Hypothetical Dilemma: The Curse Of Capitalism

[TEPO]

And that reminds me, what was the benefit of creating the euro when nations are going bankrupt…? Who benefits from that, is it the banks…? Maybe uniting is not always the best solution.

Maybe diversity is the answer. After all, diversity creates options and restricts control. It’s a winner for conservatives and liberals alike.

 

[Qoeleth]

Define “enough”.

Whether its evil or not, the person earned it and thus has rights to it.

What the person does with what they earned is within their rights.

I MIGHT NOT LIKE what they do, but thievery by taxation is also inappropriate.

Since ALL situations of claiming ownership are to the exclusion of others, your statement implies that all ownership is evil. That’s nonsensical.

What does John the Baptist say?
“If anyone has two coats, he must give one to the person who has none”.
What does Jesus say?
“Alas for ye rich, for you are having consolation now”.
“If anyone wants to be my follower, let him sell all he has and give the money to the poor.”
“I was hungry and you did not give me to eat.”
What does James say?
“Who ever makes a friend of this world makes an enemy of God.”
“Now listen you rich, weep and wail for the misery that is coming.You wealth will rot and moths will eat your garments. Your gold and silver will corrode. The treasure you accumulate now will be fire on the last days.”

But, of course, these people would have been regarded by the American-Israeli capitalist oligarchy as Palestinians, religious fundamentalists, socialists…

 

[TEPO]

What does John the Baptist say?
“If anyone has two coats, he must give one to the person who has none”.
What does Jesus say?
“Alas for ye rich, for you are having consolation now”.
“If anyone wants to be my follower, let him sell all he has and give the money to the poor.”
“I was hungry and you did not give me to eat.”
What does James say?
“Who ever makes a friend of this world makes an enemy of God.”
“Now listen you rich, weep and wail for the misery that is coming.You wealth will rot and moths will eat your garments. Your gold and silver will corrode. The treasure you accumulate now will be fire on the last days.”

But, of course, these people would have been regarded by the American-Israeli capitalist oligarchy as Palestinians, religious fundamentalists, socialists…

Yes, but these verses are referring to people who place wealth above
The lives of other people -and who is to say that capitalism forces people to act that way.

There are a great many of successful people who live in capitalist societies who do great things for others… From creating jobs to donating to the poor or charitable funds…

In a society where nobody could make a million dollars, there would be very few charitable contributions…

The best solution in my opinion would be to create multiple economic systems to accommodate the diversity of the people and their abilities

 

[kbachler]

What does John the Baptist say?
“If anyone has two coats, he must give one to the person who has none”.

Let’s understand this in context:

NIV Luke 3:10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked. 11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

Does this say that we should forcibly take the coat from someone who has two and give it to the person who has one? Or does it say that its up to individual will, individual growth, to do the right thing?

Does it say that the parties were practicing a form of capitalism to begin with, so that one could earn two coats, and thereby be able to give one away?

Does it say “I have commanded Caesar to make a law that the man with two coats will be taxed to take one coat away so that it will be given forcibly to another?”

Basically, what you’ve presented is an argument for capitalism, and charity, not an argument for socialism.

What does Jesus say?
“Alas for ye rich, for you are having consolation now”.
“If anyone wants to be my follower, let him sell all he has and give the money to the poor.”
“I was hungry and you did not give me to eat.”

And again, this shows that God is a personal God - because he’s telling individuals who have earned money how to follow. He’s not telling us to take their wealth from them. In fact, one parable essentially warns against that, when the servants decide to kill the son of the master so that they can have his inheritance.

These are arguments for charity from people who have done well and made a profit.

In several parables, Christ talks about servants who are given responsibility and when they invest and make a profit, they have done well. Would he have told such a parable if that were an evil thing to do?

You’ve entirely missed the point of these sayings.

What does James say?
“Who ever makes a friend of this world makes an enemy of God.”
“Now listen you rich, weep and wail for the misery that is coming.You wealth will rot and moths will eat your garments. Your gold and silver will corrode. The treasure you accumulate now will be fire on the last days.”

And all that is saying is not to give your life over wealth. It doesn’t say its bad to be wealthy. There is a difference.

Bill Gates made a ton of money. He is giving a generous but small portion to his children, and is giving the rest away. He lives well, but generally not ostentatiously. Is he perfect? No. Has he given his life over to wealth? No.

But, of course, these people would have been regarded by the American-Israeli capitalist oligarchy as Palestinians, religious fundamentalists, socialists…

Not at all. But then, we wouldn’t have misunderstood what was said.

Besides there being parables in which profit was good and rewarded by the master, consider this:

NIV Matthew 19:The Rich Young Man

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18“Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’d and ‘love your neighbor as yourself. 20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Note that He does not say that the rich man must be perfect, nor does He say that the rich man is evil or cannot enter heaven. What He points out to the disciples is that the rich man also has difficulties.

But He also does not say that the state must take the wealth from the rich man and distribute it to others - His suggestion is to the rich man, who then has a choice to make - not to society to make it for him.

 

[sw85]

With due respect, kbachler, you do not have authority to interpret Scripture to suit your prejudices. The Church alone has exegetical authority, and they have determined already that there is and must be a preferential option for the poor when it comes to the ordering of economic goods, and that economic goods must always be subordinated to the general interests of society and the normative moral order. It’s right there in the Catechism, pretty much the whole of part 3, section 2, chapter 2, article 7 (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm). e.g., CCC 2406:

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

And CCC 2408:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

And CCC 2426:

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.

You are required as a Catholic to give full assent of faith to this and every other teaching on social justice outlined in the Catechism. You cannot reject them and remain a Catholic in good standing.

 

[TEPO]

The current capitalist system does have an option for the poor. Isn’t that why our taxes pay for food stamps?

We also provide for the handicapped. How much more must we do, according to the church… Exactly.

 

[sw85]

The current capitalist system does have an option for the poor. Isn’t that why our taxes pay for food stamps?

We also provide for the handicapped. How much more must we do, according to the church… Exactly.

The current system is not capitalist in any recognizable sense of the word. It directly controls 30% of the economy, for Heaven’s sake!

It’s not a question of “how much” we do. It’s a question of “what” we do. For one thing, most of the people on food stamps shouldn’t be on food stamps. They shouldn’t be out of work at all. They deserve an economy that takes them seriously as agents and gives them the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. So perhaps we ought to stop increasing competition for jobs by (a) sending many jobs overseas through free trade and (b) increasing the labor poor here through mass immigration.

While we’re at it, perhaps we can stop destabilizing the currency in order to benefit the wealthy. And perhaps we ought to abolish usury, too.

 

[TEPO]

The current system is not capitalist in any recognizable sense of the word. It directly controls 30% of the economy, for Heaven’s sake!

It’s not a question of “how much” we do. It’s a question of “what” we do. For one thing, most of the people on food stamps shouldn’t be on food stamps. They shouldn’t be out of work at all. They deserve an economy that takes them seriously as agents and gives them the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. So perhaps we ought to stop increasing competition for jobs by (a) sending many jobs overseas through free trade and (b) increasing the labor poor here through mass immigration.

While we’re at it, perhaps we can stop destabilizing the currency in order to benefit the wealthy. And perhaps we ought to abolish usury, too.

So then you agree that the current economic system in the US (which many refer to as capitalist) is not condemned by the churh -that it just has room for improvement.

So then it’s just a question of how to improve on it, keeping in mind that both pure capitalism and pure socialism are condemned by the church.

 

[sw85]

So then you agree that the current economic system in the US (which many refer to as capitalist) is not condemned by the churh -that it just has room for improvement.

I am not aware of whether or not the Church has formally condemned American economic policy. I am aware that much of American economic policy is flatly contrary to the Church’s teachings, which, among other things, call for a stable currency, full employment, and a special option for the poor.

So then it’s just a question of how to improve on it, keeping in mind that both pure capitalism and pure socialism are condemned by the church.

They are condemned in large part because of their undue elevation of economic considerations in the organization of man’s social life. The closest thing to a real good would be “distributist,” which is neither recognizably capitalist or socialist, and which is neither precisely because it gives priority to noneconomic considerations.

 

[TEPO]

Distributism is one idea. I prefer my own invention… The Split Economy.

Multiple economies, multiple monetary systems under one roof.

Or is that too over the top… Should I scrap it…?

 

[sw85]

Distributism is one idea. I prefer my own invention… The Split Economy.

Multiple economies, multiple monetary systems under one roof.

Or is that too over the top… Should I scrap it…?

I have no idea. I don’t think Church teachings dictate the structure of the economy, only that they be able to be subordinated to basic demands of social ecology and the moral health of the polity.

 

[SwissGuard25]

C’mon really?

Nobody like Capitalism why does it have to stay?

I am sure Jesus isn’t a Capitalist. If you read his teachings they’re straight up Socialist

 

[sw85]

C’mon really?

Nobody like Capitalism why does it have to stay?

I am sure Jesus isn’t a Capitalist. If you read his teachings they’re straight up Socialist

He was neither of those things. And socialism was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum – it is flatly incompatible with the Church’s teachings.

There is no sense trying to describe either Christ or His church as “capitalist” or “socialist.” These are philosophies that view man as an essentially economic creature. But he is not an economic creature, and the Church rejects this view of man.

 

[kbachler]

I don’t really care about “civil rights” (i.e., arbitrary concessions made by the state). I care about natural rights.

Civil rights are not arbitrary, they are agreed upon and flow from natural rights.

Per natural law, the right to private property extends no further than what is necessary for one to discharge one’s duties, i.e., to oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s state, the Church, and God.

First, this is not correct. Second, define necessary. Third, what if one extends those duties quite far? Fourth, the entire concept of “natural law” is questionable.

Furthermore, if you mean specifically tracing back to the Catholic concept of natural law, then I would note that not all persons are Catholic and agree with that concept.

Hence, this is a weak argument.

There is certainly no natural “right” to excessive wealth (although there is certainly not a right to have one’s wealth taken without good cause – but the bar for good cause is on the low side).

OF COURSE there is a natural right to excessive wealth. The only reason you would say there isn’t is because you believe there ought not to be. Certainly, many people would disagree. And did not Jesus say to pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s?

All you’ve done above is make a dismissive comment with no backing whatsoever.

Many of use would argue that labor, investment, assumption of risk creates such a right to whatever wealth is therefore provided. What natural law argues against that?
If anything, natural law, in the form of work ethic, argues FOR it.

If you were in a position of legitimate authority (for instance, my king), I would be obligated to give you all my money if you commanded it. You would likewise be obligated to take no more than was necessary in order to promote the interests of the polity.

The King is not obligated.

As I said, communism as an ideology was invented in the 19th century.

That the principles of modern economic systems were not formalized until recently also doesn’t mean they’re the only economic systems in play. The economic order of, for instance, the Middle Ages was not recognizably capitalist OR communist. In fact it was not really recognizable as an “economic order” at all, because economic values were not held to be the socially constitutive values. As well they shouldn’t be – money is simply a means to any of a variety of ends, not an end in itself.

The economies of barter and trade, or investing capital or work in the assumption of risk are fundamentally capitalistic.

The Templar Knights essentially had a credit system that extended across all of Europe to the Holy Land during the crusades. To argue that it was not recongnizable as an economic order is at best, misinformed.

Yes, there was feudalism; it may have some aspects both of capitalism and of totalitarianistic communism. But so long as you have rights to own property, rights to invest, rights to take risk, you fundamentally have capitalism within at least parts of the economy.

 

[kbachler]

With due respect, kbachler, you do not have authority to interpret Scripture to suit your prejudices

With all due respect, I didn’t. I would argue that you did.

The Church alone has exegetical authority, and they have determined already that there is and must be a preferential option for the poor when it comes to the ordering of economic goods, and that economic goods must always be subordinated to the general interests of society and the normative moral order. It’s right there in the Catechism, pretty much the whole of part 3, section 2, chapter 2, article 7 (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm).

You appear to be misinterpreting much of this:

e.g., CCC 2406:2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

Luke 6:41-42 41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

You’ve misinterpreted significantly. Please take some time and consider the above words.

 

[sw85]

Civil rights are not arbitrary, they are agreed upon and flow from natural rights.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Case in point: the present HHS mandate nonsense.

First, this is not correct. Second, define necessary. Third, what if one extends those duties quite far? Fourth, the entire concept of “natural law” is questionable.

Your “first” is an assertion, not an argument. Your “second” is a silly question; “necessary” means exactly what it sounds like, i.e., “required for.” Your “third” is a patently ridiculous question; your duties are defined for you by your nature and your station in life, not whatever you like.

As for your “fourth,” if you are suggesting natural law is false, then you are indulging in (literally) damnable heresy. Given the three questions you asked above, I gather you are not terribly well informed about the topic and suggest you do some homework on it before daring to contradict the Church’s magisterium, which alone is protected from error.

Furthermore, if you mean specifically tracing back to the Catholic concept of natural law, then I would note that not all persons are Catholic and agree with that concept.

You are Catholic, and therefore you are required to give full assent of faith to ALL of the Church’s teachings.

OF COURSE there is a natural right to excessive wealth. The only reason you would say there isn’t is because you believe there ought not to be.

Really? From what in human nature does this right arise? I ask because you’re evidently better read than I am on the topic so I’m eager to hear the explanation for this.

I’ll give you the boilerplate natural law answer. Our rights arise from our duty: there is no natural right to do ANYTHING which is not included in your duties. You have a duty to preserve your own life, to care for your family, to obey authority, and to worship God; therefore you have the right to the means necessary to do these things, and that includes the wealth necessary to care for yourself and your family, to pay taxes to the state, etc. You have no right to any wealth beyond what is necessary to do these things.

This doesn’t mean you can’t have anything more. It means you have no right to have anything more, and therefore have no basis to complain if the state elects to appropriate some of your excess wealth to feed the hungry or some of the water on your land to fight a nearby forest fire, etc.

Certainly, many people would disagree.

If the various revelations are any indication, many people are going to Hell – precisely because they do not mold their will to that of God and His church.

And did not Jesus say to pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s?

Of course He did. That includes paying your taxes, no matter how high!

Many of use would argue that labor, investment, assumption of risk creates such a right to whatever wealth is therefore provided. What natural law argues against that?
If anything, natural law, in the form of work ethic, argues FOR it.

You clearly do not have any idea what the Church means when it speaks of natural law. This ignorance is culpable and it is inducing you to the sin of heresy and scandal, namely by attacking the Church’s teachings in the manner that you have.

You are NOT FREE to disagree with the Church on these matters. The content of the Catechism falls under the infallible ordinary magisterium, to which you are required to give full assent of faith or be severed from the precious body and blood of Christ.

PLEASE do your homework before presuming to attack the teachings of wiser and holier men than yourself. It’s the least you owe them.

The economies of barter and trade, or investing capital or work in the assumption of risk are fundamentally capitalistic.

The Templar Knights essentially had a credit system that extended across all of Europe to the Holy Land during the crusades. To argue that it was not recongnizable as an economic order is at best, misinformed.

Yes, there was feudalism; it may have some aspects both of capitalism and of totalitarianistic communism. But so long as you have rights to own property, rights to invest, rights to take risk, you fundamentally have capitalism within at least parts of the economy.

Your inability to see society as an anything but an economic order and man as anything but an economic creature is driving you to confess belief in nonsense. The Middle Ages as being even remotely “totalitarian” and “communistic”? Come on.

 

[sw85]

But it doesn’t say that it has the right to FORCIBLY TAKE ownership (rather that it has the right to regulate it) and to give it to someone else. You’re overextending the meaning.

There can be no right and duty to regulate if those regulations cannot be enforced! Sheesh. The Catechism even says that the individual right to private property is SECONDARY to God’s primordial, universal destination of goods for all mankind. Thus a widespread system of private property may ONLY exist if it is determined to be the best way to accomplish this end. Thus it is CONDITIONAL on social circumstances. Thus it is not NATURAL nor a RIGHT.

IMMEDIATE AND ESSENTIAL NEEDS – not ANY need under an economic system. and when it is the ONLY way.

That’s what I’m saying. If people are starving (and what is starvation except an IMMEDIATE and ESSENTIAL need for food?), the state is within its right to take from you to give to them. This logically includes taxing your income in order to provide a preferential option for the poor, which is a LESS SEVERE method of accomplishing the exact same thing.

And I do this. But per the prior quote:

Arguing that I should take any personal belief and impose it upon someone else forcibly by taking their property and redistributing it to someone else is against teaching.

What in the world do you think “theft” is? Theft is the illicit taking of another’s property.

We have already established, per natural law, that there is no more natural right to property than is necessary for you to discharge your duties. Thus it is not “illicit” to confiscate excessive wealth for the common good. Saying that this constitutes theft is simply begging the question.

As for the Church’s teaching, they are not mere “personal beliefs” akin to UFOs or Bigfoot. They are OBJECTIVE TRUTH. If you don’t want society to be modeled on them then you want a society modeled on falsehood.

You presume to call me a hypocrite when I point out that you are illegitimately rebelling against the Church’s teachings just so you can maintain your a priori commitment to rah-rah-capitalism? When I point out that the Church’s teachings are clear, inerrant, and nonnegotiable?

I’ve done my duty with you. Repent of your errors or be damned.

 

[TEPO]

There is no sense trying to describe either Christ or His church as “capitalist” or “socialist.” These are philosophies that view man as an essentially economic creature. But he is not an economic creature, and the Church rejects this view of man.

But economic philosophies are actually operations that were intended to assist the societies in surviving together in unity. It’s basically an escalated version of the “tribe”, where families worked in unity as far as hunting, gathering, and protecting themselves.

It’s completely natural behavior.

Now when a society becomes becomes large and successful, and tribes unite (like much of the West has) -this is where problems always arise.

We’re actually bending over backwards to accommodate a global economy. The capacity is just too great for a single economy. Yet at the same time we need to find a way to make it work, and I don’t believe that a single system is capable of achieving this goal.

We ultimately need more economies on a global level, not less. It’s time to start branching out -the opposite of what Europe is doing with the “euro”.

We need to get into tribe mode and start pioneering some alternative economic and monetary systems before the current old framework comes tumbling down on a huge scale. It’s just too top heavy and poorly designed.

 

[kbachler]

There can be no right and duty to regulate if those regulations cannot be enforced! Sheesh. The Catechism even says that the individual right to private property is SECONDARY to God’s primordial, universal destination of goods for all mankind. Thus a widespread system of private property may ONLY exist if it is determined to be the best way to accomplish this end. Thus it is CONDITIONAL on social circumstances. Thus it is not NATURAL nor a RIGHT.

Enforcement doesn’t require seizure, and you can see this in the Catechism you quoted.

That’s what I’m saying. If people are starving (and what is starvation except an IMMEDIATE and ESSENTIAL need for food?), the state is within its right to take from you to give to them. This logically includes taxing your income in order to provide a preferential option for the poor, which is a LESS SEVERE method of accomplishing the exact same thing.

No, it doesn’t logically include taxing income, as its not the same thing. In one case you’re meeting an immediate need where there is NO OTHER WAY to do it. In the second case if you have time to tax, you have time for charity, and hence THERE IS another way to do it.

The catechism says it is right only if seizure is the only way.

Consequently, your interpretation is seen to be utterly incorrect. Q.E.D.

What in the world do you think “theft” is? Theft is the illicit taking of another’s property.

Taking property when there are other ways to meet the need is illicit, per the Catechism you quoted.

We have already established, per natural law, that there is no more natural right to property than is necessary for you to discharge your duties.

No, we have not established that. You claimed it. I said you were wrong and provided several reasons why.

Thus it is not “illicit” to confiscate excessive wealth for the common good. Saying that this constitutes theft is simply begging the question.

It isn’t begging the question when separate reasons are stated. You’re ignoring those reasons.

As for the Church’s teaching, they are not mere “personal beliefs” akin to UFOs or Bigfoot. They are OBJECTIVE TRUTH. If you don’t want society to be modeled on them then you want a society modeled on falsehood.

Whether they are personal beliefs or not, there are many who disagree. We do not live in a Catholic theocracy.

You presume to call me a hypocrite when I point out that you are illegitimately rebelling against the Church’s teachings just so you can maintain your a priori commitment to rah-rah-capitalism? When I point out that the Church’s teachings are clear, inerrant, and nonnegotiable?

You’ve been intellectually dishonest. It’s easy for people to see through your argument.

 

[lemondiesel]

when do we draw the line on how much due we owe our nation?