Do tariffs violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity?

[DENNYINMI]

Oh What the heck:

Of the social encyclicals, probably Blessed Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio addressed it the most. He emphasized that the rule of free trade cannot govern international relations. To be sure, he could see its advantages. If economic power were equal, it would be “an incentive to progress and a reward for effort” (#58). It’s the same as competition and the market domestically: while competition is valuable it must “be kept within limits which make it just and moral, and therefore human” (#61). Prices supposedly set freely by the market—and he puts “freely” in quotes to underscore that market forces frequently don’t work in practice the way economic theory says—“can produce unfair results” (#58). These unfair results can have sad human consequences. As with the domestic economy, just because the parties have agreed to something, it doesn’t mean that it will be just. Pope Paul here was thinking of such things as unequal bargaining power and general conditions of sharp economic or wealth disparity among nations.

Excuse me for paraphrasing this quote from Crisis Magazine, but it points you in the direction for reading and learning…

 

[HarryStotle]

Weapons wielded by the left? If that weapon is mercy, social justice, a recognition of an ever greater divide between ultra wealth and those that have not, the recognition of the fact someone’s life savings can be wiped out with one major medical catastrophe, subsidiarity WITH the recognition some of the countries woes are too great for one state or county to handle, (put epidemics and natural disasters in this category) a distaste for authoritarianism…I’ll take it…hahaha

If your world view was actually based upon what is happening in the world and not on the received liberal leftist narrative, you might have some grounds for judging accurately what weapons are being used and the ways they are being used. Unfortunately, those who are not interested in reality but find ideological utopian dreams (and policies, and narratives spawned by those) to be more enticing will inevitably see authoritarian bogeymen where they do not exist, and increasingly turn to state authoritarianism as the “final” remedy.

You really ought to look into how Hitler enticed the German people into sharing his Reicheous Dream by convincing them (by much fear mongering) of the injustices perpetrated upon them by their overlords that he would overcome. Their distaste for authoritarianism turned into a rapacious appetite for authoritarianism. Careful how you fanaticise your fantasies.

 

[Hodos]

Can you define what you mean by the principle of subsidiarity? Can’t say I am familiar with that one. Just curious.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The early “Distributists” like Belloc, Chesterton and Lewis favored trade barriers when they served subsidiarity as they saw it. So, for example, they favored reducing imports of foreign food if by doing so they encouraged local agriculture and food production. And they did so even if it would make costs a bit higher for consumers.

Those gentlemen believed “open trade” favored gigantic corporate enterprises over individual and family enterprises, and they were right about that. Whether their views were practical may be questioned, but they were solidly based on Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum”.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Their distaste for authoritarianism turned into a rapacious appetite for authoritarianism. Careful how you fanaticise your fantasies.

What on earth does Catholic social teaching on world economics that serves mankind and not just a few as in Populorum progressio have to do with Hitler’s Germany? Normally I’d pay little attention to absurdity but my curiosity has the better of me, pray do tell. What makes you tick?

 

[Theo520]

The early “Distributists” like Belloc, Chesterton and Lewis favored trade barriers when they served subsidiarity as they saw it. So, for example, they favored reducing imports of foreign food if by doing so they encouraged local agriculture and food production. And they did so even if it would make costs a bit higher for consumers.

Those gentlemen believed “open trade” favored gigantic corporate enterprises over individual and family enterprises, and they were right about that. Whether their views were practical may be questioned, but they were solidly based on Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum”.

Would be curious to know more, given time.

It’s an irrational argument offered here that claims the Church expects us to pay high tariffs as a means to subsidize poorer countries. The exception might be in agriculture where as you noted, you want to enable local production of basic food stuffs.

 

[ucfengr]

According to Norris, the Founding Fathers taxed imports.

Until the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, tariffs where one of the very few ways the Constitution authorized the Federal government to raise revenues.

 

[HarryStotle]

What on earth does Catholic social teaching on world economics that serves mankind and not just a few as in Populorum progressio have to do with Hitler’s Germany? Normally I’d pay little attention to absurdity but my curiosity has the better of me, pray do tell. What makes you tick?

Well, for one, there is a balance in tension in Populorum Progressio between the good for each individual and the good of the whole of society. If that tension becomes abandoned and the good of the individual becomes prime or, conversely, the good of society subordinates the good of the individual, the nature of the humanity of the individual can easily be lost (in the first case) or the nature of humanity as made up of individuals can be replaced by some false ideal of humanity (in the second.)

From the encyclical…

14 Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man. As an eminent specialist has very rightly and emphatically declared: ” We do not believe in separating the economic from the human, nor development from the civilizations in which it exists. What we hold important is man, each man and each group of men, and we even include the whole of humanity”.

1. In the design of God, every man is called upon to develop and fulfill himself, for every life is a vocation. At birth, everyone is granted, in germ, a set of aptitudes and qualities for him to bring to fruition. Their coming to maturity, which will be the result of education received from the environment and personal efforts, will allow each man to direct himself toward the destiny intended for him by his Creator. Endowed with intelligence and freedom, he is responsible for his fulfillment as he is for his salvation. He is aided, or sometimes impeded, by those who educate him and those with whom he lives, but each one remains, whatever be these influences affecting him, the principal agent of his own success or failure. By the unaided effort of his own intelligence and his will, each man can grow in humanity, can enhance his personal worth, can become more a person.
2. However, this self-fulfillment is not something optional. Just as the whole of creation is ordained to its Creator, so spiritual beings should of their own accord orientate their lives to God, the first truth and the supreme good. Thus it is that human fulfillment constitutes, as it were, a summary of our duties. But there is much more: this harmonious enrichment of nature by personal and responsible effort is ordered to a further perfection. By reason of his union with Christ, the source of life, man attains to new fulfillment of himself, to a transcendent humanism which gives him his greatest possible perfection: this is the highest goal of personal development.

…

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

1. This personal and communal development would be threatened if the true scale of values were undermined. The desire for necessities is legitimate, and work undertaken to obtain them is a duty: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat”. But the acquiring of temporal goods can lead to greed, to the insatiable desire for more, and can make increased power a tempting objective. Individuals, families and nations can be overcome by avarice, be they poor or rich, and all can fall victim to a stifling materialism.
2. Increased possession is not the ultimate goal of nations nor of individuals. All growth is ambivalent. It is essential if man is to develop as a man, but in a way it imprisons man if he considers it the supreme good, and it restricts his vision. Then we see hearts harden and minds close, and men no longer gather together in friendship but out of self-interest, which soon leads to oppositions and disunity. The exclusive pursuit of possessions thus become an obstacle to individual fulfillment and to man’s true greatness. Both for nations and for individual men, avarice is the most evident form of moral underdevelopment.

You might want to watch this talk regarding Hitler’s views on the economy and how they can easily be confused for Populorum Progressio.

 

[philipl]

You tell your leaders to drop all tariff and import taxes on items shipped from the USA into your country and I will tell my leaders to not place tariff on items coming from your country. What country do you live in? I want to research to see just how bad it screws the US by placing tariffs on items.

 

[philipl]

All tariffs are bad.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Thank you for your response but I fail to see the correlation between my thoughts taken from encyclicals and Hitlers Germany. I also fail to see how it relates to this thread other than dissing nationalism in which case we’d both agree. okey dokey!~

 

[HarryStotle]

Thank you for your response but I fail to see the correlation between my thoughts taken from encyclicals and Hitlers Germany. I also fail to see how it relates to this thread other than dissing nationalism in which case we’d both agree. okey dokey!~

Actually, I wasn’t “dissing nationalism.” I don’t think there is anything wrong with nationalism, per se. So we don’t “both agree.”

The issues with nationalism revolve around the kind of political system and powers of the state being enabled by that system.

Division of authority and responsibility beginning with the individual, the family, the community, the district/province/state, the nation, and the international community is both necessary and accords with the principles of subsidiarity. The world is too large a place for each community to be adequately served by a central global authority.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Actually, I wasn’t “dissing nationalism.” I don’t think there is anything wrong with nationalism, per se. So we don’t “both agree.”

Well then we found common ground. You’d be correct. We don’t agree…

 

[Ridgerunner]

The exception might be in agriculture where as you noted, you want to enable local production of basic food stuffs.

Not just in food. I think it was Chesterton who really loved beer. He wouldn’t buy commercial brands of beer. He would go to what at that time were family-owned micro-breweries in England, even if it was more expensive. Besides, he thought they were better, or said he did.

When given the chance, he would always buy the locally-produced or manufactured over what the big companies were producing or importing.

It wasn’t the localism with him so much as it was the desire to patronize the most “proximate” producer and promote family businesses.

 

[Maxirad]

Until the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, tariffs where one of the very few ways the Constitution authorized the Federal government to raise revenues.

Um, should the 16h Amendment be repealed?

 

[o_mlly]

All tariffs are bad.

Tariffs are instruments, not ends.

If the end in view is to restore the freedom to buy and sell in the international market then a tariff may, all other things equal, be good.

For instance, if the status quo blocks U.S. farmers from selling their produce internationally then actions which restore the farmers freedom to sell are good.

Centesimus Annus
The Hundredth Year

The free market appears to be the most efficient tool for utilizing resources and responding to needs. But this is true only if you are able to buy and sell.

 

[philipl]

If the end in view is to restore the freedom to buy and sell in the international market then a tariff may, all other things equal, be good.

When you write “All other things being equal” that is the problem. True free trade means just that. No barriers into any markets.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Just a tid-bit. In Catholic social teaching the ends DO NOT justify means.
Encyclicals are meant to be read in entirety, nothing is finer than the Church’s teaching on government, labor, human rights, morality, employer and employee relationship. One example of “meant to be read in entirety” is taking a snippet of the FACT that capitalism per se’ within the framework of free trade is efficient as a tool…but Catholic social teaching does NOT endorse unfettered capitalism. In other words it does not endorse a market that is totally unchecked, or shall we say “free”!~
This is the meat and potatoes of Rerum Novarum and the reiteration of it through Centesimus Annus, it’s 100 year centennial (because it’s been needed time and time again over time)!!!

 

[DENNYINMI]

If by capitalism is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a business economy, market economy, or simply free economy. But if by capitalism is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.2
Saint John Paul II…