Connection between "leftist" economic policy and moral decline?

[Zosimus41]

Originally Posted by fakename

I was wondering if my observations here are correct so let me just ask others, do you notice any correlations between economic policies (like land redistribution and income redistribution, etc) and moral decline (like a decrease in sexual mores)?

I do sometimes but I'm not sure if it is a real correlation or if I'm just seeing what I'm looking for.

Let me give you some of the most remarkable examples: Sparta which became markedly more homosexual and less family oriented (since the women and men were mostly separated) after Lycurgus both devalued the money, and destroyed all Spartan business markets (except for farming which had to be carried on by slaves).

Marxism which is against the idea of families and the idea of private property. It's practical effects were much like those of Lycurgus' laws such as the militarization of the people, the destruction of religious institutions, and a definite decline in the reality of family life (after all weren't there wife and husband spies that informed on each other?). Russia and Mexico and Cuba both seemed to follow this Lacadaemonian script. Also, abortions or some type of kid-killing seems to be part and parcel of this type of political economy since it seems that only the strongest children should be raised in order to keep up the quality of the military and as Aristotle observed, a lawmaker that wants to regulate property must regulate population growth.


And now in America and Europe like effects are and have apparently occurred or are occurring (social justice entails reproductive rights and homosexual rights because the democratic party and social democratic parties connects the two).

There are definitely exceptions to this pattern but I think that they are exactly that, mere exceptions in a general pattern.

Anyone else come to this conclusion?

God is not a democracy.

If the bible Gods word advise an abomination to a certain lifestyle then one should heed.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to the simple.

Its the wise that think they know better than Gods word.

[ACCT]

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Certain Congressmen and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to the administration it is only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in The Moral Case for a Free Economy, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society. In The Moral Case for a Free Economy, Father Sirico shows:Why we can’t have freedom without a free economy and why the best way to help the poor is to a start a businessWhy charity works—but welfare doesn’tHow Father Sirico himself converted from being a leftist colleague of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden to recognizing the merits of a free economyIn this heated presidential election year, the Left will argue that capitalism may produce winners, but it is cruel and unfair. But as Sirico proves in The Moral Case for a Free Economy, capitalism does not simply provide opportunity for material success, but it ensures a more ethical and moral society as well.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by CesarAugustus

Well, some old school communists weren't as gay friendly as today's socialists.

Indeed. They are unlike the people that worship them today.

[CesarAugustus]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Indeed. They are unlike the people that worship them today.

Che Guevara would dislike some of his today's supporters, for example.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by CesarAugustus

Che Guevara would dislike some of his today's supporters, for example.

Same applies to Mao Zedong.

[Seeker1961]

Moral decline has a many parents, I don't think you can place blame in any one area.

[Kaninchen]

Originally Posted by fakename

I was wondering if my observations here are correct so let me just ask others, do you notice any correlations between economic policies (like land redistribution and income redistribution, etc) and moral decline (like a decrease in sexual mores)?

It's all a rather one-dimensional view of things - I would suggest that it's more like the concept of the 'perfect storm'.

In the last few decades there has taken place a rapid economic/technical/industrial revolution that has fundamentally changed who works, how we work, where we work, the homes we live in, how we communicate, how we spend out spare time, how we relate to one another, how we disperse geographically within our societies and so on and so on. There's been nothing like it since the original Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions which began in late 18th century England (the results of which were also met with moral panic wherever they spread).

Of course, one can add in the attitudes of various people one may consider more, or less, naughty but, if one loses the context of social disruption/social complexity brought on by everything else . . . .

[Bartolome Casas]

Originally Posted by ACCT

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Certain Congressmen and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to the administration, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in The Moral Case for a Free Economy, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society. In The Moral Case for a Free Economy, Father Sirico shows:Why we can’t have freedom without a free economy and why the best way to help the poor is to a start a businessWhy charity works—but welfare doesn’tHow Father Sirico himself converted from being a leftist colleague of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden to recognizing the merits of a free economyIn this heated presidential election year, the Left will argue that capitalism may produce winners, but it is cruel and unfair. But as Sirico proves in The Moral Case for a Free Economy, capitalism does not simply provide opportunity for material success, but it ensures a more ethical and moral society as well.

I have found online book reviews by other Catholic scholars and priests who say that Father Sirico views are imbalanced and ultimately not in accord with Catholic Social Doctrine. Father Sirico is sincere and is passionate about his views. But many say that he is out of line with many of his claims and assertions. To me, this is why it is SO important to read for oneself the original and authentic Catholic Social Doctrine documents, rather than having them filtered and interpreted by various persons claiming to be "experts." I think people are sometimes afraid to read the original papal encyclicals. They think they won't be able to understand them. Or, they want someone else to summarize it all quickly for them. But the truth is, unless you read the original documents yourself, you are vulnerable to being mislead and manipulated by politically oriented people on both the Right and the Left, and by people who are just not really the experts that they think they are.