When the Church is accused of liberal leanings

[srferdave]

If you just ignore ridiculous liberal, socialist posters, they may not respond again. It is hopeless to point out the obvious to some. I’m trying to be kind, but you will never convince this particular poster that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor isn’t sanctioned by God Almighty in order that we can be charitable. Using the bible to support socialism…weirds me out.

But I think it’s important that they keep posting. At least so we can point out their fallacies. Even if they won’t change their ways, its better to try in convincing them than to let them dwell in their bliss that is based on the fallacies.

 

[tomarin]

I used to think the way you did. That the welfare of the poor was too important to leave to the free market.

However, Let’s look at it this way-in what countries do the the poorest people have the most? It’s the free market countries.

I think we both agree that governments don’t do a good job running economies. But I would also add that letting the “market” (which is an abstraction after all) sort everything out by itself seems a bit cold-hearted at times.

 

[srferdave]

I think we both agree that governments don’t do a good job running economies.

And governments will most likely never be able to do a good job running the economy. Too many factors come in to play that will screw it up. Once in awhile you will have several politicians that will screw everything up and leave a mess for years to come.

When a business in the free market screws up - they suffer the consequences. When a business run by the government screws up - we suffer the consequences.

 

[tomarin]

And governments will most likely never be able to do a good job running the economy. Too many factors come in to play that will screw it up. Once in awhile you will have several politicians that will screw everything up and leave a mess for years to come.

When a business in the free market screws up - they suffer the consequences. When a business run by the government screws up - we suffer the consequences.

Yet civilized life does require a government to maintain the rule of law. I agree with the sentiment of your post but I also don’t want to demonize government: it has its place. In fact we’d be pretty messed up without it (think Nigeria).

Added: And this leads up back to Caritas in veritae. The responsibility of wise government is to protect the common good, even if it offends the purity of free market ideology.

 

[tomarin]

Ahhh, if you are using conservative in its basic meaning of wanting things to stay the same, the Church wants things to stay the same only insofar as things are in moral alignment. When society is out of whack, morally speaking, then the Church is all for change.

I don’t think “conservative” means keeping things the same in a mindless, reactionary fashion, but rather preserving what is of value in the traditional order of things. Change that is slow, organic and judicious is allowed.

However, insofar as in the US social conservatives want to conserve what tattered shreds of morality are left in our nation, and possibly even return to an earlier circumstance (which would be reactionary rather than merely conservative), yes, the Church would be more in line with those conservatives than with, say, progressives.

The Church is conservative in two senses: it changes very slowly and it is pledged to defend the rightful moral order of society, which to me seems like a fundamentally conservative not liberal/progressive stance.

 

[Rascalking]

I think we both agree that governments don’t do a good job running economies. But I would also add that letting the “market” (which is an abstraction after all) sort everything out by itself seems a bit cold-hearted at times.

Oh, I agree with you. The market *can *be cruel, but it is alot less so than having the government steal your money and attempt to give it to other people.

I think Adam Smith was right than when he basically said that free markets make people cooperate with one another. Adam Smith knew that humans are not born good, and that we’re all out for our best interests. A free market puts that selfishness into a good overall effect.

 

[tomarin]

Oh, I agree with you. The market *can *be cruel, but it is alot less so than having the government steal your money and attempt to give it to other people.

I think Adam Smith was right than when he basically said that free markets make people cooperate with one another. Adam Smith knew that humans are not born good, and that we’re all out for our best interests. A free market puts that selfishness into a good overall effect.

But Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is amoral. It doesn’t answer to anybody, not even God.

Added: also, it’s not free markets that make people cooperate with each other. It’s the rule of law.

 

[Pregustator]

Because the Church espouses viewpoints regarding economic and social justice?

I read on a conservative blog about how a commentator was reading CARITAS IN VERITATE and found much of what the Pope had to say was in line with Obama’s political views, other than abortion. Then we had Glen Beck telling people to leave their churches if our priests talked about economic justice.

Isn’t there a difference between addressing the root causes of economic and social injustice by finding the roots which are often tied with selfishness, mistreating other people, and supporting immoral social structures, versus supporting liberal political and social views?

Or, would it be more wise for the Church to remove itself from economic and social issues and focus simply on charities? How can we as the Church, avoid the association with such organizations which water down teachings in order to further their causes? How do we as a church, avoid liberal leanings or views while promoting justice?

Couldn’t it be argued that the idea of “justice” is liberal?

You aren’t really suggesting, are you, that the Catholic Church should actually avoid teaching things that somebody like Glenn Beck (or anyone else, for that matter) might describe as “liberal” are you? It seems like you are saying, “the ultra-conservatives think this teaching of the Church is ‘liberal’, therefore, maybe the Church ought to avoid that issue altogether from now on…so that Glenn Beck doesn’t think we’re liberal…and so that nothing we stand for is anything President Obama stands for.”

Is…is that what you’re saying? I don’t know how else to intepret the concerns you’ve written out.

 

[Black_Rose]

But Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is amoral. It doesn’t answer to anybody, not even God.

Added: also, it’s not free markets that make people cooperate with each other. It’s the rule of law.

Correct:

In Hayek’s social philosophy, value and merit are and ought to be two distinctly separate issues. Individuals should be remunerated purely on the basis of value and not in accordance with any concept of justice, whether it be the Puritan ethic or egalitarianism.

Hayek went a far as to deny that the concept of social justice has any meaning whatever, on the basis that justice refers to rules of individual conduct. Since no rules of the conduct of individuals can determine how the good things of life should be distributed, the question of justice is mute. Since a free market is the natural outcome of a multitude of individual decisions, how the market decides is amoral.

Accordingly, a spontaneously working market, where prices act as guides to action, cannot take account of what people need or deserve, because it operates according to a neutral distribution system which nobody has designed. Such a distribution system cannot be just or unjust.

And the idea that things ought to be designed in a ‘just’ manner means, in effect, that one must abandon the market and turn to a planned economy in which somebody decides how much each ought to have. And the price for that justice is the complete abolition of personal liberty.

henryckliu.com/page222.html

According to Liu, Hayek denies the concept of “social justice” because he defines justice in the context of individual liberty and personal conduct. Hayek argues that while the market itself is a proper exercise of human liberty in the economic sphere even though it does not embody a concept of “justice”, market outcomes themselves are neither just nor unjust but simply amoral. To impose morality or pursue justice in the economic sphere, one would have to abandon the amoral free market which would be tantamount to the abolition of liberty. (This seems to be an accurate summary of Hayek’s views expressed in his book The Road to Serfdom.) In other words, there is a trade off as economic justice and economic liberty are mutually exclusive.

 

[Rascalking]

But Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is amoral. It doesn’t answer to anybody, not even God.

Added: also, it’s not free markets that make people cooperate with each other. It’s the rule of law.

No, it’s a free market operating within the rule of law.

The “invisible hand” in my opinion makes you moral and acocuntable. If you end up cheating people, you’ll go under (yes, there are always Enrons and such, but the private market found them out). Cheaters almost never prosper on a long term basis.

 

[tomarin]

No, it’s a free market operating within the rule of law.

Take away the rule of law, and you have the law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten.

The “invisible hand” in my opinion makes you moral and acocuntable. If you end up cheating people, you’ll go under (yes, there are always Enrons and such, but the private market found them out). Cheaters almost never prosper on a long term basis.

I think it’s more true that cheaters will continue cheating until they’re caught – look at Bernie Madoff. He got away with what he was doing for decades and it made him filthy rich.

One of the hardest things to do in China is enforce international copyright law. Because there you have people acting in their economic self interest without the rule of law.

 

[Rascalking]

Take away the rule of law, and you have the law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten.

I think it’s more true that cheaters will continue cheating until they’re caught – look at Bernie Madoff. He got away with what he was doing for decades and it made him filthy rich.

One of the hardest things to do in China is enforce international copyright law. Because there you have people acting in their economic self interest without the rule of law.

Yes, I agree-the rule of law is important. I never said it wasn’t. I’m no anarchist. If you must put a label on my views, I guess you would say, “Burkeian Whig”. (In regards to FA Hayek)

For every one Bernie Madoff there are millions (and I mean that literally) people who operate hardware shops, plumbing companies, auto repair garages, lawyers (yes, them too), accountants, and etc who don’t and would never cheat.

I have no idea about Chinese copyright law, or Chinese law period. I’m no expert-but I doubt you are too! (that’s a joke, please take it as such and not an insult)

 

[srferdave]

Yet civilized life does require a government to maintain the rule of law. I agree with the sentiment of your post but I also don’t want to demonize government: it has its place. In fact we’d be pretty messed up without it (think Nigeria).

Added: And this leads up back to Caritas in veritae. The responsibility of wise government is to protect the common good, even if it offends the purity of free market ideology.

Yes I agree we should not demonize the government and that it has its place. But I think its important to know where is place is and that is not in our market, its to govern law (responsibly). I never said we should eliminate government.

The fact that you said “even if” it offends the purity of the free market ideology makes me think that the free market is more desirable. I agree with you that our first responsibility is the common good. The problem is that socialism does not look out for the common good.

 

[tomarin]

Yes, I agree-the rule of law is important. I never said it wasn’t. I’m no anarchist. If you must put a label on my views, I guess you would say, “Burkeian Whig”. (In regards to FA Hayek)

Hey – I’m a Burkean too!

For every one Bernie Madoff there are millions (and I mean that literally) people who operate hardware shops, plumbing companies, auto repair garages, lawyers (yes, them too), accountants, and etc who don’t and would never cheat.

Right but I think that’s because they’re afraid of the consequences of getting caught and/or because of their sense of honor, not because economic self-interest promotes virtuous behavior. My main point here is that Smith’s invisible hand is not circumscribed by conventional morality. It stands outside of it.

I have no idea about Chinese copyright law, or Chinese law period. I’m no expert-but I doubt you are too! (that’s a joke, please take it as such and not an insult)

Not at all – I could only be considered an expert on Chinese copyright law if reading the occasional Economist article made me one! (Obviously, it doesn’t.) But I do know they are notorious for producing knock-offs.

 

[Rascalking]

Hey – I’m a Burkean too!

I really wish more people read him. His work is INCREDIBLE. I’ve read his “Refelctions on the Revoulotion in France” about 100 times, and his other work about 50 times!

 

[tomarin]

Yes I agree we should not demonize the government and that it has its place. But I think its important to know where is place is and that is not in our market, its to govern law (responsibly). I never said we should eliminate government.

The fact that you said “even if” it offends the purity of the free market ideology makes me think that the free market is more desirable. I agree with you that our first responsibility is the common good. The problem is that socialism does not look out for the common good.

I abhor socialism, especially of the totalitarian kind. So I guess we’re in complete agreement (despite this lingering feeling I have that what separates both you and Rascalking from me is that you both implicitly assume that there is no contradiction between affirming Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and affirming a kind of old-fashioned Burkean social conservatism – I’m not so sure.)

 

[tomarin]

I really wish more people read him. His work is INCREDIBLE. I’ve read his “Refelctions on the Revoulotion in France” about 100 times, and his other work about 50 times!

It should be mandatory reading in all high schools.

 

[srferdave]

I abhor socialism, especially of the totalitarian kind. So I guess we’re in complete agreement (despite this lingering feeling I have that what separates both you and Rascalking from me is that you both implicitly assume that there is no contradiction between affirming Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and affirming a kind of old-fashioned Burkean social conservatism – I’m not so sure.)

Well we agree about things more than I realized

 

[tomarin]

Well we agree about things more than I realized

A rare occurence on internet message boards!

 

[Rascalking]

A rare occurence on internet message boards!

Hey, we should all start singing Kumbaya here!