XNavyNuke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,848
The National Catholic Weekly - America, takes issue with charitable medical care
- Thread starter XNavyNuke
- Start date
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
They don't understand that costs would go down, and COST is the problem.
However, he wouldn't do it in one step, before costs COULD go down.....
It is a matter of getting his 'next step' plan out there.
However, he wouldn't do it in one step, before costs COULD go down.....
It is a matter of getting his 'next step' plan out there.
XNavyNuke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,848
I think the editors in this case show the same bias as many other naysayers: it happened before I was born, so therefore I don't believe it is possible. That's why freedom and liberty are such "hard sells". Few have ever really experienced it because it has been in a slow process of dilution for a hundred years.
XNN
XNN
phesoge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 272
Unfortunately many Catholics are lost when it comes to Liberty. I always point them to Woods, and how Liberty really is an integral part of Catholicism. I come from quite a large Catholic Family. 8 Kidds total and it took me about 2 years toconvert them into Paul fans.
Part of the problem is their is a strain of Catholicsim that is basicly socialists. Completely ignorant of anything the church teaches.
Part of the problem is their is a strain of Catholicsim that is basicly socialists. Completely ignorant of anything the church teaches.
XNavyNuke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,848
phesoge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 272
Tom Woods. Historian, big supporter of Paul, and a ardent Catholic who has written about the relationship between the Church and Liberty.
http://www.tomwoods.com/
SkarnkaiLW
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 109
Thomas Woods. http://www.tomwoods.com/
Historian, Catholic, Mises Institute member, and Anarcho-Capitalist, iirc.
Writes a lot of good books on US history as well as the history of the Catholic Church/Western Civ.
Edit: Missed it *by that much*
Historian, Catholic, Mises Institute member, and Anarcho-Capitalist, iirc.
Writes a lot of good books on US history as well as the history of the Catholic Church/Western Civ.
Edit: Missed it *by that much*
phesoge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 272
thomas woods. http://www.tomwoods.com/
historian, catholic, mises institute member, and anarcho-capitalist, iirc.
Writes a lot of good books on us history as well as the history of the catholic church/western civ.
Edit: Missed it *by that much*
haNathaniel1984
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 33
Anyone who has examined the history of religious charities and social welfare networks, until very recently (when they began to be largely crowded out by large scale federal intervention) would counter the claims made in this article. If one, for example, were to read Dr. Eamon Duffy's book, "The Stripping of the Altars", for example, you would discover that, prior to Henry VIII nationalization of church lands and basically stripping the chantries of all wealth, that England had an advanced, independent, private, and relatively free and easy access social welfare network. Whether one agrees with the concept or not, for example, the chantry priests, who were responsible for saying a mass for the dead every day (to help get people out of purgatory sooner), were also responsible for feeding indigents, and teaching children for free. Over centuries, regular people, middle class burghers, rich merchants, and nobles and kings, upon their death would grant huge sums to these institutions upon the condition that they did good works in their names.
One can also think of the more modern incarnations of the mutual aid societies in recent times:
http://mises.org/daily/5388
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_4_6.pdf
But, I think the overarching issue that is being ignored, is the monetary issue. If we had sound money, and a sound banking system, it would reduce the overall poverty rate, and any need for massive federal welfare institutions would be disolved. This arguments is another side of the issue of the crowding out effect, that is, it is easy for many persons to understand that the larger the government spending the less real wealth we have in society due to scarce resources being plucked up (with the aid of an essential unjust monetary system that enables to government and large corporations and banks that are well connected) by the federal (or state) authorities. If the federal government, and their hinchmen, can spend the money prior to its general devaluation being felt by the rest of society, they have essentially done two things:
1. They have bought more material with essentially less valued money, and thus unjust seizing more resources than they should, and
2. They have taking a tremendous share of the wealth of society and engaged it in essentially non-productive uses (like large military budgets, invasions, etc).
If people are truly concerned about the welfare of poor persons then they need to target the monetary issue, and establish sound money, and prevent the federal authorities from sucking up the resources of the people.
One more point. I am not a Mormon, but, I have know Mormons in my life, and they do seem to have a very well structured church welfare society; I am told similar things about the Amish, and a few other groups. This, sadly, is not so of the majority of people currently, but, it does demonstrate that 'private' charities, or better, mutual aid societies are possible and effective.
One can also think of the more modern incarnations of the mutual aid societies in recent times:
http://mises.org/daily/5388
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_4_6.pdf
But, I think the overarching issue that is being ignored, is the monetary issue. If we had sound money, and a sound banking system, it would reduce the overall poverty rate, and any need for massive federal welfare institutions would be disolved. This arguments is another side of the issue of the crowding out effect, that is, it is easy for many persons to understand that the larger the government spending the less real wealth we have in society due to scarce resources being plucked up (with the aid of an essential unjust monetary system that enables to government and large corporations and banks that are well connected) by the federal (or state) authorities. If the federal government, and their hinchmen, can spend the money prior to its general devaluation being felt by the rest of society, they have essentially done two things:
1. They have bought more material with essentially less valued money, and thus unjust seizing more resources than they should, and
2. They have taking a tremendous share of the wealth of society and engaged it in essentially non-productive uses (like large military budgets, invasions, etc).
If people are truly concerned about the welfare of poor persons then they need to target the monetary issue, and establish sound money, and prevent the federal authorities from sucking up the resources of the people.
One more point. I am not a Mormon, but, I have know Mormons in my life, and they do seem to have a very well structured church welfare society; I am told similar things about the Amish, and a few other groups. This, sadly, is not so of the majority of people currently, but, it does demonstrate that 'private' charities, or better, mutual aid societies are possible and effective.
Last edited:
Nathaniel1984
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 33
I would also encourage anyone here to read:
The Unraveling of America
http://books.google.com/books?id=nO...&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Even if you don't agree with everything in the book, it is an eye opener to the actual state of pover prior to the massive LBJ wlefare state.
A personal anecdote:
I used to ask my grandmother, who was an adult in the 40s and 50s (and was living in rural coastal North Carolina), "Granny, how many times did you see the doctor on average when in the 50s?" She responded that it was about 5x or so. I asked her was it financially a burden? She replied not really. They weren't wealthy, my grandparents, and they had 5 kids, owned a small house a few acres of land, but, they weren't anywhere near in the dire financial straits people are in today, despite the 'disadvantages' of a less technologicall advanced society, as well as not having the 'social safety net' provided by Washington. Imagine, when the economy was actually good, and the government hadn't grown to out of control proportions, poor people managed to take care of themselves (oh, yeah, and the dollar actually had a gold connection, we had manufacturing jobs, a lot less regulations, and all that pesking stuff that is the back bone of a free and prosperous society).
The Unraveling of America
http://books.google.com/books?id=nO...&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Even if you don't agree with everything in the book, it is an eye opener to the actual state of pover prior to the massive LBJ wlefare state.
A personal anecdote:
I used to ask my grandmother, who was an adult in the 40s and 50s (and was living in rural coastal North Carolina), "Granny, how many times did you see the doctor on average when in the 50s?" She responded that it was about 5x or so. I asked her was it financially a burden? She replied not really. They weren't wealthy, my grandparents, and they had 5 kids, owned a small house a few acres of land, but, they weren't anywhere near in the dire financial straits people are in today, despite the 'disadvantages' of a less technologicall advanced society, as well as not having the 'social safety net' provided by Washington. Imagine, when the economy was actually good, and the government hadn't grown to out of control proportions, poor people managed to take care of themselves (oh, yeah, and the dollar actually had a gold connection, we had manufacturing jobs, a lot less regulations, and all that pesking stuff that is the back bone of a free and prosperous society).
Similar threads
