Brazilian pro-life candidate Bolsonaro in critical election today.

[Graham]

It seems to me that "proportionate to their means" could have either of the meanings being disputed. Perhaps it would be clearer if we could establish what the phrase meant at the time the encyclical was written, or perhaps the Latin original might provide some clue.

[james.rogerson]

Graham, I think he may have given the address in Italian. It would be available in the AAS; I'll see if I can find an Italian version online. But here's a paragraph from later in his address. Maybe the bolded part will help to correctly interpret his meaning. I give the entire paragraph for context:

It can be said, in short, that the great size of present-day states points up the need for a carefully
worked out program of fiscal legislation. This legislation is still encumbered, in more than one
respect, by a questionable empiricism. It is of utmost importance, moreover, that the moral
principles justifying taxation be equally clear to the governing and those governed and that they be
effectively applied. May taxes continue to be adjusted, with increasingly sensitive and adequate
criteria, to the true capabilities of the individual. Taxation will no longer, then, be regarded as a
constantly excessive and more or less arbitrary burden. It will come to represent—in a state better
organized and equipped for achieving the harmonious performance of society's various activities—a
humble, perhaps, and very material, but nonetheless indispensable, aspect of civic unity and
individual support of the common welfare. The wisdom of those who govern and the efficacy of a
devoted and honest administration should show conclusively that the sacrifice imposed corresponds
to a real service and bears fruit.

The reference to "adjusting taxes" to the "true capabilities of the individual" seems fairly straightforward to me. Do you think so too?

[mikemac]

No Mike, I do cover Pope Leo's "extreme circumstance" exemption, when a family is cut off from all other help.

You all have been brain washed into thinking the government's job is to take care of "poor" people.  You probably also think it is the government's job to provide schools.  And since you are from Canada, I know you have been brainwashed into thinking government should also provide medical services.  This is marxism.

For over a thousand years this was done by the Church as Pope Leo points out in RN.  Socialism has also been condemned directly by the Church.

I don't know how you get libertarianism from the papal encyclicals, but that seems to be what you've done.

James if Universal Health Care is Marxism then having the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers build highways, levies and straightening out the oxbows in the Mississippi is most certainly Marxism.  About ten years ago the then Mayor of Toronto got laughed at for trying to call in the army to clear snow.  Contractors build and maintain our infrastructure here in Canada.  And what about Medicare and Medicaid in the US; they are paid for by the government.

[james.rogerson]

I don't know how you get libertarianism from the papal encyclicals, but that seems to be what you've done.

No I don't think that's what he's done. Rather he's started with libertarianism and cherry-picked the teaching, accepting the bits that suit him and rejecting what doesn't. There's no sense in which this fellow is being taught by the Church.

Actual leftists (as opposed to James's definition of a leftist, namely anyone who disagrees with him) do the same thing. They take the stuff in the social encyclicals that they agree with a priori, and ignore the condemnations of socialism, the upholding of the right to private property and so on.

[james03]

I don't know how you get libertarianism from the papal encyclicals, but that seems to be what you've done.

I'm a subsidiarist, not a libertarian.  I differ from them on labor unions, anti-competitive practices (against monopolies), and support import tariffs.

James if Universal Health Care is Marxism then having the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers build highways, levies and straightening out the oxbows in the Mississippi is most certainly Marxism.

1.  These items support the common good, transportation.
2.  By subsidiarity, they rightly belong at the Federal level.  Note a lot of transportation projects are also done at the State level, which is proper.
3.  UHC could be argued as a common good, but it fails when it comes to subsidiarity.  From an economic consideration, it absolutely sucks.

You are arguing as if I'm an anarcho capitalist or even a libertarian.  I'm neither, I'm a subsidiarist.

And what about Medicare and Medicaid in the US; they are paid for by the government.

Both are bankrupt, same as Ontario being the most indebted political body in the First World due to UHC.  They violate subsidiarity.  I want to go back about 60 years to the system where the doctor came over to your house (called a "house call") and you paid him cash.  Nowadays he drives a porsche due to the Medical Guild and government scams.

[james03]

But here's a paragraph from later in his address.

This section better supports your point, the previous one actually runs counter (per the English).  I could only find the English translation unfortunately.

Even here the context is burdensome taxation created by a large State.  He is calling for taxes that take into account the capabilities of the individual.  Note he is not talking about a graduated income tax or even income tax in general. 

And one final thing, this is not a definitive teaching as we see in the end paragraph:

It is your task, gentlemen, with the help of experiments carried out in your respective
countries, constantly to shed greater light on the theoretical foundations of taxation and to suggest
their most rewarding applications. We are convinced that you thus render an eminent service to
each of your fellow citizens and to the assembly of nations, which profit from your efforts.

[mikemac]

I don't know how you get libertarianism from the papal encyclicals, but that seems to be what you've done.

I'm a subsidiarist, not a libertarian.  I differ from them on labor unions, anti-competitive practices (against monopolies), and support import tariffs.

James if Universal Health Care is Marxism then having the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers build highways, levies and straightening out the oxbows in the Mississippi is most certainly Marxism.

1.  These items support the common good, transportation.
2.  By subsidiarity, they rightly belong at the Federal level.  Note a lot of transportation projects are also done at the State level, which is proper.
3.  UHC could be argued as a common good, but it fails when it comes to subsidiarity.  From an economic consideration, it absolutely sucks.

You are arguing as if I'm an anarcho capitalist or even a libertarian.  I'm neither, I'm a subsidiarist.

And what about Medicare and Medicaid in the US; they are paid for by the government.

Both are bankrupt, same as Ontario being the most indebted political body in the First World due to UHC.  They violate subsidiarity.  I want to go back about 60 years to the system where the doctor came over to your house (called a "house call") and you paid him cash.  Nowadays he drives a porsche due to the Medical Guild and government scams.

So you are basically saying that both the US and Canada are Marxist countries. 

Your number 2 is a contradiction.  If the State can do it then why have the Feds call in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build and maintain the infrastructure.  That's not subsidiarity.  It's not even capitalism.

You say that taking care of the poorest in society is the job of the Church, not the government.  Well there is nothing stopping the Church right now, yet we see homelessness and poverty growing in both countries.  Heaven help them if the governments follow your lead and stops helping the poor.

You used to call yourself a libertarian, now you call yourself a subsidiarist.  But with your idea of the government not helping the poorest in society you are acting more like an anarcho libertarian.

[james03]

So you are basically saying that both the US and Canada are Marxist countries.

They have embraced parts of Marxism.  Google the Communist Manifesto and look at the 10 planks of communism.  Compare to current US and Canadian policies.  The US is a blend of communism and fascism.  We do retain a lot of subsidiarity due to the 9th and 10th amendment and our States, but it has been cut way back due to the national income tax and crazy interpretation of the commerce clause.

Your number 2 is a contradiction.  If the State can do it then why have the Feds call in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build and maintain the infrastructure.  That's not subsidiarity.  It's not even capitalism.

I don't understand your point, so maybe we are talking past each other.  Take the intracoastal waterway in the USA.  That crosses many State boundaries, so by subsidiarity it rightly belongs to the Federal Government to maintain.  They do this by charging lock-through fees at the dams and also by taxing marine diesel.  This is in perfect agreement with subsidiarity.  However with County Roads, the individual State construct and maintain them.  Again the power is pushed down to the lowest levels, which is subsidiarity.  I am not an An-Cap so I support these kind of things.

You say that taking care of the poorest in society is the job of the Church, not the government.  Well there is nothing stopping the Church right now, yet we see homelessness and poverty growing in both countries.  Heaven help them if the governments follow your lead and stops helping the poor.

1.  Yeah, there are a lot of homeless people and welfare cows.  That is because the government took over relief of the poor.
2.  The reason the Church does not have the resources is because close to 60% of the income of the producers in this country is looted by the government.  Free that up and the Church will have resources.  If you doubt that, go and look at all of the Catholic hospitals in Canada and the US built probably 100 years ago and confess thy folly.  The Church can no longer afford such projects as the government loots all the money.

You used to call yourself a libertarian, now you call yourself a subsidiarist.  But with your idea of the government not helping the poorest in society you are acting more like an anarcho libertarian.

5-10 years ago I thought I was a Libertarian.  However as I outlined above I differ on key issues.  I also disagree with their bedrock non-aggression principle. 

As far as the government taking over providing for the poor, that is a recent novelty.  Rerum Novarum:

(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law......
29. The Church, moreover, intervenes directly in behalf of the poor, by setting on foot and maintaining many associations which she knows to be efficient for the relief of poverty. Herein, again, she has always succeeded so well as to have even extorted the praise of her enemies. Such was the ardor of brotherly love among the earliest Christians that numbers of those who were in better circumstances despoiled themselves of their possessions in order to relieve their brethren; whence "neither was there any one needy among them."(24) To the order of deacons, instituted in that very intent, was committed by the Apostles the charge of the daily doles; and the Apostle Paul, though burdened with the solicitude of all the churches, hesitated not to undertake laborious journeys in order to carry the alms of the faithful to the poorer Christians. Tertullian calls these contributions, given voluntarily by Christians in their assemblies, deposits of piety, because, to cite his own words, they were employed "in feeding the needy, in burying them, in support of youths and maidens destitute of means and deprived of their parents, in the care of the aged, and the relief of the shipwrecked."(25)

30. Thus, by degrees, came into existence the patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the inheritance of the poor. Nay, in order to spare them the shame of begging, the Church has provided aid for the needy. The common Mother of rich and poor has aroused everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief. At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State. But no human expedients will ever make up for the devotedness and self sacrifice of Christian charity. Charity, as a virtue, pertains to the Church; for virtue it is not, unless it be drawn from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and whosoever turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ.

[mikemac]

So you are basically saying that both the US and Canada are Marxist countries.

They have embraced parts of Marxism.  Google the Communist Manifesto and look at the 10 planks of communism.  Compare to current US and Canadian policies.  The US is a blend of communism and fascism.

I can't disagree with that.  You know, cause "Russia will spread it's errors."  Especially with all the abortions.  But you often imply that it is just Canada which I can't agree with.

You say that taking care of the poorest in society is the job of the Church, not the government.  Well there is nothing stopping the Church right now, yet we see homelessness and poverty growing in both countries.  Heaven help them if the governments follow your lead and stops helping the poor.

1.  Yeah, there are a lot of homeless people and welfare cows.  That is because the government took over relief of the poor.
2.  The reason the Church does not have the resources is because close to 60% of the income of the producers in this country is looted by the government.  Free that up and the Church will have resources.  If you doubt that, go and look at all of the Catholic hospitals in Canada and the US built probably 100 years ago and confess thy folly.  The Church can no longer afford such projects as the government loots all the money.

Yeah I'd like to go back in time too.  But until Catholics have enough disposable income to give to the Church and we are guaranteed the Church would direct that charity to the proper places I think it would be disastrous for the poorest in society if governments stopped helping them.  Trump is helping in the US by decreasing unemployment.

[james03]

Yeah, another big plus for having import duties.  It cuts poverty.

I've never been a rah-rah-rah USA guy.  Canada has just been a whole lot worse.  Looks like the Canadians are starting to change that.  By current election results Trudeau will get booted and maybe you all can build a pipeline and start creating huge wealth for your country instead of getting raped by Buffet.

[mikemac]

Yeah, another big plus for having import duties.  It cuts poverty.

I've never been a rah-rah-rah USA guy.  Canada has just been a whole lot worse.  Looks like the Canadians are starting to change that.  By current election results Trudeau will get booted and maybe you all can build a pipeline and start creating huge wealth for your country instead of getting raped by Buffet.

We haven't seen the full impact of import duties yet.  It may even cut jobs.  Yeah I'm sure Trudeau will get the boot next year.  But I think the problem with Keystone XL is in the US.  The Canadian government has approved it.  If they thought they were getting raped by Buffet's BNSF then I'm sure they would use the CN network instead.  It's from coast to coast to coast now.  I am retired from Canadian National Railway.  I have a coat with a crest that says CN & Illinois Central, that is from before CN purchased IC in 1998.  This is what the CN network looks like now.

       

[mikemac]

James just so you know.  Keystone XL is Phase 4 of the Keystone Pipeline project.  Phases 1, 2 and 3 are complete carrying Canadian crude from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, and on to Wood River, Illinois (Phase 1), then from Steele City to Cushing, Oklahoma (Phase 2) and then from Cushing to Port Arthur and Houston, Texas (Phase 3).  The proposed Phase 4 Keystone XL (XL standing for "export limited") would connect Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska by a shorter route and a larger-diameter pipe.   It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added.  The deterrent to Phase 4 Keystone XL has come from the US  because of its routing over the Sandhills in Nebraska.  A bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline was passed by the Senate (62–36) on January 29, 2015, and by the House (270–152) on February 11, 2015. President Obama vetoed the bill on February 24, 2015, arguing that the decision of approval should rest with the Executive Branch. The Senate was unable to override the veto by a two-thirds majority, with a 62-37 vote.  On November 6, 2015, the project of Keystone XL was rejected by the Obama administration.  Financial commitment towards completion of the pipeline was weakened by a number of technological factors as well. Recent innovations in fracking had increased domestic production of oil and, according to the EIA, reduced annual demand of oil from foreign countries to an all-time low since 1985. Shifts to Gasoline fuel for cargo vehicles, new technologies promoting fuel efficiency, and export restrictions that forced the price of oil to decrease also played a part.  On January 24, 2017 President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion.  On January 18, 2018 TransCanada announced they had secured commitments to ship 500,000 barrels per day for 20 years. They believe construction could begin in 2019.  I have previously said on a couple of occasions that the Canadian government has approved the Keystone Pipeline Project.  James the deterrent to Phase 4 Keystone XL has not been coming from Canada, but from the US all along.  You should get your facts straight first.  I hope that puts that to rest.

[james03]

There WAS an US impediment to Keystone.  That is no longer the case.

On economics the sole criteria is the WCS/WTI spread.  That is HUGE.

Perhaps the pipeline will be built.  I think what happened was that after Obama shut it down, The Canadian company decided on a different (more expensive) project.  However Trudeau has shut that project down (or some Canadian entity) and other alternatives.  Trump came in and opened the US route again.  So perhaps the project is back on.  To be honest I have not kept up with the status of it.

By the way, WCS is a good fit for US refineries vs. shale oil which is low sulphur and light.  Shale oil is a better fit for less complicated refineries.  In economic terms shale oil does not fully utilize the economic advantage of complex refineries since the upgrading required is much lower.

[mikemac]

No, the Canadian company TransCanada Corporation didn't decide on a different project than Keystone XL.  You must be thinking of a different company, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners building a different pipeline, the Trans Mountain Pipeline (now owned by Trans Mountain Corporation).   Or maybe you are thinking of the Enbridge Pipeline System that carries crude oil and other products from Alberta to the major oil refineries in the American Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario (formerly known in the US as Lakehead Pipe Line Partners and Lakehead Pipe Line Company).  The Canadian government has approved all three pipeline projects.  Yeah I think the WCS/WTI spread will ensure the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion and possibly Canadian refinery expansions.

[james03]

OK.  Is there anything recent saying that the US is holding up the pipeline?  Provide a link if you have one, as I'd be curious to see what is going on.

My understanding also is that the pipelines besides Keystone are stalled out.  The Eastern route is dead.  The Western one had to be taken over by the Canadian central government, but was blocked/delayed by the courts.