What do you think about the Acton Institute?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCIAGraduate

Guest
“mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.” Jude 1:2

Please be civil and charitable but with candor.
 
Kinda sceptical. They hearts are in the right place, but they seem to dismiss out of hand the traditional approaches to Catholic Social Teaching. They seem to favor small government, which in itself is not a problem, but they seem to ignore that the Church is not so much for big government or small government as it is for moral government.
 
They are interesting, but I cannot agree with them much, even tho I really respect some of the individuals in other areas. There are posters here who respect the Institute highly.

I guess my main problem is that I don’t see them doing anything which separates them from secular libertarianism, except of course issues of life. Their thinking seems unimaginative or derivative, and not in any way particularly Catholic, altho they use bits of Catholic sources to bolster their arguments. To me, they are like the flip side of those Catholics who are so into “peaceandsocialjustice” that they forget about the point of our Faith–*not *to say that all individuals involved are not good Catholics, but that what I see of them, mostly through their writing, gives me an impression of imbalance.
 
St_Francis said:
They are interesting, but I cannot agree with them much, even tho I really respect some of the individuals in other areas. There are posters here who respect the Institute highly.

I guess my main problem is that I don’t see them doing anything which separates them from secular libertarianism, except of course issues of life. Their thinking seems unimaginative or derivative, and not in any way particularly Catholic, altho they use bits of Catholic sources to bolster their arguments. To me, they are like the flip side of those Catholics who are so into “peaceandsocialjustice” that they forget about the point of our Faith–*not *to say that all individuals involved are not good Catholics, but that what I see of them, mostly through their writing, gives me an impression of imbalance.
Click to expand...
👍

I’ll second that.
 
Cojuanco said:
Kinda sceptical. They hearts are in the right place, but they seem to dismiss out of hand the traditional approaches to Catholic Social Teaching. They seem to favor small government, which in itself is not a problem, but they seem to ignore that the Church is not so much for big government or small government as it is for moral government.
Click to expand...
Really succinct and well put.

The Acton Institute folks I have run into are people of great intelligence and integrity. But I think they distort the Christian tradition in some significant ways, making it support individualism and the acquisition of wealth far more than it actually does.

Edwin
 
RCIAGraduate said:
“mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.” Jude 1:2

Please be civil and charitable but with candor.
Click to expand...
They believe that a truly free market–not the corrupt crony-capitalistism of today–is the most moral and effective way to assist the poor.

It’s not just a “raising all boats” sort of prosperity message; it’s about getting the government out of the way and letting people get to work: opening home businesses, day cares, catering services, street vending and so many other small businesses that are currently hampered by unnecessary regulations and occupational licensing (which is a racket all by itself).

One of the big complaints of lefties is against what they call “wage slavery,” that is, that workers are exploited because really have no other place to go. Well if you open up these other opportunities, it not only helps those who jump at the chance; it also strengthens the hand of those who choose to work for wages.

Read Father Sirico’s book: Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. He makes a compelling, compassionate case.
 
Reep said:
They believe that a truly free market–not the corrupt crony-capitalistism of today–is the most moral and effective way to assist the poor.

It’s not just a “raising all boats” sort of prosperity message; it’s about getting the government out of the way and letting people get to work: opening home businesses, day cares, catering services, street vending and so many other small businesses that are currently hampered by unnecessary regulations and occupational licensing (which is a racket all by itself).

One of the big complaints of lefties is against what they call “wage slavery,” that is, that workers are exploited because really have no other place to go. Well if you open up these other opportunities, it not only helps those who jump at the chance; it also strengthens the hand of those who choose to work for wages.

Read Father Sirico’s book: Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. He makes a compelling, compassionate case.
Click to expand...
This sounds a lot more like distributism than the folks at Acton.
 
Here are their core principles:


  1. *] Dignity of the Person
    *] Social Nature of the Person
    *] Importance of Social Institutions
    *] Human Action
    *] Sin
    *] Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government
    *] Creation of Wealth
    *] Economic Liberty
    *] Economic Value
    *] Priority of Culture

    (At the link, above, it has a paragraph that talks about each of the above)

    For those who say you are opposed to Acton (or skeptical), what of the above principles do you oppose?

    Or do you have some specific writings that you oppose? If so, could you please post an extract of some specific writing that gives you pause?
 
markomalley said:
Here are their core principles:


  1. *] Dignity of the Person
    *] Social Nature of the Person
    *] Importance of Social Institutions
    *] Human Action
    *] Sin
    *] Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government
    *] Creation of Wealth
    *] Economic Liberty
    *] Economic Value
    *] Priority of Culture

    (At the link, above, it has a paragraph that talks about each of the above)

    For those who say you are opposed to Acton (or skeptical), what of the above principles do you oppose?
Click to expand...

  1. Uh, I pick “Sin”. I oppose sin!

    :sad_yes:
 
Reep wrote:

It’s not just a “raising all boats” sort of prosperity message; it’s about getting the government out of the way and letting people get to work: opening home businesses, day cares, catering services, street vending and so many other small businesses that are currently hampered by unnecessary regulations and occupational licensing (which is a racket all by itself).

One of the big complaints of lefties is against what they call “wage slavery,” that is, that workers are exploited because really have no other place to go. Well if you open up these other opportunities, it not only helps those who jump at the chance; it also strengthens the hand of those who choose to work for wages.
St_Francis said:
This sounds a lot more like distributism than the folks at Acton.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Acton folks would have problem with it. There is nothing wrong with distributism as long as it’s voluntary.
 
markomalley said:
Here are their core principles:


  1. *] Dignity of the Person
    *] Social Nature of the Person
    *] Importance of Social Institutions
    *] Human Action
    *] Sin
    *] Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government
    *] Creation of Wealth
    *] Economic Liberty
    *] Economic Value
    *] Priority of Culture

    (At the link, above, it has a paragraph that talks about each of the above)

    For those who say you are opposed to Acton (or skeptical), what of the above principles do you oppose?

    Or do you have some specific writings that you oppose? If so, could you please post an extract of some specific writing that gives you pause?
Click to expand...

  1. From the page you linked: Economic Liberty - Liberty, in a positive sense, is achieved by fulfilling one’s nature as a person by freely choosing to do what one ought. Economic liberty is a species of liberty so-stated. As such, the bearer of economic liberty not only has certain rights, but also duties. An economically free person, for example, must be free to enter the market voluntarily. Hence, those who have the power to interfere with the market are duty-bound to remove any artificial barrier to entry in the market, and also to protect private and **shared **property rights. But the economically free person will also bear the duty to others to participate in the market as a moral agent and in accordance with moral goods. Therefore, the law must guarantee private property rights and voluntary exchange.

    I see the current corporate system as inimical to something like what Reep described above. I do not object to the Ltd. part of a corporation, I object to the ownership’s being so spread out and with no moral agent in charge. This system or corporate ownership by more than a very few individuals (except possibly as a worker-owned cooperative) leads to a focus on the short-term and to an attitude of maximizing profits as too high a priority.

    I also see a moral problem where those who put in from their excess get a disproportionate amount compared to those who put in from their necessity which an elimination of the corporate structure would get rid of.

    There are others problems as well, but that’s a start.
 
Reep said:
I don’t think the Acton folks would have problem with it. There is nothing wrong with distributism as long as it’s voluntary.
Click to expand...
Even what Acton Institute proposes would have to have an element of force, because some people are against a free-market society.
 
markomalley said:
Here are their core principles:


  1. *] Dignity of the Person
    *] Social Nature of the Person
    *] Importance of Social Institutions
    *] Human Action
    *] Sin
    *] Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government
    *] Creation of Wealth
    *] Economic Liberty
    *] Economic Value
    *] Priority of Culture

    (At the link, above, it has a paragraph that talks about each of the above)

    For those who say you are opposed to Acton (or skeptical), what of the above principles do you oppose?

    Or do you have some specific writings that you oppose? If so, could you please post an extract of some specific writing that gives you pause?
Click to expand...

  1. The other reason I don’t like this statement of principles is that there seems to be little or no logic tying the “Catholic” parts to the “economic” parts. The latter, istm, could be lifted from any atheist or “Enlightenment” statement.
 
St_Francis said:
From the page you linked: Economic Liberty - Liberty, in a positive sense, is achieved by fulfilling one’s nature as a person by freely choosing to do what one ought. Economic liberty is a species of liberty so-stated. As such, the bearer of economic liberty not only has certain rights, but also duties. An economically free person, for example, must be free to enter the market voluntarily. Hence, those who have the power to interfere with the market are duty-bound to remove any artificial barrier to entry in the market, and also to protect private and **shared **property rights. But the economically free person will also bear the duty to others to participate in the market as a moral agent and in accordance with moral goods. Therefore, the law must guarantee private property rights and voluntary exchange.

I see the current corporate system as inimical to something like what Reep described above. I do not object to the Ltd. part of a corporation, I object to the ownership’s being so spread out and with no moral agent in charge. This system or corporate ownership by more than a very few individuals (except possibly as a worker-owned cooperative) leads to a focus on the short-term and to an attitude of maximizing profits as too high a priority.

I also see a moral problem where those who put in from their excess get a disproportionate amount compared to those who put in from their necessity which an elimination of the corporate structure would get rid of.

There are others problems as well, but that’s a start.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting view on the issue.

To your point:
  • Are the stockholders morally accountable?
  • Are the members of the Board of Directors and their chairman, who are elected by the stockholders to act in their name, responsible?
  • Is the CEO, who is hired and/or fired by that Board of Directors, but who has the responsibility for actually running the corporation, responsible?
You have a good point in saying, “who is responsible?”

Let’s think about that a little bit…
  • In this country, each person, who hasn’t been disenfranchised according to law, is a voter (a shareholder, as it were)…are the voters morally culpable for the actions taken by the government?
  • In this country, the voters elect 535 members of a “Board of Directors”, as it were…are they morally culpable for their actions or can they fall back and say that they are merely representing the views of those who elected them?
  • In this country, the voters (through a separate “board”) elect a President…is he morally culpable for the actions of this “corporation” – or can he fall back and point the finger away?
If you scan the news/opinion programs on TV, read the editorial pages of the newspapers, and listen to the talk TV…you will always hear “it’s the other guy’s fault” … or … “it’s not your fault”. Shoot, if you scan through CAF, you’ll find that expression used on not a few occasions here as well.

The point I’m getting at is that the lack of willingness to accept moral responsibility and the willingness to deflect that responsibility anywhere but in your own direction is a very, very common attribute of modern American life.
 
St_Francis said:
Even what Acton Institute proposes would have to have an element of force, because some people are against a free-market society.
Click to expand...
Well if A and B want to complete a voluntary transaction that does not harm C, and C disapproves, just who is it that is using force?

For C to argue that the transaction involves force is bit disingenuous when it is C who wishes to introduce the violence.
 
Reep said:
Well if A and B want to complete a voluntary transaction that does not harm C, and C disapproves, just who is it that is using force?

For C to argue that the transaction involves force is bit disingenuous when it is C who wishes to introduce the violence.
Click to expand...
So what happened in the US? Look at the early 1800’s: it was quite a lot like what you were describing, no? And yet, now, here we are. We are not here because we all decided we liked it here.
 
markomalley said:
That’s an interesting view on the issue.

To your point:
  • Are the stockholders morally accountable?
  • Are the members of the Board of Directors and their chairman, who are elected by the stockholders to act in their name, responsible?
  • Is the CEO, who is hired and/or fired by that Board of Directors, but who has the responsibility for actually running the corporation, responsible?
You have a good point in saying, “who is responsible?”

Let’s think about that a little bit…
  • In this country, each person, who hasn’t been disenfranchised according to law, is a voter (a shareholder, as it were)…are the voters morally culpable for the actions taken by the government?
  • In this country, the voters elect 535 members of a “Board of Directors”, as it were…are they morally culpable for their actions or can they fall back and say that they are merely representing the views of those who elected them?
  • In this country, the voters (through a separate “board”) elect a President…is he morally culpable for the actions of this “corporation” – or can he fall back and point the finger away?
Click to expand...
The representatives are voted in and they can be voted out. Not easily, but why not easily? Also, it is they themselves who are ultimately responsible–they are in a way like independent contractors.

Now, I am not saying that in the current climate they are doing a good job, bit I would not equate them and what they do with large corporations. For that, I think we’d have to check out the Executive branch.
If you scan the news/opinion programs on TV, read the editorial pages of the newspapers, and listen to the talk TV…you will always hear “it’s the other guy’s fault” … or … “it’s not your fault”. Shoot, if you scan through CAF, you’ll find that expression used on not a few occasions here as well.
Click to expand...
The point I’m getting at is that the lack of willingness to accept moral responsibility and the willingness to deflect that responsibility anywhere but in your own direction is a very, very common attribute of modern American life.
Click to expand...
True. But it doesn’t explain the problems i had with the statement at the Acton site.
 
It seems to be nothing more than an attempt to twist Catholic Social Teaching into a version of right wing american politics.
 
I agree with Fr Sirico and the Acton Institute and his comments below.

Pope Benedict slams capitalism?
Rev. Robert Sirico on Friday, January 4, 2013
‘A Reuters story on Pope Benedict XVI’s New Year’s homily. The article carried this headline: “Pope hopes for 2013 of peace, slams unbridled capitalism.”

‘I say in *Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for the Free Economy *that “global capitalism can’t of itself supply the cultural and moral formation worthy of the human person … our increasing interconnectedness holds great potential for offenses against human dignity. Advances in technology and communication can make it easier to sell pornography – or to traffic in human beings…” and so on.

‘In other words, I stand with the pope, that sin (what he calls in this case a “selfish and individualistic mindset”) can find expression in the context of human liberty lacking moral orientation, (what he calls in this instance, “global capitalism”).

‘Is the pope saying that capitalism is in and of itself “selfish and individualistic”? No. Can it express the vices (and for that matter the virtues) of people living in free economies? Yes.

‘That is why the Acton Institute exists — to promote virtuous free economies.’
blog.acton.org/archives/47649-pope-benedict-slams-capitalism.html
 
Abu said:
I agree with Fr Sirico and the Acton Institute and his comments below.

Pope Benedict slams capitalism?
Rev. Robert Sirico on Friday, January 4, 2013
‘A Reuters story on Pope Benedict XVI’s New Year’s homily. The article carried this headline: “Pope hopes for 2013 of peace, slams unbridled capitalism.”

‘I say in *Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for the Free Economy *that “global capitalism can’t of itself supply the cultural and moral formation worthy of the human person … our increasing interconnectedness holds great potential for offenses against human dignity. Advances in technology and communication can make it easier to sell pornography – or to traffic in human beings…” and so on.

‘In other words, I stand with the pope, that sin (what he calls in this case a “selfish and individualistic mindset”) can find expression in the context of human liberty lacking moral orientation, (what he calls in this instance, “global capitalism”).

‘Is the pope saying that capitalism is in and of itself “selfish and individualistic”? No. Can it express the vices (and for that matter the virtues) of people living in free economies? Yes.

‘That is why the Acton Institute exists — to promote virtuous free economies.’
blog.acton.org/archives/47649-pope-benedict-slams-capitalism.html
Click to expand...
The Popes also wrote a great deal about the need for entities, governmental and social, to help rein in vice so that it would not unduly impinge upon others.

Do you think that these Popes would be happy with CEOs being paid 360 X the amount that the average worker is paid? Do you think that the Popes would be happy with jobs being pulled out from under people’s feet in favor of outsourcing?

Catholicism is about intentionality, free-marketry is about whatever: whatever one wants, whatever works, whatever makes people happy. Pulling quotes from papal writings and pointing to the Scholastics who wrote under completely different circumstances, as the Acton Institute does, does not answer the questions I posed earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top