Catholicism and capitalism

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

It really depends on what you mean by "capitalism," which is in reality a pretty vague term.  I would strongly disagree that the traditional social teaching of the Church is in fact "closer to socialism."  Most of the Popes over the past 150 years or so have strongly condemned socialism in all its forms (not merely hard-line communism).  Particularly strong is Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno (which contains his famous statement that "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.")  The Church does condemn extreme laisseze faire capitalism, or the idea that everything should be left purely to the market, without moral obligations on employers and businessmen.  The Church does strongly teach the right to private property, though like every other right, it carries moral obligations.

I recently read an excellent book by Anthony Esolen, Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching:  A Defense of the Church's True Teachings on Marriage, Family, and the State, which focuses on the teaching of Pope Leo XIII ("the father of Catholic social teaching"), and refutes the common error that Catholic social teaching implies a vast welfare state.  He shows instead that the modern leviathon welfare state is contrary to true Catholic teaching, which stresses the rights and primacy of the family, and the local community of persons, favoring voluntary associations of persons, such as the family and worker's guilds.

John Paul II was explicitly critical of the modern welfare state (or "social assistance state") in his encyclical Centesimus Annus.

 

​1. it is saint john Paul the 2nd. I haven't read his encyclical about social assistance, a quote from there would be nice, perhaps i will read the whole thing to check. Everyone don't trust people here unadulterated coz they can be misleading this site i believe comes under attacks from free masons posing as Christians so check and read all things people post and say pope dada has said this and st dada has said that.

And even if the pope was critical of the modern welfare system,why? Your very vague with your response please expand what he meant to give us a clearer picture as to why the pope is critical and please don't say read it yourself because that proves to me that if your not a free mason spreading confusion than you don't really understand what you read and are spreading confusion yourself. If St John Paul 2 was critical of it it probably needs some tweeking and also did he ever try to beg for money at the gates of a catholic church, most of them say "Get a job" and other such things to avoid giving you money,including simply no!, or put there tail between there legs and hurry off, i've had to do it enough times i know. There is no common bucket in the catholic church though holy scripture states for Christianity to be christian it must and the poor christians must be able to dip there hands into the pockets of the rich, no questions asked. And the lack of true charity in the church has had God have to make social security to feed the poor. If JP2 truley was criticizing social welfare them im bold enough to say that is one place where he was dead wrong.

No pun intended bruz.

God iz Good, God iz Love.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
hence why

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Most crimes of theft,selling drugs and prostitution are crimes of necessity not of passion, it is done out of an assumed need, and we are not to judge what a person needs and what a person doesnt.

Want to lower the crime rate, get charitable, no questions asked like "whats the money for ?" You are not endorsing a persons drug or alcohol habit by giving them money because there going to get it anyway, if you dont help them they are forced to lie, cheat, steal, sell drugs and prostitute. 

Charity is the only perfect system and can exist in any political system except perhaps communism here everyone gets the same pay, but even than you still can give to those that have none and live off bread and water. If charity can exist in any political system than charity is upon the peoples head and not the governments, it is up to the people. Think about it and rise up!

 

Jesus iz LORD!

 

P.s. If you read the old testament you will find there are 3 payments to be made from your wage, tithe,offering and 1st fruits, oh plus it think one more once ever 3 years something to do with the ends of your crop to be given to the poor. Holy scripture hints to Godly people living just off what they need and giving the rest away kind of thing. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

​That's what socialism is in reality.

The almighty, all-eoncompassing Leviathon State usurping the proper role of family, Church, and other free associations of persons, is evil whether it calls itself "socialist," "capitalist," "Communist," or what have you.

​notice that every political system since Christ that has oppressed the churches freedom to practice her faith has collapsed eventually or been beaten in war.

 

P.s. In my 1st post when i said it needs tweeking i was referring to the social security system. It's a proven fact that a good social security system( the one in australia anyway) reduces criminal activity and gives criminals less grounds in court to make a plee under the alias of " a crime of poverty/nescisity" because they re given ample funds to exist.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
my 1st post

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

*flood warning*

comfortably mind you when you add cheap rent, free water, cheap medicine and free doctors, in australia.

I would have thought the church would be all for every person in a nation having access to there needs, no questions asked. Even if that is provided on the back of the nations tax system.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Socrates]

 

To clarify. I do not advocate socialism. I do not believe that it works from a practical standpoint. And I also believe that it contradicts the principle of subsidiarity, which you raised in one of your responses. Where we disagree, I think, is that I would not go so far in the other direction as you would.

Again, I do not believe that the state should be able to absolutely deny property rights. I think that the Church teaches that the right to property must ultimately be subservient to moral considerations. But in a classical economic sense, I do not think that the right to private property is seen as seen as a right that is subservient to moral considerations. You are free to dispose of your property as you wish, even if that means that a starving person should go hungry. The Church does not go that far. But it seems that on this point we agree to for the most part. I think our disagreement here has more to do with how we are defining things.

 

 

​Well, it sounds like we at least agree that socialism is wrong.  I think where we disagree is that you place a lot more trust in the inherent benevolence and wisdom of politicians and government bureaucrats than I do, as you seem to place a lot of trust in them to wisely and justly spend other people's money on other people.

(As the late, great Milton Friedman observed, people generally make the most foolish decisions when spending other people's money on other people, as government's do.  The immense irresponsibility and waste in government spending is proof of that.  $18,000,000,000,000.00 in national debt and counting . . .)

 

As far as the "unrealistic" scenario of rich persons hoarding food from starving persons, I think the scenario is very much realistic. We have a huge amount of wealth in the USA and Europe. In the USA we literally have people dying of having an overabundance of food. But there are still roughly a billion people on the Earth who live on a dollar or two a day. Who are malnutritioned, who do not have access to clean water, who do not have access to quality health care. And we do not do nearly as much as we could to help them. For example, I spent $400 on a PS4 about a year ago and I barely even use it. I could have very easily given that money to an organization that supports the poor in Africa, for example.

500 years ago I think that it would have been difficult for individual people in wealthy nations to reach out and help people in these poorer nations. Today we have huge access to media and transportation that enables us to be aware of their needs and to take concrete steps to help them. Personally, I think that our failure to do so is something that we will have to account for on judgment day. I think that our failure to help is exactly like a rich person hoarding food from a starving person, or a person on a boat not throwing a life preserver to a drowning person. I do not think that we have the excuse that they live far away, any longer.

Of course, we should do what we can to help the less fortunate, particularly those starving or lacking basic necessities.  However, the U.S. and other wealthy countries actually give huge amounts in food and aid to poor countries.  However, due to the immensely corrupt governments in many of these countries, much of the food never actually makes it to the starving people, as corrupt government leaders and warlords actually horde the food and money to strengthen their power.  The problem is evil leadership, rather than simple lack of food.

What is needed is massive political and economic reform in those countries to help them feed themselves, rather than merely giving greater and greater amounts of food and money.  Of course, that's much harder and easier said than done.  Even advocates of the African poor such as Bono (whom I'd hardly consider a right-winger) say that what is really needed in Africa is more free market capitalism and entrepreneurship to open up economic opportunity.  It's the whole principle of teaching a man to fish, rather than just giving him a fish.  And countries being perpetually dependent on the charity of rich countries to feed themselves is not a good thing either.  I don't think more forced government spending is the answer.

I don't disagree with you about the importance of charitable giving, but Christ calls us all to personal sacrificial self-giving charity, not the massive forced redistribution of wealth and spending by a bureaucratic state.  Charity is a virtue.  Forced government spending of others' money is not.

 

I would not go this far, nor do I think the Church goes this far. You can see that She has consistently supported Universal Health Care. I do not think you will find her objecting to things such as food stamps for the poor, either.  As for subsidiary, it is not a panacea. Subsidiary means that things should be accomplished at a local level to the extent possible, but it does not deny a more removed body from taking action where necessary to accomplish some good. That is clearly the case with the government in many areas. The government, for example, is much more adept at providing health care to needy persons than could otherwise be expected if we just had a free-for-all system where individual people were left to provide health care for those who did not have it. That is why we have medicare for old people. The government is more adept at identifying people who do not have adequate nutrition. That is why we have food stamp programs. These programs involve the redistribution of wealth and are things that the Church has been supportive of. I do not see any reason why taxation should be limited to the purposes of public roads and armed forces. I think that is a rather extreme position that the Church has not supported.

I'm not saying there should be no safety net to care for those in truly desperate circumstances, but the massive growth of the bureaucratic welfare state has not been an unqualified good for the poor, and in the U.S. and elsewhere has helped create a permanent government-dependent underclass, as government takes on more roles which formerly belonged to the family and community, and has helped destroy both family and community among the urban poor, with disastrous results.  Illegitimacy, fatherless kids, crime and abortion have soared in such communities since the vast increase in federal social spending in the U.S. since the 1960's.  If more and more government spending on the poor were an unqualified good, then John Paul II would have no reason for concern about the growth of the welfare state.

 

Well. That is certainly up for debate. Personally, I have had the experience of being in a financially good state while in the USA, and in a financially bad state while in the USA. I have also had those experiences while living in a country with Universal Health Care (Japan, to be specific). Just based on my own personal experiences, I would prefer Universal Health Care. I think that when you have money and everything is good the US system is great. If you lose your job and find yourself without insurance, or (prior to Obama-care) if you found yourself with a pre-existing medical condition, you are in for some serious trouble. Isn't medical expenses one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country? In Japan when I was out of work I had my medical expenses taken care of, and it was so easy. I never had to worry. I never had to argue with anyone. I had a heart procedure done at this hospital: http://www.ntt-east.co.jp/kmc/en/ and the quality was great. Here in the USA, I had to spend hours calling my insurance company or threatening to sue them just to get them to cover certain procedures. That is because everything is profit driven here. To the extent that they do not pay for the medical services you need, they make money.

I think that there are positives and negatives to both types of systems, but I would much rather have the assurance of living in a country with Universal Health Care, based on my own experiences with both systems.

 

The problem is that socialized medicine plans such as "Obamacare" are economically unsustainable, and in reality will help raise the cost of healthcare, and make it less available in the long run.

http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4762694-74/obamacare-health-spending#axzz2g5IPRWOD

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/failing-hospitals-rising-costs-unsustainable-business-model/

http://dailysignal.com/2010/05/28/in-their-own-words-cbo-admits-obamacare-unsustainable/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/how-obamacare-is-unsustainable-why-we-need-a-single-payer-solution-for-all-americans-300031687.html

Yes, good people can disagree about this, but it's wrong to suggest that the Church requires the implementation of socialized medicine as a teaching of the Faith.

Also, as Friedman noted, it is impossible to maintain a welfare state with massive unchecked immigration like we have in the U.S.  Countries such as Sweden and Japan do not have such massive immigration.

[Socrates]

Actually, if you have a look at the article I posted from Pope Benedict, he does seem to equate capitalism and socialism, in the sense that they are both systems that aim for the efficient allocation of resources, and are not concerned with ethics, or the use of resources to  further God's plans. The only real difference is that they attempt to allocate resources in different manners - through prices in the case of capitalism, and through centralized decisions in the case of socialism.

 

​No economic system is adequate without ethics or morality.  I never denied the need for morality in business, as in other things.  Giving the government more power over the property of others will do absolutely nothing to increase virtue and morality in economic matters, but will only further screw things up.

You seem to presume both saintly virtue and godlike wisdom on the part of politicians and bureaucrats.  In reality, they have neither.

 

As for the Seventh Commandment, it seems that you are equating theft under our criminal laws with theft as defined by the Church. Our criminal law assumes a right to private property . But the Church defines theft in a different manner. There is no theft of property if the holder of the property withheld it unreasonably. And unreasonably holding onto property that you own instead of giving it to a poor person is theft as the Church defines it. That would never be considered theft under the criminal law. The Seventh Commandment assumes the universal destination of goods. It does not assume a right to use property as one pleases, or to use or to hold onto property in contradiction to God's purposes for it.

When you place in the hands of politicians and government bureaucrats the ultimate authority to decide what property it is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" for persons to own, and to determine what everyone must do with their own property or money, you've created a recipe for tyranny and disaster on a massive scale.

[Nihil Obstat]

End separation of Church and state and place civil authorities under the guidance and just authority of a strong episcopate.

[Socrates]

End separation of Church and state and place civil authorities under the guidance and just authority of a strong episcopate.

​Of course.  Our episcopate's handling of the priestly sex abuse crisis (among other things) was nothing short of magnificent.

(And yes, Nihil, I realize you're joking. . . At least I think.)

[truthfinder]

End separation of Church and state and place civil authorities under the guidance and just authority of a strong episcopate.

​Haven't read it, but this might be heretical ultramontanism according to Vatican I. 

[Era Might]

 

​Well, you completely avoided answering my first question, though that hardly surprises me.  If centralized government control of an economy is really so effective and efficient at providing the most goods for the most people, then  communist countries with centralized planned economies should be models of economic prosperity for its people.  However, the facts of the real world prove that to be contrary to reality, as is the rest of socialist theory.

A free economy has been described thus:  

(From the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.)  You can find another similar definition here.

You can find a lot more detailed and interesting information on their website, including their specific criteria for measuring economic freedom, and a list ranking the world's countries on economic freedom.  There is a strong positive correlation between economic freedom and prosperity among these countries.

(I'm linking to that information for whomever wants to read it, tbhough I'm quite aware you'll likely dismiss it all as "Bourgeoise" propaganda to Oppress the Masses, or such, without bothering to read it in depth.)

And yes, all an economy does is allow for the production, sale and distribution of money and goods.  An economic system (of any kind) can't save your soul.  Also, a "free economy" does not mean complete anarchism or lawlessness, but laws that protect property rights and individual freedoms.

Claiming that free market or "capitalist" economies are really just the same as Communist or socialist economies is not an argument, but an ignorant cop-out.

You yourself have not made any factual arguments to back up your claims, but have mostly just spouted leftist pieties.

 

You spend a lot of time on here giving vaguely Marxist rants against "Capitalism" and "Bourgeois society" and the like.  But this brings up another question:  Is there any country or society in the real world (either currently existing or historical) that you think would be a good model for us, or that we should look up to?  (I'm asking here for real, actual times and places, not some academic's utopian theory.)​

I didn't avoid answering your question, just didn't consider it the right question to ask, but I don't feel like continuing this discussion trying to get down to the right questions. Where you start determines where you finish. You link to an "Index of Economic Freedom." I'm more interested in questioning the idea that "freedom" can be indexed, or that the phrase "economic freedom" is anything more than an empty slogan that only makes sense as part of the system it is measuring, than I am in trying to determine if the Heritage Foundation passes my ideological litmus test. I haven't made any claims that require "factual arguments," I've made philosophical claims about the nature of economy and technique. But if you're interested in the topic, I suggest Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" where he discusses technique as the central concept of modern society and which operates the same whether an economy is "capitalist" or "communist" or left or right or whatever...ideology is just different ways of organizing technical processes.

As far a "model" society...why do we need a model? If you want examples of successful communistic societies, I'd start with indigenous communities. They won't be a model for a modern economy, of course, but that's precisely what I am questioning, the assumption that the way we do things is natural or that the ideology through which we see our society is equal to the facts (or that the terms we use are clear). I'm an anarchist, in the somewhat Daoist sense that I believe the world has its way, and the only way to be in it is to go with the flow, like breath. I don't believe in any dogmatic "model" of society, I accept the world as it is and would rather understand how it works rather than try to assure myself that there is an "ideal" model to attain to. But, of course, that won't make me much of an economist, because the idea of a modern economy is to put everything into production...I believe in the Daoist idea of wu-wei, actionless-action.

But, my "model" is always broadly Western Civilization. I consider myself a citizen of Western Civilization rather than an American or a modern. I don't view the world I live in as the culmination of WC but as another experiment to subject to the scrutiny and judgment of the ages...and I'm sure the utopian pieties and circular questioning of your namesake Socrates would have be useless to modern society...there would be no index to answer him with. But we have our American Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, for whom "limited government" was not a constitutional matter but a question of philosophy, and the problem is not whether the economy is free, but whether men in a free economy are still slaves.

 

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

...

Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow — one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Era Might

[puellapaschalis]

Understand and apply 'separation of Church and State' properly.

[Era Might]

"Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom."

Love this quote from the Index of Economic Freedom. So much ideology to unpack in two sentences, but my favorite is "the advance of economic freedom." Ellul discusses this as well, how we are unable to think about things except as extensions of our ideology...so, here, freedom becomes a crusade to be won, with the enemies being "poverty" "sickness" and "ignorance." I wonder who is more prosperous, the economically free billionaires who wield organizational power over society or the man who can plant and eat and feel the sun on his face and die in peace.

[Peace]

I think where we disagree is that you place a lot more trust in the inherent benevolence and wisdom of politicians and government bureaucrats than I do, as you seem to place a lot of trust in them to wisely and justly spend other people's money on other people.

Well. You previously advocated eliminating taxes for all purposes other than maintenance of roads and military, etc. I would probably have to agree that I am more trustful of government than you (and I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans also fall into that category). I would not say that I put a huge amount of trust in government. But I do believe that certain things are more effectively accomplished by the government than by private entities. You apparently believe that too - at least as far as the military/national defense is concerned. If the government can be more effective at national defense, then I think you can also agree that there might also be other areas in which the government is more effective.  Where that is the case, I do not see anything inherently wrong with government action.  It seems to me that your problem might not be with the government taking your money and spending it on things that directly benefit you (as the government does with taxes used for national defense). You seem to be bothered by the fact that the government takes your money and spends it on poor people. But if giving money to poor people is a good thing (which I think we can both agree to) why is it wrong when that is done by the government, in those areas where government can more effectively help poor people? My family received food stamps when I was a child. There are problems with that system, but it is a heck of a lot more reliable than driving around the city and trying to find a private/church sponsored food bank, or asking some of our neighbors for a few dollars, which we did sometimes. Now I have finished law school and do well enough for myself financially, but I don't have any problem with some of my tax dollars going to people who were in the position that I was in. The government can identify needy people a lot more effectively than I can as an individual.

(As the late, great Milton Friedman observed, people generally make the most foolish decisions when spending other people's money on other people, as government's do.  The immense irresponsibility and waste in government spending is proof of that.  $18,000,000,000,000.00 in national debt and counting . . .)

Well. I believe that a good chunk of that debt can be attributed to military spending and untimely tax cuts.  I am a big fan of Friedman as well (I especially loved the TV series he did back in the 1980's). I also think Thomas Sowell's works are great (Knowledge and Decisions in particular).  But I do not think that either of these people would go to the extreme that you seem to be advocating. Friedman was a strong advocate of a guaranteed minimum income, as you may recall.

What is needed is massive political and economic reform in those countries to help them feed themselves, rather than merely giving greater and greater amounts of food and money.  

Well. If you believe that this is what is needed, then instead of donating your surplus income to organizations that focus on hunger, you can donate your surplus income to organizations that focus on promoting political and economic reform in those countries. Alternatively, you can encourage immigration reform in the USA that makes it easier for people from those countries to live here, where they are likely to have a much greater chance to provide for themselves.

It's the whole principle of teaching a man to fish, rather than just giving him a fish.  And countries being perpetually dependent on the charity of rich countries to feed themselves is not a good thing either.  I don't think more forced government spending is the answer.

That sounds nice. But in practice "teach a man to fish" often becomes "learn to fish on your own." It becomes an excuse to do nothing.

I don't disagree with you about the importance of charitable giving, but Christ calls us all to personal sacrificial self-giving charity, not the massive forced redistribution of wealth and spending by a bureaucratic state.  Charity is a virtue.  Forced government spending of others' money is not.

Well. Again. The government need not redistribute wealth under the rationale of charity. The government can redistribute wealth under the rationale of justice (see paragraph 2446 of the Catechism). Our blessed Lord tells us to give money to the poor. I do not believe that he is on record anywhere saying "money should be given to the poor by private donations, but money should not be given to the poor by way of the government). Just because He advocates the former does not mean that he forbids the latter. I do not believe that He has has made known to us His formal stance on the latter, but the Church that He founded has taken a stance on the matter, and She has supported the redistribution of wealth via the government in some contexts (such as Her consistent support of Universal Health Care, and programs like SNAP, etc.).

I'm not saying there should be no safety net to care for those in truly desperate circumstances, but the massive growth of the bureaucratic welfare state has not been an unqualified good for the poor, and in the U.S. and elsewhere has helped create a permanent government-dependent underclass, as government takes on more roles which formerly belonged to the family and community, and has helped destroy both family and community among the urban poor, with disastrous results.  Illegitimacy, fatherless kids, crime and abortion have soared in such communities since the vast increase in federal social spending in the U.S. since the 1960's.  If more and more government spending on the poor were an unqualified good, then John Paul II would have no reason for concern about the growth of the welfare state.

I agree with this to a certain extent. We have seen problems with welfare where it provides disincentives for families to stay together. To the extent that it does I think that the system should be reformed (and it has been reformed quite a bit as you may recall). I don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bath-water.  As for whether the underclass is permanent - I am not so sure about that. There will always be a bottom 10% of course, but I think if you look at the numbers you will see that the people in the bottom 10% change quite frequently (most typically they move out of the bottom as they become older - this was the case with me and many of my friends growing up). I think you have certain groups that tend to stay near the bottom (African Americans in particular) - but I would chalk that up more to historical reasons than to the the programs of the 1960's. African Americans have always been at the bottom because we started much further behind than other groups.

Yes, good people can disagree about this, but it's wrong to suggest that the Church requires the implementation of socialized medicine as a teaching of the Faith.

I do not know or assert that She requires it. I think it is fairly clear that She supports Universal Health Care.

The problem is that socialized medicine plans such as "Obamacare" are economically unsustainable, and in reality will help raise the cost of healthcare, and make it less available in the long run.

Perhaps. But I do not think we have seen that. You have had Universal Health Care in Japan and Europe for a long time and the costs there are generally lower than ours (because the government prescribes limits on the costs). I am fairly certain that medical costs in the USA are already among the highest in the world.  But in any event I would not call Obamacare a socialized medical system. From what I understand, Obamacare requires everyone to carry health insurance, or to pay a fine. It also provides for insurance exchanges whereby private entities can can more directly compete against one another. And it got rid of things like the pre-existing medical condition exclusions. That is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is more along the lines of what the Democrats initially tried to pass through Congress, but which was rejected due to Republican influence. From what I recall, the Democrats desired to set up a system similar to what they have in Japan - they wanted to create a government sponsored insurance program, by which people could buy medical insurance directly from the government instead of buying a private insurance plan (this is what Medicare is, essentially).

Also, as Friedman noted, it is impossible to maintain a welfare state with massive unchecked immigration like we have in the U.S.  Countries such as Sweden and Japan do not have such massive immigration.

I do not think that this has been proven, although I know that it has been suggested. It seems to assume that folks who immigrate here just get on welfare and decide not to work. I am not really so convinced that is the case. In my experience at least it seems that people who come here from other countries are among the most willing to work and the hardest workers.

[Peace]

You seem to presume both saintly virtue and godlike wisdom on the part of politicians and bureaucrats.  In reality, they have neither.

Well. Again. Not exactly. I believe that there are in fact some things that are more effectively accomplished by government, as noted above. That does not mean that I believe that politicians are saints or wise (far from it).

When you place in the hands of politicians and government bureaucrats the ultimate authority to decide what property it is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" for persons to own, and to determine what everyone must do with their own property or money, you've created a recipe for tyranny and disaster on a massive scale.

But you already agree that it is acceptable for the government to take your money and spend it on things that it deems necessary (for example, the military).  You problem seems to be that the government deems it necessary to support certain people who are financially distressed. It seems that fundamentally your issue is that someone is taking your money and giving it to the poor. If that what you have a problem with, that is fine. You do not appear to have an issue with government action where it benefits you directly.

I am not advocating that the government should have control over all (or anything close to all) spending decisions, but I believe that there are areas where it makes sense for the government to take action. I do not see why spending tax money on the military should be seen as a good thing, while spending tax money on the poor should be seen as a bad thing.

[Peace]

End separation of Church and state and place civil authorities under the guidance and just authority of a strong episcopate.

​Why not put the Catholic Church in charge of the world? Jesus as Supreme Ruler and the Pope as his general. Sounds good to me.

[Socrates]

I didn't avoid answering your question, just didn't consider it the right question to ask, but I don't feel like continuing this discussion trying to get down to the right questions. Where you start determines where you finish. You link to an "Index of Economic Freedom." I'm more interested in questioning the idea that "freedom" can be indexed, or that the phrase "economic freedom" is anything more than an empty slogan that only makes sense as part of the system it is measuring, than I am in trying to determine if the Heritage Foundation passes my ideological litmus test. I haven't made any claims that require "factual arguments," I've made philosophical claims about the nature of economy and technique. But if you're interested in the topic, I suggest Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" where he discusses technique as the central concept of modern society and which operates the same whether an economy is "capitalist" or "communist" or left or right or whatever...ideology is just different ways of organizing technical processes.

As far a "model" society...why do we need a model? If you want examples of successful communistic societies, I'd start with indigenous communities. They won't be a model for a modern economy, of course, but that's precisely what I am questioning, the assumption that the way we do things is natural or that the ideology through which we see our society is equal to the facts (or that the terms we use are clear). I'm an anarchist, in the somewhat Daoist sense that I believe the world has its way, and the only way to be in it is to go with the flow, like breath. I don't believe in any dogmatic "model" of society, I accept the world as it is and would rather understand how it works rather than try to assure myself that there is an "ideal" model to attain to. But, of course, that won't make me much of an economist, because the idea of a modern economy is to put everything into production...I believe in the Daoist idea of wu-wei, actionless-action.

But, my "model" is always broadly Western Civilization. I consider myself a citizen of Western Civilization rather than an American or a modern. I don't view the world I live in as the culmination of WC but as another experiment to subject to the scrutiny and judgment of the ages...and I'm sure the utopian pieties and circular questioning of your namesake Socrates would have be useless to modern society...there would be no index to answer him with. But we have our American Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, for whom "limited government" was not a constitutional matter but a question of philosophy, and the problem is not whether the economy is free, but whether men in a free economy are still slaves.

 

​I'm not really seeing much substantive here other than that you don't seem to like the idea of economic freedom much.  It might be more informative to look at the HF's specific criteria for economic freedom (which they explain on that site), and explain why you don't believe them valid or accurate.

Economics is, of course, only one facet of human existence (and no one claims it isn't), but not entirely unimportant, as it involves human freedom and material well-being.  But trying to remedy the problems of the human soul by various socialistic means, or by increasing government control over aspects of the economy is just as materialistic and inadequate as simply saying, "the market will fix everything."

As for "indigenous societies" (whatever that means exactly), that phrase can cover a wide range of different human societies, most of which would not be "communist" in the Marxist sense.  "Indigenous" or "primitive" societies also include many that practice things such as extermination of other enemy societies, slavery, torture, rape, cannibalism, infanticide, black magic, and a lot of other ugly stuff.  Not that many of these can't be found in "advanced" or "civilized" societies too, but "indigenous" or "primitive" cultures are far from being all idyllic peaceful utopias.

I see also Western Civilization as being generally the best the world has produced, for all its many flaws and sins, though for some reason I was under the impression you weren't a fan of it (may have confused you with someone else).

[Socrates]

"Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom."

Love this quote from the Index of Economic Freedom. So much ideology to unpack in two sentences, but my favorite is "the advance of economic freedom." Ellul discusses this as well, how we are unable to think about things except as extensions of our ideology...so, here, freedom becomes a crusade to be won, with the enemies being "poverty" "sickness" and "ignorance." 

​Again, I'm not seeing much substance beyond a vague dislike of free market economies.  And do you really think a world with more poverty, disease, and ignorance is desirable?

I wonder who is more prosperous, the economically free billionaires who wield organizational power over society or the man who can plant and eat and feel the sun on his face and die in peace.

In a free economy, a man is free to pursue either path as he chooses; he is free to be a businessman, a small farmer working his own land, a tradesman, or anything else.

Economic freedom isn't ultimately about millionaires and billionaires, but about people being free to live and make a living as they choose without government micromanaging their affairs.

[Nihil Obstat]

​Of course.  Our episcopate's handling of the priestly sex abuse crisis (among other things) was nothing short of magnificent.

(And yes, Nihil, I realize you're joking. . . At least I think.)

These days.... eh. Maybe. Maybe not. 

​

​Haven't read it, but this might be heretical ultramontanism according to Vatican I. 

​Nowai.

 

My political opinions as of this moment are small and concise. They are: Immortale Dei, Diuturnum, Libertas. What the practical implications of my political leanings might be, I do not always know.

[truthfinder]

 

​

​Nowai.

 

 

Just checking. 

[Era Might]

 

Economic freedom isn't ultimately about millionaires and billionaires, but about people being free to live and make a living as they choose without government micromanaging their affairs.

​This is fundamentally where we differ. I don't consider government separately from other forms of social power and control. They all share in the same processes. I don't consider a society where business and industry micromanages people's affairs separately from a society where government does so. We're all part of a micromanaged economy, down to the shoes you wear and the phrases you use and the music you listen to. It is an assumption of modern society that we must be "homo economicus," economic man...even in a "free economy" there is still the transformation of man into an economic unit, just as totalitarianism made man a political unit. Modern economy and industry is NOT natural, and that's what makes it so productive...you have to learn the greed and hunger it takes to live in a "free economy," man is not born that way. The liberalization of politics and the economy, in my view, was half a revolution, and has replaced one dominating system with another. We have gone from a society where a small group of nobles and churchmen determined what you have to believe, to a society where marketing department determines it.