Are pro-capitalists heretics?

[fakename]

I just need an unequivocal answer yes or no.

Given that capitalism is supposed to mean by the person =all situations where a person doesn’t act because of a threat or act of violence or fraud, such that these free actions result in an increase in wealth to all (equality of wealth being neither necessary nor sufficient for capitalism though subsistence levels of wealth and above are necessary or sufficient for it).

So it is possible to have capitalism where everyone is paid the same, where there are some with more and some with less, or where there are some who make subsistence and some who are rich.

 

[CPA2]

I just need an unequivocal answer yes or no.

Given that capitalism is supposed to mean by the person =all situations where a person doesn’t act because of a threat or act of violence or fraud, such that these free actions result in an increase in wealth to all (equality of wealth being neither necessary nor sufficient for capitalism though subsistence levels of wealth and above are necessary or sufficient for it).

So it is possible to have capitalism where everyone is paid the same, where there are some with more and some with less, or where there are some who make subsistence and some who are rich.

No.

Equality of outcome is socialism which the Catholic Church does not support. Equality of outcome also requires the force of law and punishment for those who break that law. Such a law is not worth the paper it is written on. An unjust law is no law at all.

Equal opportunity is a Christian idea.

Incentive is the key difference between capitalism (private ownership of resources) and socialism (state ownership of resources). Private ownership boosts incentives, while public ownership retards incentives.

 

[fakename]

“Equality of outcome also requires the force of law and punishment for those who break that law. Such a law is not worth the paper it is written on.”

To judge that equality needs law and that that law is worthless seems to need some kind of understanding of non-moral issues. Non-moral issues are outside church teaching. So as far as it takes an understanding of non-moral issues, pro-capitalism is not capable of being heretical. So why does the church seem to nevertheless pronounce on issues that seem to be (to me) non-moral.

For instance, it seems to me, that the church teaches that because taxes reliably give funds to people who need them, therefore taxes are in support of the common good. But whether or not taxes do reliably give funds to people, or whether taxes are the most efficient method for doing so, seems to be a non-moral issue. So why did the church say anything about it?

 

[zz912]

No

Proverbs 21:20 Precious treasure remains in the house of the wise, but the fool consumes it.

Proverbs 21:5 The plans of the diligent are sure of profit, but all rash haste leads certainly to poverty.

Proverbs 13:11 Wealth quickly gotten dwindles away, but amassed little by little, it grows.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

Proverbs 13:22 The good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, but the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the just.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

“Equality of outcome also requires the force of law and punishment for those who break that law. Such a law is not worth the paper it is written on.”

To judge that equality needs law and that that law is worthless seems to need some kind of understanding of non-moral issues. Non-moral issues are outside church teaching. So as far as it takes an understanding of non-moral issues, pro-capitalism is not capable of being heretical. So why does the church seem to nevertheless pronounce on issues that seem to be (to me) non-moral.

For instance, it seems to me, that the church teaches that because taxes reliably give funds to people who need them, therefore taxes are in support of the common good. But whether or not taxes do reliably give funds to people, or whether taxes are the most efficient method for doing so, seems to be a non-moral issue. So why did the church say anything about it?

The church does teach subsidiarity, and taxes are not the best example.

 

[fakename]

The church does teach subsidiarity, and taxes are not the best example.

I’m confused does it teach subsidiarity because having smaller organizations would be good to attaining some end? But if the church does, how could it, since the church would need to know 1) a theory of organizations, 2) the utility of smaller organizations as a conclusion of the previous theory of organizations. But these two things or either of them, seem to not be in the area of faith and morals?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The church does teach subsidiarity, and taxes are not the best example.

I’m confused does it teach subsidiarity because having smaller organizations would be good to attaining some end? But if the church does, how could it, since the church would need to know 1) a theory of organizations, 2) the utility of smaller organizations as a conclusion of the previous theory of organizations. But these two things or either of them, seem to not be in the area of faith and morals?

It has very much to do with faith and morals.

The Church teaches that problems should be solved locally as efficiently as possible. Taxes are not charity, by definition (try not paying your taxes).
Having large government control of things is wasteful.

 

[fakename]

“It has very much to do with faith and morals.”

How and why does it have to do with faith and morals?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

“It has very much to do with faith and morals.”

How and why does it have to do with faith and morals?

You don’t think large government beaucracies that are proven to be inefficient are immoral?

 

[fakename]

“You don’t think large government beaucracies that are proven to be inefficient are immoral?”

If you can prove something is inefficient, then it is outside of faith and morals (it’s a technical question). If something is inefficient then it could be immoral but that depends on the technical question (although I can see how taxes can be considered stealing or unjust violence on purely moral grounds).

 

[ComputerGeek25]

“You don’t think large government beaucracies that are proven to be inefficient are immoral?”

If you can prove something is inefficient, then it is outside of faith and morals (it’s a technical question). If something is inefficient then it could be immoral but that depends on the technical question (although I can see how taxes can be considered stealing or unjust violence on purely moral grounds).

So, you have an organisation (the government) who are entrusted with tax payer monies and to spend it wisely. In the US, there are several social programs on the verge of bankruptcy and other programs lose money. And no onse seems to be doing anything about it other than raise taxes from a captive audience.

Again, I ask, how is a bloated federal government spending tax dollars wisely? based on their track record, they seem not to…

As tax payers, doesn’t the government have a moral duty to spend monies wisely?

 

[fakename]

So the state fails morally in that it isn’t conducive to prudence?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

So the state fails morally in that it isn’t conducive to prudence?

Depends. In their current implementations, yes.

The Church has always taught that unbridled capitalism, socialism and communism are not moral for various reasons.

 

[humblelurker]

In my opinion, for what that is worth, is that power tends to corrupt where humanity is concerned, so the more power the more corruption. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus subsidiary systems are ideal for humanity in cutting down the power and corruption, thus making it a very moral issue.

fakename: Might I ask you a question? As a Catholic are you asking your questions out of simple curiosity or are you trying to justify ignoring the Catholic Church’s decision on this matter? What is your heart’s intention?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

In my opinion, for what that is worth, is that power tends to corrupt where humanity is concerned, so the more power the more corruption. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus subsidiary systems are ideal for humanity in cutting down the power and corruption, thus making it a very moral issue.

fakename: Might I ask you a question? As a Catholic are you asking your questions out of simple curiosity or are you trying to justify ignoring the Catholic Church’s decision on this matter? What is your heart’s intention?

I was wondering what the basis for the question as well. Is it to pick on people who prefer free market/choice (hence my questions as to why alternative government programs are failures).

I think you’ll find in the CCC and other encyclicals that no system is flat out endorsed, every system has it’s pluses and minuses. Lastly, the Church (Tradition, scripture, etc.) gives us a moral framework to implement such systems.

 

[tafan]

…
I think you’ll find in the CCC and other encyclicals that no system is flat out endorsed, every system has it’s pluses and minuses.
…

Close, but I will take a couple of exceptions with this statement. 1) You imply that the church has not flat out rejected some systems, which is not true. The church has flat out rejected communism and socialism. 2) The church has not flat out endorsed any system that has been tried, but many people (Chesterton and Belloc to name a two heavy weights) would say that Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum was detailed enough to define its own economic system. They named this system distributionism. I must say, of all the social justice encyclicals, Rerum Novarum is still my favorite by far. I strongly suggest reading it.

 

[fakename]

“fakename: Might I ask you a question? As a Catholic are you asking your questions out of simple curiosity or are you trying to justify ignoring the Catholic Church’s decision on this matter? What is your heart’s intention?”

I’m just confused as to what the church teaches. Everytime I try to read an encyclical I have to put it down in confusion -it’s like reading in a different language. That’s why I come to forums to ask questions by those more learned in these things.

"The Church has always taught that unbridled capitalism, socialism and communism are not moral for various reasons. "

What are those reasons?

 

[Moscati]

Does this help? It’s from the Catechism:

CCC 2425: “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Close, but I will take a couple of exceptions with this statement. 1) You imply that the church has not flat out rejected some systems, which is not true. The church has flat out rejected communism and socialism. 2) The church has not flat out endorsed any system that has been tried, but many people (Chesterton and Belloc to name a two heavy weights) would say that Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum was detailed enough to define its own economic system. They named this system distributionism. I must say, of all the social justice encyclicals, Rerum Novarum is still my favorite by far. I strongly suggest reading it.

Yes, maybe my statement was a bit wide sweeping.

 

[humblelurker]

fakename:
Thank you for answering my question. I was curious as to your intentions due to the fact that intentions can tell volumes about people posting on CAF. I wanted to see if you were here out of genuine honest curiosity and confusion (which by your own words you are), or simply trying to get around church teaching to support your own personal social political views. Personally, I don’t believe that I am the most learned person on these boards either, so I will defer your questions to those who are more qualified to answer you than me.

But hang in there. All answers come to he who learns.