Which they are free to do, that does not mean the right doesn’t exist. The Church teaches it does exist. And that is an important reason why a Catholic cannot condone communism.
I’m not disputing that a fundamental right to property exists.
What you are saying is that a Catholic cannot condone FORCED communism, which is how a government would apply it and has applied it in the past. It’s the forcing of people that is wrong.
Voluntary “communism” in the sense of communal property ownership is okay.
Not an equitable comparison. Eating junk food and having bad dietary habits is not the same as allowing abortion within a community because you don’t want to violate the NAP (which itself is a flawed and inconsistent principle that no one can actually abide by).
This all stems for your idea of treating the NAP as some sort of sacred principle that can’t be violated, and I don’t agree. I do not agree to the NAP, and I would suspect that most people in general don’t either. Mostly because the NAP isn’t practical in the real world, the same world we inhabit with abortion. If I can see someone is preparing to strike me I can and should take appropriate measures including preemptive ones, if I know for a fact someone is about to strike me.
I’m not ok with a society where we subdivide into small groups/communities where some allow abortion and some don’t. That’s still a permissiveness of murder in some places and not others and I can’t in good conscience be ok with that. Yes, we are Catholics and the issue is cut and dried for us. That’s why we can’t condone abortion or be passive to it in some places. I’m not arguing that banning abortion will make it disappear. I’m arguing that people in authority be it in some bizarro anarchist catholic or what we have now cannot and shouldn’t permit it.
As a catholic you believe that abortion is itself murder. I fail to see how it couldn’t be treated in the same way that the murder of someone who is grown. But then it calls into question who decides what is murder in your anarchist society? Majority opinion? That to me sounds like a very bad idea if the majority don’t have some sense of Christian morals ethics. Because moral relativism is a very dangerous path to go down
Do not conflate communism with communal life. Two completely different things. The Church condemned communism: a societal system defined by atheism, no private property, started by revolution which will bring the destruction of preexisting institutions, an inevitable point in human history, by definition global.
Right, and you’ve added to your post several more great reasons completely separate from property ownership why the Church is against communism as we know it in our world.
I don’t disagree with the church’s opinion. I think there are people who, in the early years of Communism, bought into it from a pure community-property standpoint without realizing it was a weak system prone to numerous abuses.
Of course you don’t. The NAP doesn’t work for people who have a need to control others and can’t sleep at night if other people are actually allowed to exercise freedom.
So you’d rather live in a society where one supreme ruler, the USSC, determines that abortion is legal everywhere? It’s all or none? That’s an improvement?
Good luck with that.
Well, in your republican society, the majority of your leadership today has decided that abortion isn’t murder. How’s that working out for you?
That’s the society you now live in. Again, how’s that working out for you?
Government cannot exist without taxation. People who don’t want the services that government may provide are still forced to pay for those services. It is legalized plunder. How little or how much legal plunder you want to allow is the question. Government, even in it’s smallest form, is a violation of basic rights.
Question: How is it not “plunder” that canon law dictates that the faithful have a moral duty to provide for the needs of the Church according to their abilities?
More to the point, Our Lord said “Render under Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.” St. Paul said it is the duty of a Christian to submit to legitimate governmental authority. There is no evidence that requiring citizens to contribute to the support of legitimate government is plunder at all. That has never been taught by the Church. It is novel thinking that is outside Catholic morality.
That is not to say that a legitimate government could not elect to operate without levying taxes. It is to say that taxes are not theft, per se. That simply is not true.
If the government takes 100% of your money, is that theft? Yes or no?
According to the higher law, we have a moral duty to provide according to our ability. Where does it say we are supposed to compel others to do the same?
Our Lord’s answer to a direct question on the point made it very clear that governmental authority does morally include the authority to levy taxes.
St. John the Baptist, likewise, told the tax collectors: “Stop collecting more than what is prescribed.” (Lk 3:13) Not “stop collecting taxes,” mind you, but “stop collecting more than what is prescribed.” They were charging extra and pocketing the difference. That is theft.
Explain the circumstances you’re referring to: that is, an example of the government taking 100% of someone’s money.
But yes, it is theoretically possibly for you to owe more to the government than you have, just as it is possible to owe more debt than you can pay to just about anyone else.
After all, are you suggesting that in an “anarchist capitalist” society there would be such a thing as declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying debts? How would that work, with no courts and no laws?
Actually, just explain how differences in general over money or other offenses are settled in an “anarchist capitalist” society? For that matter, how is a society “capitalist” when there aren’t any laws or any police there to protect the capital? It seems to me that if a society chooses anarchy, it gets anarchy, not “anarchy and [insert system].” Anarchy is the absence of an enforced system or any enforcement authority, isn’t it? No paying for police protection, no capitalism.
That was a yes or no question.
No laws? You’re obviously not prepared to discuss anarchy as you misunderstand the most basic principle of anarchy.
I’ve replied to that at least twice already. Not doing it again.
No, no, I don’t understand somebody’s naive theory that anarchy could somehow result in order. That is quite different than not understanding what actual anarchy is.
But hey–find a society that works as “the principle of anarchy” suggests it will. The proof of the pudding, as they say.
Lucy E. Parsons wrote: “Freed from the systems that made him wretched before, he is not likely to make himself more wretched for lack of them.”
Oh, I’d give a big “not so fast” on that one. The premise is preposterous. You cannot systemically keep other people from doing things you don’t want to do or from violating what you think are your rights by declaring “freedom” but doing nothing to protect it. We live in a world of the fallen, friend, not a world of the repented and amended. If you think the oppressors of the weak are bad in a world of laws, try letting them loose in a world without them. It has been tried. It is not at all pretty. (It is called, coincidentally enough: Anarchy)
Nor have I suggested that in the least.
You basically made the statement that anarchy is lawlessness. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You contend it is possible to have absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual without having a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
What you have not done is give a single concrete example of this ever happening.
You also did not describe how the rule of law would operate in an anarchy. If lack of a rule of law couldn’t be farther from the truth about an anarchy, describe how the law operates in the anarchy you envision.
Hidden in this is the presumption that “private industry” is more moral than government. There is no evidence of that. You said that government cannot exist without violating rights? Show me where human beings who answer to no governing authority have ever existed without violating rights? And capitalists? Oh! Capitalists who were allowed to operate without the interference of laws were about as oppressive as any system you’d ever imagine!! Let’s not try to pretend otherwise.
Anarchy is not the absence of government. When I refer to government I’m generally referring to the State. Sorry I did not make that distinction in that post.
You’re asking me to write a book on this forum. It ain’t happening. You’re obviously clueless about what anarchy is as is made clear by the questions you ask. You really need to study the subject in order to make this discussion productive.