Choice of the right policy

2017 text

Every fewer years we make a choice, which policy will be implemented – at least in theory.

Last election retreat

.

.

It may be somewhat humorous to say that politics is like alcohol: any like wine, white or red, others like stronger drinks. There are besides those who do not consume alcohol at all and who do not have the reasons for doing so. Everyone has the right to a democratic and sovereign choice of what suits him and what advertising will encourage him to do if he does.

And that is how we behave by making the most crucial decisions regarding the life of the nation, the functioning of the state and their development. We have been trained by the Jewish-regime strategy of medilano-education and by the Jewish-Catholic Church, which does not evade the function of guide of the nation not only in matters of spirit.

But what is the politics of the nation and the state? The simplest and most appropriate definition is the 1 that says that the policy is about a fair division of the jointly created good and the action that ensures interior and external safety for the nation and the state, allows them to develop. According to Aristotle, politics is simply a kind of art of governing a state whose goal is to common good.

As has already been seen in ancient times, ethical issues in politics have been highlighted.

Ethical criteria, if guided by politics, order to include the full nation, not part of it or the majority. We're entering an area here that can be called social justice. That's what social justice says. Benedict XVI in encyclical ‘Deus caritas est’ n.28:

‘...The fair order of society and the state is the central task of politics. A country that would not be guided by justice would be reduced to a large band of thieves.(...) Justice is an objective, and so besides an interior measurement of all policy...”

The right of ethical postulate besides has its undeniable, rational economical dimension. due to the fact that the more members of the community have the income due to the division of the common good developed in the state and the more of them take an active part in its production (i.e. it does its work – and its universality should be ensured by the right policy), the more goods it is able to produce the nation, the higher its material level, and consequently the higher level of culture of the nation, which translates into the improvement and strength of the state.

However, many judaic Catholics do not know this explanation of social justice by Benedict XVI, many of them openly argue it, including the encyclical JPII, the promoter of the "free market", or the most predatory judaic capitalism, promoted in conquered countries, as well as criticism of the alleged liberation theology in the countries of Latin America, which advocates expanding social security. Critics of this social justice alternatively of social safety postulate voluntary alms, according to judaic Catholicism, due to the fact that it does not corrupt.

Imagine that a sick man goes to the hospital. 1 group of physicians makes the diagnosis “A” and recommends a treatment “a”. another physicians have a different concept, a diagnosis “B” and a therapy “b”, etc. Ultimately, a compromise was decided: all physicians, the patient and his household vote on the choice of diagnosis and therapy – they make a democratic choice. It is apparent that if they make the incorrect choice, the patient may even die.

I think everyone will bow to the message that the described example is absurd – and fortunately it does not happen. – It does not happen in the planet of medicine, but Unfortunately, it is commonly utilized in the planet of politics.

The subject substance of medicine is much more complicated, more extended than the policy area. However, appropriate diagnosis and appropriate therapy both in medicine and in politics are equally crucial to the life of the patient and to the life of the nation.

Why, then, in politics do we let ourselves the absurd democratic choice of diagnosis and therapy?

Policies are measurable, verifiable and subject to substantive analysis. It is besides crucial that this policy is used, i.e. the issues of the good of the nation and of the state – and that good is not something that I see, but a real, measurable and measurable value. Therefore, only 1 of the views or 1 of the assessments of a political entity may be appropriate. However, there are frequently situations that as a consequence of the elections, the coalition, that is, that good policy and bad policy are being implemented at the same time – and how is this going to accomplish the fundamental goal of politics?

There can be only 1 correct diagnosis of the state of the nation and the state and only 1 appropriate therapy of improving this state, based on knowledge, and never on any ideology or forced by an external occupier.

Therefore:

– is the democratic choice (election mechanics does not substance here) of diagnosis and therapy a affirmative result?

– do those who make the choice have adequate cognition to let for the right, right choice, or do they have cognition of the possible bad effects of their choice?

– can the universal media and education outside the control of the nation, and thus not meet the condition of credibility, be instrumental in making choices?

– Should the institution of the Jewish-Catholic Church, which positively measure various diagnoses and therapies (supports the main competing parties) have the right to point out the political way to its faithful?

If there are “n” parties in the country that have their supporters, then it will be actual that the “n-1” parties do not have the right for the needs of the nation and the state of politics. Nor can it be excluded that all parties, i.e. ‘n’ parties, should not receive voters' votes.

Dariusz Kosiur

https://fiernipolsce1.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/election-appropriate-policy/#more-10084

___________________

PS

To anticipate any doubts about the meaning common good and social justice

The state is simply a political, social and economical union of all its citizens. If this relation acts to the detriment of its members or only to the detriment of any members, depriving them of their common and individual interests and of their ability to accomplish it, they have a natural right not only to request the essential changes but besides to act to accomplish them.

The state is simply a social organization. If each associate of society were to live in isolation and to satisfy its own needs, the full production of everyone in specified an organization (state) would be much little than what we now have thanks to the division of labour. The functioning of organised society increases significantly, so the production capacity of the whole.

At the same time, as a consequence of technological progress, there is no request to employment all members of the community in production processes. Is the existence of specified an organised society a private or shared good that everyone should benefit from?

Every man who is simply a associate of organized society, in addition to the natural right to life, besides has the right to any of the goods produced in this social organization. Do we, then, have the right to deprive those who do not participate in the production of goods? This is simply a question not only in the field of Christian ethics, but besides a purely economical issue.

_____________

Of course, there are Jewish-Catholics like S. Michalkiewicz or prof. M. Chodakiewicz, who believe that "Social justice is simply another name for theft".– https://fiernipolsce1.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/reemptorsci-sionist-banda-with-krzyz-i-rozance/