People of all faiths, in spite of their doctrinal differences, have generally been encouraged when the Catholic Church takes a stand for religious belief. In a skeptical and materialistic age, the social encyclicals seem to garner the widest attention because everyone is interested in seeing how the Church will adjust to the trends of the modern world. However, it is arguable that there has never been a real surprise in any papal encyclical. The Pope simply affirms the truths the Church has always affirmed. The encyclicals are needed only because the world changes, not because the truth changes. The world needs to be refreshed by the truth. For instance, in 1968, the only surprise of Humane Vitae was that the Church was not going to give into the world. Lust is still wrong. Now, in 2009, the only surprise of Caritas in Veritate was that the Church was not going to give into the world. Greed is still wrong.
Human beings want to understand the discovered world only as material for their own creativity…. Gnosticism will not entrust itself to a world already created, but only to a world still to be created.
Previously human beings could only transform particular things in nature; nature as such was not the object but rather the presupposition of their activity. Now, however, it itself has been delivered over to them in toto. Yet as a result they suddenly see themselves imperiled as never before.
“The winner in all this,” I continued, “will be the Servile State: Hilaire Belloc’s label for a system where monopoly capitalists, financiers, and government bureaucrats merge into an entity practising state capitalism. Under its terms the capitalists and bankers gain order and protection of their wealth and property while property-less workers receive welfare benefits specifically tied to their wage labor, such as unemployment insurance, which provides security but also confirms their servile status. For his part, Chesterton called this arrangemnent a ‘Business Government’ which, he said, ‘will combine everything that is bad in all the plans for a better world…. There will be nothing left but a loathsome thing called Social Service.” The balance of my talk included examples of the Servile State at work in America, Russia, and China. It also explored the curious new subjegation of women found– most remarkably– in Scandinavia, where the Business Government has essentially socialized “women’s work”: “women find servility in their strange, new, functional marriage to the state.”
At a still more troubling level, there is evidence that shifts in federal housing policy were actually coming to favor family break-up. In brief, by 1970 most married-couple American families with children were in their own homes. To keep up housing demand, regulators subtly shifted mortgage subsidies away from intact traditional families toward “underserved,” “non-traditional,” “non-family” households: single persons; sole-mother households; unmarried couples; the divorced. In fact, two analysts showed that as early as 1980, the American population was “diffusing itself” into a still expanding housing supply; the number of housing units was growing at nearly twice the rate of population increase. Put more bluntly, the new availability of subsidized mortgages for the non-married actually appears to have encouraged divorce and other forms of modern post-family living.[7] In a manner that Chesterton would have deplored, lawmakers and regulators had stripped American housing policy of normative content. No longer family-centric, with a special focus on the needs of children, it would now be “neutral” as to lifestyle. In practice, these changes blended the U.S. mortgage market together with certain emerging social pathologies and unstable speculation to create a precarious system: again, a problem already evident to some observers as early as 30 years ago. The wonder is that the contradictions in this system took nearly three decades to work themselves out as part of the current crisis.
E pela mesma razão ambos observam o Cristianismo como inimigo a ser conquistado e dominado pela vontade dos governantes, como se observa pelo cesaropapismo britânico fundamentado por Locke e pelas nacionalizações religiosas dos comunismos que se verificaram por esse mundo fora. Tanto o Comunismo como o Liberalismo têm perfeita consciência de que só sobrevivem numa sociedade de impulsos e desejos e em que toda a repressão é injustificada. Prazer e Dor, Desejo e Satisfação, são os elementos essenciais dessa sociedade suinizada de resposta a impulsos. Qualquer apelo à Virtude, à medida do Homem que proporciona acesso a bens não quantificáveis e qualitativos, é por isso banido por extra-subjectividade. O epíteto “fascista” deixou o significado original de movimento político de massas, para se dizer daquele que não acredita que o indivíduo-átomo é o destinatário final de toda a política. Qualquer pessoa que se recuse a aceitar que os laços humanos são mais importantes que uma individualidade possessiva, que não tem outra finalidade que não seja a total plasticidade do Homem para obter uma total submissão ao poder e ao tempo, quebra a grande premissa de Comunismo e Liberalismo: que devemos todos estar juntos (comunismo) ou separados (liberalismo) para que possamos no fim caber nessa orgia de auto-satisfação do ponto-ómega do Progresso ou da sociedade em que cada um vê satisfeitas as suas necessidades.
O Dia do Trabalhador hoje é mais um anacronismo histórico como qualquer outro. O "trabalhador" de hoje já não é mais o operário que pretende ver seu número de horas reduzido para oito, tais como os da longínqua revolta de Haymarket, mas sim um "colaborador" que, pelo contrário, precisa de trabalhar o máximo de horas possível para poder manter a cabeça à tona de água. Depois há os restantes: uma "fidalguia" de parasitas que vai desde os beneficiários do RSI e subsídios afins até à classe dirigente com altas prebendas e honorários pagos pelo Erário. Pelo meio, sobraram alguns privilegiados que conseguiram seu ingresso em empresas públicas e administração estatal, os quais caíram nas boas graças dos sindicatos devido ao seu poder de paralisação.Inheritance TaxInheritance tax is another Keyensian method of wealth redistribution. It is based on the idea that a portion of the accumulated wealth of individuals needs to be redistributed through the government to those in greater need. It is, in my opinion, an excellent example of a society that takes a utilitarian view of its citizens. What else can explain the willingness to add to the grief of surviving relatives by making them pay for what they inherit from the one who died? Beyond that, there is not much difference between the inheritance tax and an income tax. The inheritance is treated as a special form of income and taxed at its own special rate.Property TaxThe main problem I have with property tax as it is implemented here in the United States is that it actually negates the principle of ownership. I say this because, regardless of what it may say on the deed of title, you can be evicted from what is supposed to be your property for failure to pay the tax. In what way is this different from the early feudal period where the landlord could kick out the tenants for failure to pay the required tax? I can see none. Despite the fact that we claim to own our property, we are in fact nothing more than tenants with more rights to the property than renters.Another problem with property taxes is that the government claims a revenue from that which it has not provided. John Médaille makes excellent points on the claim that a community can make on the value it has provided to the land, but the current practice of property taxes goes well beyond that. It also taxes the value provided by the individual or business as though the community has some natural claim to it. It is one thing to say that the presence of community has provided value to a piece of land and therefore the community can make a claim against that value; it is quite another thing to say that the community can make a claim against an increase value of your house on that land because you decided to improve it at your own expense.These problems are the reason I cannot support property taxes as they are currently implemented. With these defects in place, I would personally prefer the sales tax.
