Catholic and libertarian? Pope’s top adviser says they’re incompatible

[Seraphim73]

There’s one thing I don’t understand. If libertarians argue wealth will trickle down when the rich get richer, does this mean they think the minimum wage should increase in proportion to profit. Are they against the imposition of the minimum wage because they want to pay people more than the minimum wage think if they have a good year in business and the government is stopping them? Or is is because they would prefer to pay less than the imposed minimum which would be below the poverty line? If the latter is the case, I fail to see how the rich getting richer makes things better for everyone as those in minimum wage jobs derive no benefit from the rich getting richer as a consequence of higher profits.

I don’t think you have a very clear understanding of what wealth is and how it is created. Trickle down is such an inadequate term. Anytime a person applies their God given faculties to produce a value added good or service wealth is created. The baker takes the flour, water, eggs and their time to produce a product that others are willing to pay for. But in this case it’s not just the baker who wins. The people who buy the bread are winners too. The amount of money the customers are willing to spend on the bread is worth more to the baker than his time and the ingredients; and the bread is worth more to the customers than the money they spend on it.

As to your question on minimum wage the company’s profits are relevant only insofar as they determine whether or not the company can stay in business. Labor is just a good/service no different from other goods and services. Price is based on basic supply and demand. Using a restaurant as an example the owner has no more obligation to pay his employees more when he has a good month than he would to pay more for the meats and vegetables. That simply is not how prices are determined.

People instinctively understand this because they live their lives this way. But for whatever reason they don’t extend that same common sense to public policy. If the price of milk suddenly went up ten times you would most likely buy less milk. So when the government puts artificial price controls on labor through minimum wage laws employers will “buy” less labor leading to fewer hours and more people without jobs.

 

[minkymurph]

First off, The church is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. Economics can be debated.

You are quite correct that the Church is not infallible on economic matters. However, that does not absolve Catholics from certain principles intrinsically linked to faith and morals in their economic dealings with others.

If you read about Austrian Economics (as opposed to the Keynesian model that is more often taught,) you will see that it a true free market works best.

As I understand it this thread is not a dispute about the efficiency of the free market, rather a dispute about its compatibility with Catholicism regarding the manner in which it operates.

Is Austrian Economics the best approach over Keynesian?? We are free to disagree on which is the best method of economics, and still be good Catholics.

Does that mean Catholics are free to embrace central planning? I would guess you would say no. In which case, we are free to disagree on the best method of economics within certain restricting principles. The point of debate on this thread is are principles of libertarianism that are incompatible with Catholicism and the answer is yes. I won’t go over it again as it has already been said.

No it does not.

I don’t think it can be argued nothing in libertarianism goes against Catholic social teaching - already covered.

Abortion: Yes some libertarians say they are pro choice. I believe that Libertarianism and pro choice are incompatible. Abortion violates the nonaggression principle. People claim that libertarianism says that the government shouldn’t get involved in abortion. This is false. If abortion is murder (which it is) then the perpetrator of this violence must be dealt with.

Abortion may violate a non-aggression principle, but to my knowledge libertarianism advocates non-interference which is not the same thing as non-aggression. To explain, what in libertarian theory would endorse interference with an individuals choice to have an abortion if that is their concept of good - given libertarianism promotes non-interference with an individuals perception of good?

“Let’s let the states deal with it” is what some libertarians propose. Well I agree! Abortion is murder, and thus should be treated as a murder, which means that the Federal government doesn’t get involved, but rather the state handles it just like every other murder…

So if a state dealt with abortion by saying it is not murder you would be of the opinion Federal government should not get involved and leave it to that state to decide irrespective of what they decide?

Gay marriage: Yes the government should get out of marriage. The government doesn’t have the authority to marry anyways. We all know the church doesn’t see a civil marriage in a courthouse as valid, so that alone shows that the government doesn’t say what is and what isn’t marriage. If the government for some reason wouldn’t allow Catholics to marry, we would laugh, and do it anyways. We don’t need a piece of paper saying that we’re married. That’s foolishness.

As libertarian theory advocates each individual should be free to pursue his or her own concept of good, how can it be against gay marriage if the individuals concerned perceive it as good?

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Even now where “gay marriage” is legal, we all know that they aren’t really married. They are two males with with some property/tax contracts, that happen to live together and engage in sexual activity. That’s not marriage.

Does libertarian theory attempt to define marriage? I don’t think it does if it advocates each individual is free to pursue his or her own concept of good without interference.

That is completely false. Jesus called us to be charitable. How can we be charitable if that money is being taken from us through force? If someone is hungry, and I choose to give him money, or feed him, I am being charitable. However, if I send someone to take your money, and then give to the hungry person, that isn’t charity. That is stealing!

Jesus may have called on us to be charitable but he also preached render Caesar’s things to Caesar. Would you object to the government dispensing money to where and whom it is needed most because they have access to more information in terms of need than individuals? I couldn’t blame you for not trusting governments in this regard, but then I’m not convinced I would trust some charities either when I see them driving around in flash company cars and on big salaries. It has been argued libertarians promote charity because it can be run as a business for profit. I sometimes wonder how much of money I donate to charity goes to actually benefiting those I intend it to. I admit the same can be said of government, but is it a case of I don’t want the government to decide, or I don’t want to pay tax?

The real way to be charitable and care for the poor is to actually do it ourselves, not sit around and letting the government do it for us.

The real way to be charitable is to empower people through charity to the point were they no longer need our charity. Charity is not a solution, its an emergency measure.

Where I live, the minimum wage went up, and shortly after, we all see a noticeable increase in prices.

Perhaps to compensate the wealthy businesspersons loss of profit? Only say 5 million a year instead of 6? Must be awful to be down to your last million so others may live above the poverty line and have more money to spend that you will benefit from in profit. What an inconvenience.

 

[Seraphim73]

Perhaps to compensate the wealthy businesspersons loss of profit? Only say 5 million a year instead of 6? Must be awful to be down to your last million so others may live above the poverty line and have more money to spend that you will benefit from in profit. What an inconvenience.

How many businesses have you owned? It seems you don’t have any real concept of what it means to own a business in a free market economy. You speak as though business owners have stacks of money they are sitting on. A very few business owners become wealthy as you say. And why shouldn’t they? They work their butts off for years to go to school or save money to start a business. They often risk everything they have to pour it into their dream. They often work from dawn till dusk often seven days a week sometimes for many years before their business turns a profit. The vast majority of them go out of business. I’m sorry but they have a lot more skin in the game. A person who works a mere forty hours a week and goes home at five to have a few beers isn’t working a fraction as hard and is risking nothing. Like it or not they don’t deserve to make the same kind of money the business owner does.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t think you have a very clear understanding of what wealth is and how it is created. Trickle down is such an inadequate term. Anytime a person applies their God given faculties to produce a value added good or service wealth is created. The baker takes the flour, water, eggs and their time to produce a product that others are willing to pay for. But in this case it’s not just the baker who wins. The people who buy the bread are winners too. The amount of money the customers are willing to spend on the bread is worth more to the baker than his time and the ingredients; and the bread is worth more to the customers than the money they spend on it.

But the baker gets the biggest prize as the baker sets the agenda, and the bread is not necessarily worth more to the customer than the money they spend on it.

As to your question on minimum wage the company’s profits are relevant only insofar as they determine whether or not the company can stay in business. Labor is just a good/service no different from other goods and services. Price is based on basic supply and demand.

Are you saying businesses don’t accumulate wealth through profit, profit only keeps them afloat?

Using a restaurant as an example the owner has no more obligation to pay his employees more when he has a good month than he would to pay more for the meats and vegetables.

And this is compatible with Catholicism? Comparing the human workforce to meat and vegetables in terms of their value?

People instinctively understand this because they live their lives this way.

But you just said I don’t understand?

But for whatever reason they don’t extend that same common sense to public policy. If the price of milk suddenly went up ten times you would most likely buy less milk. So when the government puts artificial price controls on labor through minimum wage laws employers will “buy” less labor leading to fewer hours and more people without jobs.

I can understand why a businessman would approve such a policy if it provide a steady stream of cheap labour if he/she is agreeable to large numbers of people living below the poverty line. Public policies that address poverty are not to my knowledge incompatible with Catholicism. Are you saying not having public policies that address poverty are compatible with libertarianism?

 

[minkymurph]

How many businesses have you owned? It seems you don’t have any real concept of what it means to own a business in a free market economy.

The issue in question is the compatibility of libertarianism and Catholicism. Not how many businesses I have owned or whether my understanding of the free market meets with your approval. Therefore this comment is irrelevant - other than as tactic in attempting to discredit the individual behind the statement rather than address the actual issue.

You speak as though business owners have stacks of money they are sitting on. A very few business owners become wealthy as you say. And why shouldn’t they?

So you concur with the statement I made earlier - in a free market the majority of the wealth is controlled by a small elite?

There is no reason why people should not become wealthy. I never said there was.

They work their butts off for years to go to school or save money to start a business. They often risk everything they have to pour it into their dream. They often work from dawn till dusk often seven days a week sometimes for many years before their business turns a profit. The vast majority of them go out of business.

Perhaps because the small man can’t compete with that small elite that control the wealth? So far, in a free market society we have more people employed but living below the poverty line, and small businesses going bankrupt irrespective of all the hours and hard work they put in. Is this what it means to own a business in a free market economy? Is my concept now correct? If it is, is it compatible with Catholicism? If the answer is yes, why would the Pope’s adviser appears to
be of a different opinion? And we are not talking infallibility, we are talking compatibility.

I’m sorry but they have a lot more skin in the game. A person who works a mere forty hours a week and goes home at five to have a few beers isn’t working a fraction as hard and is risking nothing. Like it or not they don’t deserve to make the same kind of money the business owner does.

I think your going off into a bit of a tangent here. What did I say that gave you impression I think the average employee deserves to make the same kind of money the business owner does?

What I am arguing is people deserve not to live in poverty - irrespective of who or what they are simply because they are human. I argue paying people a fair wage for a fair days work is compatible with Catholicism. Less than the poverty line is not a fair wage. No one could be of so little value to an employer they deserve to live in poverty. Libertarianism may reject that, but I would argue Catholicism does not. Would you agree with that? Or would you be of the opinion paying below the poverty line is compatible with Catholicism?

You argue paying less means more jobs. That may well be the case, but the result will be a larger number of people will living in poverty and that small elite we were talking about having a steady stream of cheap labour at their disposal. All perfectly acceptable to libertarians, but Catholicism? Not to my knowledge, but you are free to argue to the contrary.

 

[Michael_C]

I was not under the impression libertarians advocated non-aggression. I was under the impression they advocated non-inference. My understanding is non-aggression is not the same thing as non-interference. One does not have to be aggressive to interfere. Interference can quite plausibly be non-aggressive. It can be subtle and manipulative.

Your impression is wrong. The term is “Non-agression principle”. It is a core libertarian belief. If you won’t look it up and insist on making up your own terms like “non-interfence” it is next to impossible to discuss the subject honestly.

 

[minkymurph]

Your impression is wrong. The term is “Non-agression principle”. It is a core libertarian belief. If you won’t look it up and insist on making up your own terms like “non-interfence” it is next to impossible to discuss the subject honestly.

Ah! The attacking the credibility of the person behind the post strategy again?

So I made up the term non-interference? Let’s subject the dishonesty charge to a degree of scrutiny.

Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty p.340, 'The wider the area of non-interference the wider my freedom.

Wolff, Robert Nozick, Libertarianism and Utopia. 'We have absolute rights of life and liberty in the sense no one may interfere with another’s life and liberty … These are negative rights of non-interference …

world.std.com/~mhuben/wolff_2.html -

Adam Smith. 'An economic liberal believes that non-interference with the market usually produces the most efficiency. Libertarian ethics - Libertarianism holds … that the rights to be respected are non-interference rights.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=0iDilGuFvwwC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=adam+smith+an+economic+liberal+believes&source=bl&ots=r0JlQ__xQy&sig=YFlZQeFgfCSArEljNFppjB_t0ws&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIiZU53JGrTb7Aak4ICQCg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=adam%20smith%20an%20economic%20liberal%20believes&f=false

I think we can safely say I have looked this up, though I’m at a loss to know how you arrived at the conclusion I had not in the first instance.

We can also safely say I did not make up the term non-interference.

So how do I fare on the dishonesty allegation?
So, now lets subject your ability to discuss the subject honestly to a bit of scrutiny. Do you still want to argue I made the term non-interference up? Do you still want to argue my impression libertarians advocate non-interference is wrong?

You could of course argue I am misunderstanding the manner in which libertarians use the term, but we both know that would be a cop-out in an attempt to save face.

If you’d like anymore references for libertaranism and non-interference and you can’t be bothered to look it up, note I am not jumping to the conclusion you have not done so nor will you, I’d be happy to do it for you.

 

[pnewton]

I agree. But we’re not talking about Ayn Rand’s form of libertarianism, which, by the way she wasn’t quite sincere about, especially since eventually she decided to take Social Security. And neither was Alan Greenspan, who once advocated AR.

This is why I do not like labels. They more often obscure than they help. Now labels are useful when combined with definitions and explanations, but I note that the news media, as well as many here, will use a label in lieu of definition and argument, especially political labels. What the Cardinal spoke of was economics and the limitation of capitalism. Well that is no news. Catholicism has always opposed unrestricted capitalism, as well as true socialism (that which is all inclusive). To understand this, one must read beyond the words and read the principles that justify this opposition. No encyclical would fit on a bumper sticker.

 

[minkymurph]

What the Cardinal spoke of was economics and the limitation of capitalism. Well that is no news. Catholicism has always opposed unrestricted capitalism, as well as true socialism (that which is all inclusive).

That is also my understanding. In which I fail to see how unrestricted capitalism can be argued to be compatible with Catholicism.

Good post because it has brought the thread back on track.

 

[Bryan77]

You are quite correct that the Church is not infallible on economic matters. However, that does not absolve Catholics from certain principles intrinsically linked to faith and morals in their economic dealings with others.

As I understand it this thread is not a dispute about the efficiency of the free market, rather a dispute about its compatibility with Catholicism regarding the manner in which it operates

You acknowledge that this thread isn’t a dispute against the free market. However, if we actually had one. (we don’t have a true free market) then the we wouldn’t have as much poor as we have today. (Yes the poor will always be here as Jesus said, but we would) have less. So the efficiency of Austrian economics is an important aspect of helping the world’s poor.

I would agree with you that the ends don’t justify the means., and I can see how a true free market can look like greed especially where “monopolies” are concerned. yet most of these monopolies are government created. I can also understand your point about employers not paying their employees a fair salary. I see how it may look heartless for us to see these struggulling workers, and say that they shouldn’t increase minimum wage. I see that.

However, we believe (with good reason) that increasing the minimum wage will make things worse off. More people will be jobless, and the ones that do keep their jobs will see cut hours, or will have to work harder to make up for the lost labor.

Perhaps to compensate the wealthy businesspersons loss of profit? Only say 5 million a year instead of 6? Must be awful to be down to your last million so others may live above the poverty line and have more money to spend that you will benefit from in profit. What an inconvenience.

I was actually thinking mainly about small local businesses when that happened. A local pizza place had to up all the prices. Was it because the millionaire at the top wanted his 3rd yatch? I would say so the struggling local business owner can stay in business. Raising minimum wage not only increases unemployment (especially amongst young people and unskilled) It also hurts small businesses.

Growing up my parents used to own a store. They couldn’t always afford employees. Towards the end, it was just them running the whole show. The store might have only been open 9am to 7pm, but that doesn’t mean the work ends. inventory, pricing, shipping, dealing with vendors, going to meetings, updating the website. The list goes on. It would have been nice to have help, but they hardly had enough money for the business to stay afloat, much less to pay employees. They eventually went bankrupt and shut down.

Most of the problems we have with the economy are due to government regulations.

What about sweatshops? Being as how sweatshops tend to shut down, this shows that they too don’t have all the money in the world to be paying their employees more. Now yes I do think these sweatshop employees should be paid more for their labor. Yet forcing their employer to do it isn’t going to solve the problem, but rather make it worse. The existence of sweatshops in the first place are not a result of the free market, but rather the result of a messed up economy.

Yes there are some businesses that can afford to pay their employees more. However, if they intend on being greedy, that’s not a problem with the free market. That is a moral problem with an individual (or group of individuals) Forcing these regulations for the sake of making the Big Bad Business owner pay his employees more, harms more people than it helps.

 

[Bryan77]

Abortion may violate a non-aggression principle, but to my knowledge libertarianism advocates non-interference which is not the same thing as non-aggression. To explain, what in libertarian theory would endorse interference with an individuals choice to have an abortion if that is their concept of good - given libertarianism promotes non-interference with an individuals perception of good?

Most libertarians are pro life. To me it seems the pro choice ones are a minority, and are hyppocrites for violating the NAP. No a woman is not free to choose to murder her baby. The same way a Mother cannot murder her two year old. People like Gary Johnson are wrong.

So if a state dealt with abortion by saying it is not murder you would be of the opinion Federal government should not get involved and leave it to that state to decide irrespective of what they decide?

What I would do, is donate money to pro life politicians in that state, and do whatever I can to make people in that state (and everywhere in the world) realize that abortion is murder. Morally it doesn’t matter who oversees the punishment (City, State, Feds) as long as the purpetrator of violence is stopped. I happen to believe that the farther away from the problem you get, the harder it is to solve.

As libertarian theory advocates each individual should be free to pursue his or her own concept of good, how can it be against gay marriage if the individuals concerned perceive it as good?

Does libertarian theory attempt to define marriage? I don’t think it does if it advocates each individual is free to pursue his or her own concept of good without interference.

Libertarianism isn’t for or against gay marriage. It is against government authority over marriage. The church agrees with this. Certain libertarians might personally be in favor of “gay marriage” but they are wrong morally.

Jesus may have called on us to be charitable but he also preached render Caesar’s things to Caesar. Would you object to the government dispensing money to where and whom it is needed most because they have access to more information in terms of need than individuals? I couldn’t blame you for not trusting governments in this regard, but then I’m not convinced I would trust some charities either when I see them driving around in flash company cars and on big salaries. It has been argued libertarians promote charity because it can be run as a business for profit. I sometimes wonder how much of money I donate to charity goes to actually benefiting those I intend it to. I admit the same can be said of government, but is it a case of I don’t want the government to decide, or I don’t want to pay tax?

I agree with you on that one. Some “charities” are just ran as businesses, and I think that’s wrong. I would rather donate my money to an organization that uses the funds in an good way.

The real way to be charitable is to empower people through charity to the point were they no longer need our charity. Charity is not a solution, its an emergency measure.

I agree!

 

[minkymurph]

However, we believe (with good reason) that increasing the minimum wage will make things worse off. More people will be jobless, and the ones that do keep their jobs will see cut hours, or will have to work harder to make up for the lost labor.

Increasing the minimum wage can have that effect, but is it fair to say it has that effect in times of economic downturn? In times of economic prosperity raising the minimum wage is not as big an issue because there is more work. What I see happening here the same amount of work is being spread among more people. I suppose it can be argued the worst of are all equally worse off.

It is true that raising the minimum wage may result in more unemployment, but only the unemployed will be living on the poverty line. All those employed will not be if the minimum wage is higher than the poverty line. As a numerical exercise it could be argued it’s a case of pick your poison.

However, it is not solely a numerical exercise. We have a saying here, ‘If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.’ Employers that pay low wages tend to find it difficult to hang on to good staff. The good staff get snapped up by employers who pay higher wages. A high turnover of staff I would say is not a good thing for a business.

The other point about the minimum wage is lets consider how much we are talking about. In the UK is 6.10 ph for over 21. That’s not a lot, is it? Particularly when you consider a loaf of bread is 1.30 upwards. The question then is how little could people justifiably be paid? (apologies for no pound sign. doesn’t work on my computer)

The other problem I see today is everything you buy is junk. Quality products are hard to come by which creates more waste, and thus more expense.

Growing up my parents used to own a store. They couldn’t always afford employees. Towards the end, it was just them running the whole show. The store might have only been open 9am to 7pm, but that doesn’t mean the work ends. inventory, pricing, shipping, dealing with vendors, going to meetings, updating the website. The list goes on. It would have been nice to have help, but they hardly had enough money for the business to stay afloat, much less to pay employees. They eventually went bankrupt and shut down.

Most of the problems we have with the economy are due to government regulations.

What about sweatshops? Being as how sweatshops tend to shut down, this shows that they too don’t have all the money in the world to be paying their employees more. Now yes I do think these sweatshop employees should be paid more for their labor. Yet forcing their employer to do it isn’t going to solve the problem, but rather make it worse. The existence of sweatshops in the first place are not a result of the free market, but rather the result of a messed up economy.

Find it hard to find the weaknesses in this argument. I think you’ve pretty much nailed it with the messed up economy argument and the messing up has a lot to do with the banks. In the UK the government had to take back control of the Bank of England to stop the value of sterling falling. Of course good old tax-payers money was used to a bail the banks out. Again we have a case of the prudent bailing out the imprudent.

What I would say is it’s not so much a case they can’t afford to pay more, as a case of they don’t have to. They may close but they move somewhere else. There was a shirt factory in Scotland that shut up shop and moved to Sri Lanka for the cheap labour. One established the Sri Lankans became more skilled, became supervisors and managers and started asking for more money. The shirt factory then moved to India.

Yes there are some businesses that can afford to pay their employees more. However, if they intend on being greedy, that’s not a problem with the free market. That is a moral problem with an individual (or group of individuals) Forcing these regulations for the sake of making the Big Bad Business owner pay his employees more, harms more people than it helps.

I think an unregulated free market works very much against small businesses. In my town the giants have forced many local businesses out. Would you believe me if I told you dozens of shops in my town got painted windows and doors and people painted on the wall in an attempt to detract from the fact they are derelict buildings? There’s one town even has cardboard shops in the town center.

 

[minkymurph]

Most libertarians are pro life. To me it seems the pro choice ones are a minority, and are hyppocrites for violating the NAP. No a woman is not free to choose to murder her baby. The same way a Mother cannot murder her two year old. People like Gary Johnson are wrong.

The problem with NAP in terms of liberal theory is it goes against traditional concepts of liberalism. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Merely it’s a deviation from classical liberalism because it incorporates a element of morality into the theory?

What I would do, is donate money to pro life politicians in that state, and do whatever I can to make people in that state (and everywhere in the world) realize that abortion is murder. Morally it doesn’t matter who oversees the punishment (City, State, Feds) as long as the purpetrator of violence is stopped. I happen to believe that the farther away from the problem you get, the harder it is to solve.

I recently had a conversation with a good friend of mine who is an atheist. He stated abortion in the UK has become conveyor belt murder. However he approaches it from a rights perspective in a woman has the right to make her own choice irrespective of what he thinks.

Libertarianism isn’t for or against gay marriage. It is against government authority over marriage. The church agrees with this. Certain libertarians might personally be in favor of “gay marriage” but they are wrong morally.

Well, as I understand it libertarianism is against the government having authority over pretty much anything.

The problem I see in terms of libertarian theory and compatibility with Catholicism is, under libertarianism are two men or two women not free to contract with each other in a marriage irrespective of the individual libertarians views on the matter are?

I agree with you on that one. Some “charities” are just ran as businesses, and I think that’s wrong. I would rather donate my money to an organization that uses the funds in an good way.

I agree!

Ah! We have found common ground! Who says deliberative democracy doesn’t work?

We have now identified what we both see as a problem. Now all we have to do is agree a solution.

I say not spreading what work there is among more people, but more jobs and a fair wage for a fair days work.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I think an unregulated free market works very much against small businesses. In my town the giants have forced many local businesses out. Would you believe me if I told you dozens of shops in my town got painted windows and doors and people painted on the wall in an attempt to detract from the fact they are derelict buildings? There’s one town even has cardboard shops in the town center.

This is precisely the problem.

Big corporations can out compete small stores because they can undercut prices. they can undercut prices because they have economies of scale and have a lower staff to customer ratio. Efficiency is but the other side of the coin for fewer people in work. So rather than a trickle down effect, the free market is destroying the middle class, making the rich richer and making more people poor.

Now if there were a libertarian here, they would tell you, the story doesn’t end there. The rich guy at the top who is now even richer is not going to let that money rot but is going to use it to create a new business which will also create new jobs. However, we now live in a globalized world and those new jobs are probably being created somewhere like China.

In post-war Europe there was a concept called a social market economy. It said, if too many people get poor, they will be open to revolutionary ideas. Fascists and Communits will have no difficulty recruiting support and there will be unrest if not revolution. But people with vested interests don’t start revolutions. So if as many people as possible own a house or a business they won’t want revolution as their property is at risk. Ownership makes people bourgeois. The social market economy thus sought to redistribute sufficient wealth to create sufficient vested interests to keep revolutionaries in the minority and the bourgeouis in the majority.

It worked quite well.

But today libertarians are increasingly infiltrating high places in government and dismantling, step by step, those social aspects of the market economy. Rather than assuring sufficient people have a vested interest they seek to concentarte all that vested interest in their won hands and believe having a piece of paper called “property rights” is going to be as effective come the revolution as having a majority who are anti-revolutionary through vested interests. It’s like the woodworm on the ship that after having eaten all the masts and internal structures are now beginning to eat the hull of the ship, assuming that their propoerty rights will save them from drowning when the hull finally breaks in.

 

[minkymurph]

In post-war Europe there was a concept called a social market economy. It said, if too many people get poor, they will be open to revolutionary ideas. Fascists and Communits will have no difficulty recruiting support and there will be unrest if not revolution. But people with vested interests don’t start revolutions. So if as many people as possible own a house or a business they won’t want revolution as their property is at risk. Ownership makes people bourgeois. The social market economy thus sought to redistribute sufficient wealth to create sufficient vested interests to keep revolutionaries in the minority and the bourgeouis in the majority.

It worked quite well.

Yep, I could run with that. :yup:

The recent riots in my part of the world are in areas where a minority of people own there own homes. I don’t know who said it, but what they said was people are never more dangerous than when they have nothing to loose.

Ownership gives people something to loose. The average rational person is not going to destroy their home or small business by rioting when disenchanted. There is no doubt the middle class has been eroded and there is a considerably larger difference between rich and poor.

 

[ProVobis]

They more often obscure than they help. Now labels are useful when combined with definitions and explanations, but I note that the news media, as well as many here, will use a label in lieu of definition and argument, especially political labels. What the Cardinal spoke of was economics and the limitation of capitalism. Well that is no news. Catholicism has always opposed unrestricted capitalism, as well as true socialism (that which is all inclusive). To understand this, one must read beyond the words and read the principles that justify this opposition. No encyclical would fit on a bumper sticker.

Sitting on $17 trillion full of debt, I don’t know which of the two (capitalism or socialism) we have more of. Our news media makes more of an issue with it than our lawmakers, apparently.

In the end, economies prosper with the right amount of monetary circulation. We can argue all we want about the distribution of wealth but we also should know it’s all a matter of dynamics as well. Rich men can become poor overnight and occasionally we have lottery winners from among the poor. The goal should be an advancement of living standards (win-win) for everyone. When one thing or person is promoted at the expense of another, it will be difficult to achieve that goal.

 

[minkymurph]

Sitting on $17 trillion full of debt, I don’t know which of the two (capitalism or socialism) we have more of. Our news media makes more of an issue with it than our lawmakers, apparently.

In the end, economies prosper with the right amount of monetary circulation. We can argue all we want about the distribution of wealth but we also should know it’s all a matter of dynamics as well. Rich men can become poor overnight and occasionally we have lottery winners from among the poor. The goal should be an advancement of living standards (win-win) for everyone. When one thing or person is promoted at the expense of another, it will be difficult to achieve that goal.

Yep, I run with that as well. :yup:

 

[Michael_C]

Ah! The attacking the credibility of the person behind the post strategy again?

So I made up the term non-interference? Let’s subject the dishonesty charge to a degree of scrutiny.

Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty p.340, 'The wider the area of non-interference the wider my freedom.

Wolff, Robert Nozick, Libertarianism and Utopia. 'We have absolute rights of life and liberty in the sense no one may interfere with another’s life and liberty … These are negative rights of non-interference …

world.std.com/~mhuben/wolff_2.html -

Adam Smith. 'An economic liberal believes that non-interference with the market usually produces the most efficiency. Libertarian ethics - Libertarianism holds … that the rights to be respected are non-interference rights.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=0iDilGuFvwwC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=adam+smith+an+economic+liberal+believes&source=bl&ots=r0JlQ__xQy&sig=YFlZQeFgfCSArEljNFppjB_t0ws&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIiZU53JGrTb7Aak4ICQCg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=adam%20smith%20an%20economic%20liberal%20believes&f=false

I think we can safely say I have looked this up, though I’m at a loss to know how you arrived at the conclusion I had not in the first instance.

We can also safely say I did not make up the term non-interference.

So how do I fare on the dishonesty allegation?
So, now lets subject your ability to discuss the subject honestly to a bit of scrutiny. Do you still want to argue I made the term non-interference up? Do you still want to argue my impression libertarians advocate non-interference is wrong?

You could of course argue I am misunderstanding the manner in which libertarians use the term, but we both know that would be a cop-out in an attempt to save face.

If you’d like anymore references for libertaranism and non-interference and you can’t be bothered to look it up, note I am not jumping to the conclusion you have not done so nor will you, I’d be happy to do it for you.

When i do a google search of the non-aggression principle there are thousands and thousands of pages associating the non-aggression principle with libertarianism

When i search non-interference there is not one i can find associating this term with libertarianism.

You provided a quote form a critique, a sub heading of a book on page 340 and a link to a book about adam smith that doesn’t mention non interference on the link.

I still am at a loss as to how you come to your understanding of non interference.

If you took my post as an attack that was not my intention. as fellow Catholics i would think we both want the best for mankind the salvation of souls.

 

[minkymurph]

When i do a google search of the non-aggression principle there are thousands and thousands of pages associating the non-aggression principle with libertarianism
Michael C;12080506:

You provided a quote form a critique, a sub heading of a book on page 340

I was quoting from Isaiah Berlins Two Concepts of Liberty. It’s a very well known paper. His concept of freedom is non-interference which he states in and he is a libertarian. One of his arguments is you are free under a despot if the despot does not interfere with you, and there is no connection between freedom and equality as they are two different things. You can get it on-line and he discusses non-interference at length. This is were my understanding of it comes from in addition to other authors such as Nozick.

and a link to a book about Adam smith that doesn’t mention non interference on the link.

I quoted from the book - chapter 7, page 121, subheading Smith on Liberty.
He uses the term non-interference. I gave you this link to demonstrate I did not make the term up.

I still am at a loss as to how you come to your understanding of non interference.

By reading about it. Put in a google search libertarianism and non-interference.

If you took my post as an attack that was not my intention. as fellow Catholics i would think we both want the best for mankind the salvation of souls.

I was peeved you implied I was dishonest, stated I couldn’t be bothered to look things up when you couldn’t have known whether I had or not, and stated I made the term non-interference up. I didn’t. That said, I appreciate your gesture and debates on politics can get heated. I live in the North of Ireland so I should know.

The beauty of being Catholic is the fact they fact they can maintain unity irrespective of widely contrasting political opinions - among other things.

 

[Seraphim73]

But the baker gets the biggest prize as the baker sets the agenda

That’s simply not true. The baker’s agenda is to earn a living and the buyers agenda is to get some good bread and save the time and effort it would take them to make it themselves.

and the bread is not necessarily worth more to the customer than the money they spend on it.

But of course it is. If the bread and the time and effort saved was not worth more to the buyer than the money they would keep the money and make the bread themselves. Everyone knows this instinctively. If you asked me to trade cars with you the only way I would do it is if your car was worth more to me than my car, and vice versa.

Are you saying businesses don’t accumulate wealth through profit, profit only keeps them afloat?

What is a business? Businesses don’t accumulate anything. A business can’t accumulate wealth any more than my computer monitor can. Only people can create and accumulate wealth. Most businesses work on very small profit margins. That’s why the majority of small businesses go out of business within the first year.

And this is compatible with Catholicism? Comparing the human workforce to meat and vegetables in terms of their value?

Would you prefer I use gold and diamonds? You know I wasn’t comparing any person’s value to meat and vegetables or anything else. I was making an analogy to show that the product the worker is selling (their labor) is no different from other products businesses use.

But you just said I don’t understand?

I said you don’t understand wealth creation, but that people instinctively understand the effect prices have on behavior.

I can understand why a businessman would approve such a policy if it provide a steady stream of cheap labour if he/she is agreeable to large numbers of people living below the poverty line. Public policies that address poverty are not to my knowledge incompatible with Catholicism. Are you saying not having public policies that address poverty are compatible with libertarianism?

A worker should approve of this policy too because it provides a steady stream of jobs, jobs that allow people to build skills and a work ethic which will allow them to get better jobs later.

I do want to make a point about policies to combat poverty. There is probably no law on the books today that has done more to keep more people in poverty than minimum wage laws with most of the harm being done to minorities. When it comes to questions like these we should pay more attention to the results and less to the intentions. I imagine most people who support minimum wage laws do it with good intentions. What are the results? The black youth unemployment rate here in the states is 393% higher than the national unemployment rate. Why? African Americans are far more likely to come from broken homes and failing schools. They enter the workforce at a disadvantage. The only weapon they have to fight against those who are better educated and generally more qualified is the fact that they could work for less money. But the government has taken that weapon from them.

So now not only do we do them a disservice by not providing as good an education, through minimum wage laws we price them out of entry level positions they could use to gain job skills. And if you think it’s bad now wait until the minimum wage is $15 an hour. Burger King will be requiring a degree to work as a cashier because if they have to pay $15 an hour anyway they are only going to hire people who produce enough to be worth $15 an hour. That is basic economics. All of the positions they don’t eliminate will be going to people far more qualified and educated than the typical person near or below the poverty line.

So much for helping the poor. Instead of raises they get pink slips and the unemployment office.