -- as is your privilege as a Westerner. And in any case, the West today is not the moral or ethical heir of any tradition aside from the West's own, which is Christian.

I don't say that no man ever did another a kindness before Jesus spoke; just that the Gospel reframes the whole idea of it. When the Almighty Himself is a person, one has quite another level of obligation to persons generally.

Amen to that brother,

even today a lot of Christian moral ethics is considered shocking or unbelievable by today's "civilized" standards. Sincerely forgiving and loving one's enemies is something that I find is one Christian maxim that gets people, especially in the context of every day life. Back in high school my best friend and I had to deal with an incredibly annoying and dickish classmate in gym who always seemed to manage to rub us the wrong way (not literally mind you

) and during one time after another annoying moment with him in a moment of clarity I said "I'll pray for him." which my buddy overheard and gave me a shocked face and genuinely asked as to why I would ever do that. He later understood by what I meant and why but the fact that he was agnostic and reacted so adversely to my comment makes me feel like this is something that is radically against human nature and most of our culture. If we managed to do this on a heartfelt, consistent individual basis the world would be a much different place.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
As to protocol, the popes take regnal names and I don't mean to suggest any "reversion" so much as to remind everyone that they are people with pasts and personalities rather than television presenters.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

As to your "history of philanthropy," I think you are underestimating the radicalism of Christian morality -- as is your privilege as a Westerner. And in any case, the West today is not the moral or ethical heir of any tradition aside from the West's own, which is Christian.

But that Christian tradition is itself heir to the beliefs that existed before it. Christian charity didn't just spring up out of nowhere.

I don't say that no man ever did another a kindness before Jesus spoke; just that the Gospel reframes the whole idea of it. When the Almighty Himself is a person, one has quite another level of obligation to persons generally.

Sure, but if it's just about reframing the idea, and thereby granting it greater importance, that's a reasonable claim and one I agree with. But once we recognise charity existed before christianity, then your statement "This is evidence that the message of Christianity has been effectively communicated even unbeknownst to those to whom it has been communicated", which is basically presuming that any charity witnessed in the Christian world must have been influenced by christian teaching, starts looking like a really long bow to draw.

**Palindrome**

sebster wrote:
Christian charity didn't just spring up out of nowhere.

Indeed it didn't and charity is a significant part of other religions as well, it is one of the 5 pillars of Islam for instance.

**Mr. Burning**

Well, he sure talks a good talk.

Positive declarations from his office regarding condom use as an aid to stop the spread of HIV/Aids, the re-education of his church on abortion and homosexuality might be a better step to take.

An open discussion about the truly abominable and unnatural celibacy its priests have to face would be welcome too.

The church revels in the fact that many of its worshippers are poor and illiterate and yet does hardly a thing Vs the massive power it holds to make any change in its own status quo.

Maybe this pope is making the first steps towards more frank and open dialogue but deeds not words as they say.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
Christian charity didn't just spring up out of nowhere.

Now you're just chasing nonsense.

sebster wrote:
presuming that any charity witnessed in the Christian world must have been influenced by christian teaching, starts looking like a really long bow to draw

Not at all. For better or worse, Christianity is a basic and pervasive component of the inescapable lens that is worldview, at least for Westerners.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Hmmm sounds like we have a no gak liberation theologist in the big chair folks.

**Easy E**

I will take Liberation Theology over Prosperity Doctrine any day fo the week.

Also, Supply Side Jesus was priceless. Perhaps my new favorite version, just ahead of Buddy Jesus.

**Manchu**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hmmm sounds like we have a no gak liberation theologist in the big chair folks.

Whoa not even close.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

**Cheesecat**

Manchu wrote:
sebster wrote:
Christian charity didn't just spring up out of nowhere.
Now you're just chasing nonsense.

It makes sense to me human ideas are always inspired by the world around them.

**Manchu**

No, what I meant was that seb is trying to frame the issue in an absurd way despite my earlier clarification.

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

Good read.