Hypothetical Dilemma: The Curse Of Capitalism

[King_Lazy]

It is astounding how some “Catholics” can be so naïve and misinformed as to as to pontificate that the State must decide what is “unnecessary” for anyone and so misappropriate and misallocate.

The State has every right to demand the payment of taxes.

The principles of subsidiarity and solidarity mandated by the Church through several Popes are thus ignored and Christ’s Church demeaned by the malformed, and the Popes mocked.

Not at all. I said, “It doesn’t mean it has to if there are better means of achieving the same result, so the question is pragmatic.” I very much had the principle of subsidiarity in mind there. If State administration is not the best way to do something, it should indeed be done on a lower level.

Such communist/socialist ideas are precisely why both have been condemned.

How is the State exercising its legitimate function to tax its citizens communist or socialist?

The continued finagling by governments, going back 80 years, which has so distorted the essence of free enterprise, is apparently blissfully unknown so that some posters are totally unaware of the distortions.

Unrestricted economic freedom and the unjust treatment of workers are precisely what gave birth to the murderous philosophies of communism and socialism.

It is PEOPLE who have to be prudent, just, have fortitude and temperance. The Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man. The duty of governments is to make wise laws; that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition. It is people who commit crimes.

I agree with you there. But people often aren’t prudent or just and neither do they possess fortitude and temperance. And much like we shouldn’t permit abortion and rely on the prudence of people to ensure it doesn’t happen, so too we cannot permit economic injustice and rely on people’s temperance to mitigate its effects.

In practical matters, I often align myself more closely to free-marketeers and advocates of small government because I believe that is a better way to achieve Catholic aims, but in principle, I acknowledge the State’s legitimate right to tax wealth and that doesn’t make me a socialist. I am by no means laissez-faire because Catholicism is not laissez-faire and thus the economic system must be subordinated to the moral laws of God and be ordered to the benefit of man. That the State is necessarily evil is a dogma of capitalist ideology and not of the Church. The individual needs protection of the State where he cannot protect himself. It doesn’t mean the State is to be owner and controller of all property, but it also doesn’t mean that its role should be limited merely to the enforcement of contracts.

 

[Abu]

King Lazy #81
The State has every right to demand the payment of taxes.

The development of free enterprise includes that and the popes agree, so that is a red herring and tilting at windmills – a few recalcitrants who feel otherwise are unworthy of consideration.

That the State is necessarily evil is a dogma of capitalist ideology and not of the Church.

Where is that in the free enterprise laws of cause and effect explained in post #66 and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics – the first true economists? Where is that in the great defenders of free enterprise? Further such fantasy ignores the schools of economic thought for a rigid misinterpretation.

“Capitalism” is a derogatory term of Karl Marx and shunned by Bl John Paul II for “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy” in Centesimus Annus 42, 1991.

I am by no means laissez-faire

No Catholic papal social teaching refers to “laissez-faire”, which is a term coined by a school of economics – the “Physiocrats”.

Frank Morriss:
“True, free economics is open to abuse when it is allowed to be laissez-faire governmental indifference to the general economic welfare. But only free economics by its very own premise allows for the existence of subsidiarity, which demands not governmental indifference, but proper governmental restraint — the greatest amount of noninterference in economics in keeping with the common good. Welfare programs heedless of need, applied generally and replacing the desire and ability of the vast majority to govern their own lives and families, financed by taxation imposed on the basis of economic success, clearly give no weight to subsidiarity.”
tinyurl.com/75pvfmb

Thus what needs study and emphasis are the blessings of free enterprise which has transformed the world by recognising that all citizens are free to exercise their gifts and talents, under the law, to meet their own needs through participation in free markets.

 

[kbachler]

I’m mostly reiterating sw85’s ideas on this thread because they are most closely in line with Church teaching.

Strongly disagree.

And so, if someone has less but it suffices for his legitimate needs, he has no right to more. But neither does the one who has a lot have a right to what is above his needs. There is no reason why the State could not through taxation appropriate unnecessary wealth for the sake of the common good, be it for health care or for the benefit of the poor. It doesn’t mean it has to if there are better means of achieving the same result, so the question is pragmatic. But disparity in wealth is not in and of itself unjust because people have differing needs and there is no right to equal wealth.

Nor is there a right to penalize someone who has produced greater value through their work. It’s not just the quanity of work at issue, but the value of the work. A garbage collector is honorable and may produce more physical labor than a CEO or a baseball player or an actor, but that doesn’t imply that the garbage collector’s work is of equal or greater value.

Often the value produced today also reflects to some extent work performed at an earlier time for jobs that are more information-oriented, whereas physical labor more greatly reflects work performed NOW.

Yes, some low-wage earners work 40 or more hours a week just for food and shelter and nothing else. They are in effect not being rewarded for their labour. Whether they “feel” they are being exploited is irrelevant. They are being exploited. The cost of labour must include both the needs of the worker as well as just reward for his work.

Incorrect on several counts. Workers performing a comparable task are competing with each other with respect to the price of their labor. A U.S. worker may be competing with a Chinese worker who is performing a comparable task for less money both because of differences in standard of living but also due to differences arising from the relative value of money in international economies.

The cost of labor is not determined by “need” its determined by price. If it were determined by need, then labor prices would vary by irrelevant concerns, such as how many children someone has.
SNIP

 

[King_Lazy]

Abu:

Where is that in the great defenders of free enterprise?

I am not against free enterprise properly understood, but I do take issue with the libertarian or classical conception thereof, which takes the pro-choice cry of, “My body, my choice” and turns it into the cry of “My money, my choice.” And to the horror of many, I say “no.” Your body and your possessions ultimately belong to God and your freedom to do with them as you please is not absolute. My rejection of absolute economic freedom does not make me a communist or socialist, much as my rejection of absolute social freedom does not make me an intolerant bigot.

Abu:

“True, free economics is open to abuse when it is allowed to be laissez-faire governmental indifference to the general economic welfare. But only free economics by its very own premise allows for the existence of subsidiarity, which demands not governmental indifference, but proper governmental restraint — the greatest amount of noninterference in economics in keeping with the common good. Welfare programs heedless of need, applied generally and replacing the desire and ability of the vast majority to govern their own lives and families, financed by taxation imposed on the basis of economic success, clearly give no weight to subsidiarity.”

I agree with much of this and the rest of the article. And I’d possibly agree with “the greatest amount of noninterference in economics in keeping with the common good” if “individual good” were also included. “Common good” must be balanced against the needs of the individual, or we end up in a similar situation to communism, where the rights and dignity of man is trampled in the name of some higher ideal, which in the case of radically free markets might be “efficiency” and “economic growth.”

And I agree in the article’s scepticism of “welfare programs heedless of need,” provided one acknowledges that there are legitimate areas in which the State may enact welfare policies for those in need. Rerum Novarum seems to acknowledge the government’s role in this regard:

Rerum Novarum
When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

But this has to be balanced against:

Centesimus Annus
Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

Ultimately, my point is that the Church does not wholly endorse or condemn the welfare state but limits its application with the principle of subsidiarity. And I also wanted to point out that Church teaching seems to be quite incompatible with libertarian ideas of free economies, which have in recent decades been à la mode among otherwise Christian-friendly conservatives, just as much as it is incompatible with socialist conceptions of the role of government in the economy.

I can no more support absolute freedom in the economic sphere than I can in the social sphere.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Ultimately, my point is that the Church does not wholly endorse or condemn the welfare state but limits its application with the principle of subsidiarity. And I also wanted to point out that Church teaching seems to be quite incompatible with libertarian ideas of free economies, which have in recent decades been à la mode among otherwise Christian-friendly conservatives, just as much as it is incompatible with socialist conceptions of the role of government in the economy.

I can no more support absolute freedom in the economic sphere than I can in the social sphere.

Depends what you mean by welfare state. Besides that I agree with you.

 

[King_Lazy]

Depends what you mean by welfare state.

Essentially I’m coming from a position of Church teaching first, personal opinion second, so whatever conception it is, it must be compatible with Church teaching, and wherever my opinion might be at odds with Church teaching, I am open to correction and am ready to submit to the greater wisdom of the Church.

 

[Abu]

King Lazy #84
Ultimately, my point is that the Church does not wholly endorse or condemn the welfare state but limits its application with the principle of subsidiarity.

CA 48:
“The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

Taken with the previous quotations from CA #48, the condemnation of the Welfare State is clear. “Brief and supplementary interventions” do not constitute a Welfare State from which nearly all European countries are now trying to extricate themselves.

And I also wanted to point out that Church teaching seems to be quite incompatible with libertarian ideas of free economies,

That free enterprise has been emphatically affirmed is seen from Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991:
‘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”.’

 

[kbachler]

CA 48:
“The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

Taken with the previous quotations from CA #48, the condemnation of the Welfare State is clear. “Brief and supplementary interventions” do not constitute a Welfare State from which nearly all European countries are now trying to extricate themselves.
That free enterprise has been emphatically affirmed is seen from Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991:
‘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”.’

Capitism supports individual free will, which welfare/socialistic states do not. Free will is fundamentally necessary to a belief in God.

The decision to give to the needy must be an individual decision of free will, not an order by the state. In the former case the individual shows compassion for others. In the latter case the individual may be indifferent, hateful, etc. The individual doesnt matter.

Which of the above is what God wants of the individual?

This is why it’s possible to choose capitalism in the OPs orginal survey. The original problem basically argues - shall we maintain free will and die, or shall we do away with free will and live? One can reasonably choose the former.

 

[King_Lazy]

CA 48:
“The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

This seems to be a defence of temporary interference with private enterprise for the sake of the common good, and for using the State to guide the direction of development. This makes sense, and was what was observed during the industrialisation of the Asian Tiger economies - a good deal of free enterprise with (fairly heavy) state guidance and support.

Taken with the previous quotations from CA #48, the condemnation of the Welfare State is clear. “Brief and supplementary interventions” do not constitute a Welfare State from which nearly all European countries are now trying to extricate themselves.

Well, the above wasn’t referring to any state support to the needy, but was referring to state influence in industry and business.

That free enterprise has been emphatically affirmed is seen from Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991:
‘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”.’

If that is what is meant by capitalism, I wholeheartedly agree. Often, though, what passes for capitalism is radical libertarian individualism, which is rather Darwinian in character, and abhors the idea of protection being afforded to weaker individuals.

 

[Qoeleth]

Capitism supports individual free will, which welfare/socialistic states do not. Free will is fundamentally necessary to a belief in God.

The decision to give to the needy must be an individual decision of free will, not an order by the state. In the former case the individual shows compassion for others. In the latter case the individual may be indifferent, hateful, etc. The individual doesnt matter.

Which of the above is what God wants of the individual?

This is why it’s possible to choose capitalism in the OPs orginal survey. The original problem basically argues - shall we maintain free will and die, or shall we do away with free will and live? One can reasonably choose the former.

“Free will avails nothing but sin”- Augustine

Free will, the disobedience of Adam, is the first sin. True submission to God is surrender the folly of free will- hence obedience, as well as poverty and chastity.

Capitalism is responsbile for economic exploitation, for poverty and starvation. It is the system of the Devil, the Lord of this World, and his perfidious minions. Capitalism leads to children dying of hunger. It means some rich guy is living in luxury, while a poor brother of Jesus is on the street, unsheltered from the rain. It means some lawyer earns $5,000 a day, while some person working in a field earns $500 a year.

If you are so in love with “free will”, why are you not in favour of abortion on demand, legalised murder, etc.? It is the same thing.

 

[Abu]

King Lazy #89
If that is what is meant by capitalism, I wholeheartedly agree. Often, though, what passes for capitalism is radical libertarian individualism, which is rather Darwinian in character, and abhors the idea of protection being afforded to weaker individuals

Free enterprise with its laws of cause and effect is endlessly confused with the machinations of the State, and of individuals whose morals cover the whole gamut of good to evil. Assistance to the real needy is helped by sensible laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition. It is people who commit crimes.
It is not only in business and commerce that sound morality is necessary, it covers the whole of society in law-making and concerning abortion, contraception, marriage between a man and a woman, euthanasia, cloning etc., etc.

Qoeleth #90
True submission to God is surrender the folly of free will- hence obedience, as well as poverty and chastity.

We are created with free-will by God to choose good and avoid evil. We don’t “surrender” it, we must put it to its intended use – wise choice.

Capitalism is responsbile for economic exploitation, for poverty and starvation. It is the system of the Devil, the Lord of this World, and his perfidious minions. Capitalism leads to children dying of hunger. It means some rich guy is living in luxury, while a poor brother of Jesus is on the street, unsheltered from the rain. It means some lawyer earns $5,000 a day, while some person working in a field earns $500 a year.

Such enormous confusion and ignorance of the good of free enterprise and the enormous benefits to humanity betray a prejudice which can be overcome by truth – see post #66.

Such a prejudice fails to appreciate the fact that it is only with the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”.

It is PEOPLE, who need to follow virtues and values, and governmental finagling, which have caused enormous dislocations in freedom and in free enterprise.

Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

What are you doing to light a candle rather than just to curse the darkness?

 

[King_Lazy]

Free enterprise with its laws of cause and effect is endlessly confused with the machinations of the State, and of individuals whose morals cover the whole gamut of good to evil. Assistance to the real needy is helped by sensible laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition. It is people who commit crimes.

Certainly, and the State is duty-bound to mitigate the effects of fallen human nature. And its role need not only be to remove obstacles to providing assistance to the real needy, but it can be to actively do so itself where family, Church and charity may not command the resources to do so. State provision for the disabled, be it at a higher level or on a local government level, direct or indirect through the funding of a charity, whichever is most in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity, for example, can provide help where otherwise it would be unavailable or insufficient.

Such a prejudice fails to appreciate the fact that it is only with the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”.

It seems that the enrichment of untold millions has been able to occur despite some incredibly misguided economic philosophies, and I’d argue that it is science and technology that allowed this and that some economic philosophies may have retarded this enrichment but not stopped it. Even in the socialist states of Eastern Europe, people experienced a massive improvement in material well-being despite the incredible inefficiencies of the communist economic model, which retarded development but did not prevent it, and achieved about a third to a half of the development of the more advanced economies that did follow the free enterprise model, including the very socialist-influenced economies of Western Europe and the heavily state-regulated economies of the capitalist Far East.

It is PEOPLE, who need to follow virtues and values, and governmental finagling, which have caused enormous dislocations in freedom and in free enterprise.

What about the disengagement of government from the regulation of the financial sector that partly resulted in the current crisis and its dislocations?

It is clear that freedom in making economic decisions and private property are good things with regard to the economy. That does not, however, preclude sensible regulation and State involvement.

 

[Abu]

King Lazy #92
Even in the socialist states of Eastern Europe, people experienced a massive improvement in material well-being despite the incredible inefficiencies of the communist economic model, which retarded development but did not prevent it, and achieved about a third to a half of the development of the more advanced economies that did follow the free enterprise model, including the very socialist-influenced economies of Western Europe and the heavily state-regulated economies of the capitalist Far East.

The fact that communist and socialist States lagged so far behind indicates the economic superiority of free enterprise developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics – the first true economists – and the meltdown experienced by Europe indicates the finagling of governments in the economy and the Welfare Statism which helped to precipitate the crisis.

What about the disengagement of government from the regulation of the financial sector that partly resulted in the current crisis and its dislocations?

The continued finagling by governments, going back 80 years, which has so distorted the essence of free enterprise, is apparently blissfully unknown so that some posters are totally unaware of the distortions. [Post #80].

Vatican Economist: Recession Caused by Low Birthrate
Blames Small Families, Poor Savings Habits
zenit.org/article-28289?l=english

“The origin of the crisis is not in the banks or finance,” he affirmed. “The banks and financial firms helped to aggravate the crisis, trying to compensate for problems that were already there, namely, the decline in economic development, which some tried to camouflage through financial instruments.
_“If I might, indeed, be quite polemical, I would say that certain government leaders had more responsibility than the bankers since the former pushed, supported and justified the expansion of credit that was used to sustain a growth rate that was recognized as fictitious.”

It is clear that freedom in making economic decisions and private property are good things with regard to the economy. That does not, however, preclude sensible regulation and State involvement.

Wise laws and brief and supplementary interventions are affirmed by papal teaching. [Post #87].

 

[King_Lazy]

The fact that communist and socialist States lagged so far behind indicates the economic superiority of free enterprise

I agree. They did not lag “so far behind,” however. They went to work, they had roofs over their heads, they had food on their plates and they went on holidays and enjoyed themselves. People in Eastern Europe generally had a significantly poorer quality of life than in the West, but vastly superior to many third world countries. It is the wide scale adoption of technology that made Eastern European life quite comfortable by Western standards in spite of the ridiculous ideologies of the Soviet-imposed communist governments operating there at the time. In fact, the sudden adoption of the Western model after the economic collapse of the Soviet model made life in Eastern Europe worse even than when the communist model was in crisis in the 1980s, and this continued for a decade or more in some countries.

the meltdown experienced by Europe indicates the finagling of governments in the economy and the Welfare Statism which helped to precipitate the crisis.

Yes, irresponsible government spending has had much to do with it. The current crisis is massively exacerbated by the imposition of a fairly hard currency on the most irresponsible of these states, which prevents them from devaluing to reduce the real value of their debts and to regain competitiveness. The UK and the US have so far been able gradually to devalue, with their respective central banks buying up a significant proportion of government debt, thereby offering the means to smoothe the transition to a more responsible fiscal policy and to reduce the real standard of living gradually through inflation so as to match the loss of competitiveness that had been masked by decades of credit expansion.

The continued finagling by governments, going back 80 years, which has so distorted the essence of free enterprise, is apparently blissfully unknown so that some posters are totally unaware of the distortions.

The Western world has had it relatively good. We are now having to compete with the emergent East, which will mean a reduction in our quality of life, and the transition will have to be managed somehow. We no longer have command of the lion’s share of the world’s resources like we once did. It’s a natural effect of globalisation and the West will have to adjust to a reduced quality of life.

“The origin of the crisis is not in the banks or finance,” he affirmed. "The banks and financial firms helped to aggravate the crisis, trying to compensate for problems that were already there, namely, the decline in economic development, which some tried to camouflage through financial instruments.

Absolutely. There was an ongoing loss of competitiveness and an emptying of the Western industrial base that was masked by ever-increasing levels of debt.

_“If I might, indeed, be quite polemical, I would say that certain government leaders had more responsibility than the bankers since the former pushed, supported and justified the expansion of credit that was used to sustain a growth rate that was recognized as fictitious."

Indeed. The governments got caught up in an illusion they actively supported. Much of the impetus for continued deregulation stemmed from the apparent mountains of fictitious gold that appeared after the first bout.

 

[heronimo]

lolz i laugh on this thread haha… what are the basis of those scientist who said that exposition? the thread was in lack of information to say that capitalism turns us to extinction, seems like he just only hate capitalism and you must need to vote for hating it too whether you like it or not because it say so… haha for me capitalism is much more of a key for the success of each and every nation dude…

 

[King_Lazy]

lolz i laugh on this thread haha… what are the basis of those scientist who said that exposition? the thread was in lack of information to say that capitalism turns us to extinction, seems like he just only hate capitalism and you must need to vote for hating it too whether you like it or not because it say so… haha for me capitalism is much more of a key for the success of each and every nation dude…

It’s a hypothetical dilemma. It is assumed that the basis for the claim is justifiable. No such claim is actually being made. And to further complicate the matter, there are multiple definitions of “capitalism” and the OP didn’t actually offer an alternative that we could discuss to see whether it was more or less compatible with Church teaching.