Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Vernon said:

From my perspective voting for a liberal would be a grave sin because I would be voting for someone who supports the right to kill unborn babies. It doesn't matter whatever government handouts they promise. That disqualifies them.

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election. Trump? Trump supports the right to kill unborn babies. Did you sin by voting for him?

11 minutes ago, Vernon said:

A "just wage" is when the employer and employee agree in their arrangement.

No that is not a "just wage". That is "any wage". The only thing that is excluded by your arrangement is slavery.

Dude. Read the Catechism. This is why I can't take any of you libertarians seriously. You are speaking purely in terms of economic theory. You are not talking in terms of Catholic Social Teaching. This is a Catholic forum not an economic form.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2434

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

11 minutes ago, Vernon said:

In a free society, no government tampering is necessary and neither is it helpful. By interfering they price laborers out of work, drive up prices for others and otherwise misdirect resources.

Personally I think there are better alternatives than mandating a minimum wage that better serve the common good and allow each family to provide for their needs. I'm not a huge fan of the minimum wage because I think it is inefficient, as you do. But regulations relating to wages and other work-conditions are within the proper purview of the state, whose primary purpose is serve the common good. If regulation X or regulation Y serves the common good, it is certainly proper for the state to implement it.

Again, we are not talking about economic theory here. Pure economics is concerned only with the allocation of resources, whether that is done under a Marxian economic system or a capitalist economic system. Neither is tempered by moral considerations and as such pure forms of both systems are rejected by the Church. The Church teaches that the free-market cannot be left to operate alone, complete untempered by moral considerations relating to the common good. The free market may result in the most efficient allocation of resources. That does not make the free-market moral.

You obviously haven't studied Catholic Social Teaching on any of these matters, which can be seen from the definition of a "just wage" that you set forth above. So I suggest that you study what the Church teaches.

Now, if you don't care what the Church teaches, then we have nothing left to discuss on the topic.

[Nunsuch]

Since I have never participated on this thread, I have no idea why I became a subject of discussion here. But I will say this. @fides' Jack, I don't want your insincere apologies. Frankly, what you think of me matters not at all. In fact, just ignore me. That is what I intend to do toward you in the future. I have more important things to pay attention to. @Peace, thanks for your concern. But I'm outa here. 

[little2add]

The premise of this thread is there they would be less abortions if a person had steady income. 
it brings to mine the question of what is the value of a human being?  
 

it kind of makes you wonder how our past generations came into being, before socialize welfare.  Abortion was not allowed as it was believed to be immoral. Chemical/medical birth control was not an option.  Chemical birth control (the pill) was believed to be immoral too.  
large families was common and considered a blessing.  
Sunday Businesses closed, people went to church to pray and worship and it was a day of rest.

Lest we forget the original ancient lawgivers who gave us (mankind) the Hippocratic Oath. 

The oath has been in existence from 400 BC. 

Hippocrates was a philosopher as much as a physician. He considered healing to be a scientific art. The oath sets the standards of conduct at a time when healers were considered near divine and no laws or litigations existed.

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract: 

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

Since I have never participated on this thread, I have no idea why I became a subject of discussion here. But I will say this. @fides' Jack, I don't want your insincere apologies. Frankly, what you think of me matters not at all. In fact, just ignore me. That is what I intend to do toward you in the future. I have more important things to pay attention to. @Peace, thanks for your concern. But I'm outa here. 

Thanks yeah I should chill out of a bit too. I've said my "peace" on the subject.

[little2add]

After 1973, some two thousand three hundred and seventy three after the Hippocratic Oath was written, it’s was updated by excluding the lines “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” in its entirety.

The art of medicine has gone downhill ever since!  

 

 

Our faith tells us that every life is precious from the moment of conception to the final breath

JMJ

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Nunsuch said:

Frankly, what you think of me matters not at all. 

Great, likewise.

[Nihil Obstat]

6 hours ago, Vernon said:

 

The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy

by 

Thomas E. Woods Jr.

I used to like him. If you dig back far enough in my post history you will find a great many political things that I now completely repudiate. Eventually, after reading pope Leo's fantastic encyclicals Immortale Dei, Libertas, and Diuturnum, I came to realize that Woods' position is deeply, radically un-Catholic. It absolutely flies in the face of the ordinary magisterial teachings from Leo until now. It's free-market fundamentalist, it's inherently liberal, it's a profound error.

Calling Leo's writing lifechanging for me is probably not an exaggeration. Reading them with an open mind and without pre-conceived notions of what the Church ought to be teaching gives a beautiful, coherent view of the common good, the origins of the state, and the exercise of freedom and responsibility.

 

As a sidenote, I think it is important to continue to point out that capitalism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. The basic, irreconcilable errors of liberalism are foundational for the free-market capitalist ideology. So for those conservatives out there in the ether who are quick to point out how liberalism is ruining western civilization, yes, I agree, I hope you follow through on the implications of that thought. And for any capitalists that I offend by calling them liberals, good, I hope to further offend you by drawing attention to it.

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Can the State say that it is unsafe for 6 year olds to work in coal mines? And to restrict companies from employing 6 years olds in coal mines and paying them two cents for a whole days work?

If that were a thing, then yes, but it's not, so it would make no sense for the government to make a law like that.  

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Now, obviously, the employee wage is a concrete term of the actual work contract, so there is plenty of support there for the view that the state may regulate the amount that an employee pays to its employees.

You're not wrong.  Like I said, it's my opinion, but I don't think the employee wage should qualify under the conditions that the state should have the right to regulate.  But yes, that is something that would be open to debate.  I don't think the Church supports or condemns doing so.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Dude. Read the Catechism. This is why I can't take any of you libertarians seriously. You are speaking purely in terms of economic theory. You are not talking in terms of Catholic Social Teaching. This is a Catholic forum not an economic form.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2434

Wow, an actual source that supports an argument directly!  

But I think the rest of @Vernon's statement still applies, generally: "In a free society, no government tampering is necessary and neither is it helpful. By interfering they price laborers out of work, drive up prices for others and otherwise misdirect resources."

A free society is the best way to ensure that just wages (as defined in the Catechism, quoted by @Peace) are paid in an honest format.  (Qualified in view of the last statement I made in this post - just wages are not the primary concern of a moral government, but they can certainly be a big concern)

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Again, we are not talking about economic theory here. Pure economics is concerned only with the allocation of resources, whether that is done under a Marxian economic system or a capitalist economic system. Neither is tempered by moral considerations and as such pure forms of both systems are rejected by the Church. The Church teaches that the free-market cannot be left to operate alone, complete untempered by moral considerations relating to the common good. The free market may result in the most efficient allocation of resources. That does not make the free-market moral.

Absolutely agree, 100%.

Even the founding fathers of the US agreed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  If that's true, I suspect that while the free market might be the best long-term option (qualified in view of my last statement in this post), it is the free people who make it moral, and not the other way around.  And when the people turn away from God, they not only lose their morality, but also their freedom, as we are seeing right now across the globe.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You obviously haven't studied Catholic Social Teaching on any of these matters, which can be seen from the definition of a "just wage" that you set forth above.

Rash judgment.  He could have studied it very well but simply forgot that piece, or perhaps just misspoke on the matter.

As Catholics we're obligated, by moral law, to assume the best of people.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I didn't apologize. I offered you a conditional apology of no substance, which is exactly what you offered nunsuch.

Think what you want.  I was sincere.  I just lacked the knowledge (and still do) about what needed an apology.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election. Trump? Trump supports the right to kill unborn babies. Did you sin by voting for him?

No, as the Church teaches, you are allowed to vote for a pro-abortion politician if it is the lesser of two evils, under certain conditions.  Clinton did not qualify for those conditions.  Neither did Biden.  Trump did.

If there were another party that had a chance and was not pro-abortion, we would have been morally obligated to vote for that party.  

However, despite not being entirely pro-life, we now know in hindsight that Trump was the best choice, if only because he fought to protect the unborn more than any other president since Roe v Wade.  

It's hard to believe a greater evil than abortion might arise, but the way things are looking, it's entirely possible.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Dude. This is completely ridiculous. Again, the absence of logic. I am not even going to try to explain to you why at this point.

Good, then I win that point by forfeiture.  I'll take that.   

10 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As a sidenote, I think it is important to continue to point out that capitalism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. The basic, irreconcilable errors of liberalism are foundational for the free-market capitalist ideology. So for those conservatives out there in the ether who are quick to point out how liberalism is ruining western civilization, yes, I agree, I hope you follow through on the implications of that thought. And for any capitalists that I offend by calling them liberals, good, I hope to further offend you by drawing attention to it.

I've said it before, and I still believe, that the best possible form of government is a benevolent monarchy.

Edited February 13, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Rash judgment.  He could have studied it very well but simply forgot that piece, or perhaps just misspoke on the matter.

Nonsense.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

As Catholics we're obligated, by moral law, to assume the best of people.

Take your own advice.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Clinton did not qualify for those conditions.  Neither did Biden.  Trump did.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Trump did not. So as anyone accuses Biden voters of sinning by voting for a pro-abortion politician, I accuse him of sinning for voting for a pro-abortion politician.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

If there were another party that had a chance and was not pro-abortion, we would have been morally obligated to vote for that party.  

Nonsense. That's a complete cop-out. If Catholics and other Christians took a principled stance and chose to vote only for candidates who have a stance on abortion that is consistent with the Catholic Church, then that candidate would have as solid of a chance of winning as anyone else. They don't have a "chance" because of people like you who made a sinful choice by choosing to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

However, despite not being entirely pro-life, we now know in hindsight that Trump was the best choice, if only because he fought to protect the unborn more than any other president since Roe v Wade.  

Even if he was, who cares? Being a more pro-life president than Clinton is an accomplishment now?

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I've said it before, and I still believe, that the best possible form of government is a benevolent monarchy.

Are you going to create one of those in your Antarctic fantasy-land?

[fides' Jack]

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

Take your own advice.

I have, this entire thread, at least.

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Trump did not. So as anyone accuses Biden voters of sinning by voting for a pro-abortion politician, I accuse him of sinning for voting for a pro-abortion politician.

Well, you can think that, but you're wrong.

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nonsense. That's a complete cop-out. If Catholics and other Christians took a principled stance and chose to vote only for candidates who have a stance on abortion that is consistent with the Catholic Church, then that candidate would have as solid of a chance of winning as anyone else. They don't have a "chance" because of people like you who made a sinful choice by choosing to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

So, your argument here is, I'm wrong because those people do have a chance, but they don't really have a chance because of circular logic?  So therefore I'm wrong but I'm not wrong?

In all honesty, you do bring up a fair point regarding people being too loose on the matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.  However, I DID look at all the other politicians that I could have voted for, and ALL of them were pro-abortion AND other things that made them worse than Trump.  Unfortunately, even if I assumed that all of the candidates had an equal chance of winning (which is clearly false), none of my options had a morally better stance than Trump.

So it's entirely possible to have avoided sin by voting for a 3rd party, or for Trump, it was NOT possible to avoid sin by voting for Biden.  His stance on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE was contrary to Catholic moral teaching.

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Even if he was, who cares? Being a more pro-life president than Clinton is an accomplishment now?

No, that's just my point.  I'm not happy with Trump at all from a moral stance.  He was also very pro-lgbt, which is entirely inconsistent with morality.  In fact, he was more pro-lgbt than Obama, or even Biden has been thus far.  But I have to give credit where it's due - he was more pro-life than any other president since Roe v Wade.  Again, that's not saying much...

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Are you going to create one of those in your Antarctic fantasy-land?

If only it were possible...  I certainly couldn't be the king, though.  I'm not a just man.  I imagine if I were king, that "kingdom" would end up being worse than most countries are right now.  That's not a comforting thought.

[Vernon]

Quote

I used to like him. If you dig back far enough in my post history you will find a great many political things that I now completely repudiate. Eventually, after reading pope Leo's fantastic encyclicals Immortale Dei, Libertas, and Diuturnum, I came to realize that Woods' position is deeply, radically un-Catholic. It absolutely flies in the face of the ordinary magisterial teachings from Leo until now. It's free-market fundamentalist, it's inherently liberal, it's a profound error.

And your Catholic alternative to the free market is what? You can't just demand a "living wage" if the economy can't support it for everyone. You can't demand children don't work in an undeveloped economy if they are needed to help prevent the family from starving. ETC.

It seems to me that popes and liberal politicians (as I understand and use the word "liberal", i.e. bigger government, transfers of wealth, supporting injustice such as abortion and euthanasia) don't understand economics and it's not within their area of expertise any more than is medicine or rocket science. The free market needs the framework of good laws in order to succeed, so I would agree that it can't work if there is much corruption. But I think our government here in the US is good enough that the free market can work to most fairly distribute wealth. It should not be the role of government to set prices for wages and goods and services. This interferes with the basic rights of individuals to enter into their own private agreements. 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Vernon said:

And your Catholic alternative to the free market is what? You can't just demand a "living wage" if the economy can't support it for everyone. You can't demand children don't work in an undeveloped economy if they are needed to help prevent the family from starving. ETC.

It seems to me that popes and liberal politicians (as I understand and use the word "liberal", i.e. bigger government, transfers of wealth, supporting injustice such as abortion and euthanasia) don't understand economics and it's not within their area of expertise any more than is medicine or rocket science. The free market needs the framework of good laws in order to succeed, so I would agree that it can't work if there is much corruption. But I think our government here in the US is good enough that the free market can work to most fairly distribute wealth. It should not be the role of government to set prices for wages and goods and services. This interferes with the basic rights of individuals to enter into their own private agreements. 

If we follow your silly "medicine or rocket science" analogy should we reject the pope's teachings concerning in-vitro fertilization and other infertility treatments because they are not trained medical doctors?

You have no idea whether the popes understand economics. You don't think the popes have formal education? You don't think that when they sit down to promulgate a formal teaching to be read by the entire Christian world, they don't have access to some of the most educated people in the world concerning the topic about which they write? You have not even read anything they have written but you assume that they do not understand. If you had read them, you would not need to ask "what is your Catholic alternative to the free market"? You would already have an answer to that question. The arrogance.

Look, do you want to be a faithful Catholic, or do you want to be a libertarian? You can't be both, because there are core aspects of libertarian philosophy that contradict the teaching of the Church, just as there are core aspects of socialism that contradict the Church.

[little2add]

Update…

Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Washington, or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?’ But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. ‘Why are you trying to trap me?’ he asked. ‘Bring me a quater and let me look at it.’ They brought the coin, and he asked them, ‘Whose image is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘George Washington,’ they replied. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Give back to Washington, what is Washington’s and to God what is God’s.’

[Peace]

 

13 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As a sidenote, I think it is important to continue to point out that capitalism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. The basic, irreconcilable errors of liberalism are foundational for the free-market capitalist ideology. So for those conservatives out there in the ether who are quick to point out how liberalism is ruining western civilization, yes, I agree, I hope you follow through on the implications of that thought. And for any capitalists that I offend by calling them liberals, good, I hope to further offend you by drawing attention to it.

Yeah it seems to me that the extreme forms of both of the left/right ideologies share some of the same fundamental problems when it comes to exalting freedom, and are both properly called "liberal" in that sense. People on the far left exalt freedom in the social sphere. They will say that it is a good goal to reduce the number of abortions, but we cannot impinge upon a woman's freedom with respect to her own body. Ultimately the decision as to whether to act moral is left to her. She can be punished by God for her wrong choices but she cannot be restricted by other people because she is free to make her own choices. People on the far right exalt freedom in the economic sphere. They will say that it is a good goal to provide a just wage, but we cannot impinge upon a business owner's freedom with respect to his own money. The employer should be free to pay whatever he personally decides is a "fair wage", even if it is pennies for hours of work and he makes immense profit.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Peace

[Vernon]

Laws of supply and demand are basic principles. There is nothing "extreme" there. Labor is a scarce resource. Nobody is going to work for "pennies." Even low skill jobs and fast food restaurants are paying above what they would be forced to pay by law. An employer cannot just arbitrarily pay whatever he wants to pay. If he pays too little he won't have quality employees. If he pays too much he will lose money and go out of business. 

Thomas Sowell is a fantastic resource for understanding economics. I recommend his book, Basic Economics.

Thomas Sowell on minimum wage laws:

 

Quote

Nor could the Church condemn the market in and of itself, since it rests on the inoffensive principle of peaceful, non-coerced exchanges between rightful property owners. Breathless claims to the contrary notwithstanding, that is all the free market amounts to. With Leo XIII having described the rights of property as "inviolate" in one encyclical and "sacred and inviolable" in another – phrases the Left has spent the past century trying to explain away, I might add – the Church would have to acknowledge the essential justice of a market economy at some level, even if she might for whatever reason still have complaints to register here and there.

The authority of the bishops in the Church, including the supreme pontiff himself, involves matters pertaining to faith and morals. Important as that authority is, it is mere superstition to think it confers upon them an expertise in secular disciplines. It is one thing to enumerate general principles or worthy goals, but it is quite another to propose the specific policies that are most likely to achieve those goals, or even to avoid policies that may wind up frustrating them. These latter skills necessarily involve a working knowledge of the mechanics of the discipline in question.

https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/woods/03525.html

 

Quote

Vainly barking commands at the economy cannot make reality otherwise than it is. We may as well harangue the law of gravity for dashing our hopes of soaring through the air. All people of good will would be delighted if suddenly, for the first time in world history, everyone earned a wage we considered comfortable. But if the human will alone could make everyone prosperous, then what Bangladesh lacks is not capital and secure property rights but enough protests and vigils. In what other field do Catholics feel justified in making solemn pronouncements without knowing the first thing about the subject at hand?

https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/woods/03525.html

I've posted excerpts from this article. I encourage reading it in its entirety.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Vernon said:

Laws of supply and demand are basic principles. There is nothing "extreme" there. Labor is a scarce resource. Nobody is going to work for "pennies." Even low skill jobs and fast food restaurants are paying above what they would be forced to pay by law. An employer cannot just arbitrarily pay whatever he wants to pay. If he pays too little he won't have quality employees. If he pays too much he will lose money and go out of business. 

Thomas Sowell is a fantastic resource for understanding economics. I recommend his book, Basic Economics.

Thomas Sowell on minimum wage laws:

 

 

I've posted excerpts from this article. I encourage reading it in its entirety.

Dude, I am very familiar with Thomas Sowell. I've read that book. I've read at least 10 books of his. Knowledge and Decisions; Wealth, Poverty & Politics, many more.

As far as working for pennies. Milton Friedman (one of Sowell's Mentors) did. You ever hear of a sweatshop? You think young children dying in coal mines was a fantasy?

Again, as I mentioned before, I generally am not in favor of the minimum wage (at least as implemented in the USA) for the various prudential "economic" reasons you seem to be so concerned about. I think increasing it will do more harm than good at this point.

But that's not the point. The Catholic Church does not exist to prevent distortion of the supply and demand curve. The Catholic Church does not exist to ensure that scare resources are allocated with maximum efficiency. Hell, if that were the objective why not allow abortion of children who are likely to have severe mental disabilities and are unlikely to produce? Why not kill all the physically disabled and the mentally retarded like the Nazis? They can't produce, right? They are just sucking out these precious resources, without producing no? Their existence is preventing us from having the most efficient economy, no?

If the complete abolition of private property and state control of the economy resulted in the most efficient allocation of resources, would that mean that it should be implemented? No, we can't have pure socialism, for foundational moral reasons.

Libertarian economics, and economics generally, is not guided by moral principles. It is concerned only with the efficient allocation of resources. This is why you, thinking principally in terms of pure-economics, defined a "just wage" as "when the employer and employee agree in their arrangement." The Church says that a "just wage" cannot simply be defined that way because the definition does not factor in moral considerations.

The Church is generally pro-free market, and pro-private property, but the market cannot be left to operate unbounded by moral principles. If you regress to a purely libertarian view you go beyond what the Church allows. It's the same for socialism, feminism, etc. There are aspects of these that are consistent with CST, but they cannot be accepted in full.

The teachings of the popes, who you apparently refuse to read because you believe that they do no understand anything, provide the necessary moral framework by which the free-market must be bound. That extends to things like allowing taxation (taking your money) and giving it to other people who are in need of your money. It also extends to regulating the labor relationship between employers and employees, and many other things.

This is what the popes have taught. If you don't want to follow what popes have taught time and time again, consistently for over a century, what exactly is the point of being Catholic? If you want to quote people on here who essentially say "we don't have to listen to the Pope on XYZ issue because he does not have a Ph.D in economics, a medical degree, etc." how is that functionally any different than how Protestants view their pastors?

Now. Perhaps I've misunderstood you. If you were to come on here and say "Peace. I think that the implementation of XYZ law in ABC country would not serve the common good. Instead of creating a more equitable wealth distribution that would enable the greatest number of men to provide for their families, it will create market inefficiencies that will actually increase overall poverty and shrink the middle class" - I'd take no issue with that. In fact, with respect to many regulatory policies here in the US, I'd probably agree with you.

But you can't take the extreme position that markets should be left to operate completely free, unbounded by moral principles, or that it is somehow philosophically improper for a state to impinge on personal freedom and impose regulations on an employer, in view of moral considerations like attempting to ensure that employees receive a "just wage" or attempting to ensure that new mothers are able to have time to care for their young children. That's clearly inconsistent with what the Church teaches. The operation of the free market must be bound based on moral principles, and the State is one of the institutions that has the power to bind it.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Peace

[Vernon]

I'm happy to know you are well steeped in Thomas Sowell, however that makes some of your comments about economics even more perplexing. I have only read one of his books, the one cited, and am half way through another. I can't say I'm an expert in economics or would be a good apologist for the free market, but I know enough to see that interfering with the market and peoples' ability to make voluntary arrangements, does not do any good and is in fact harmful. I would read more about economics but frankly it's too frustrating to do so because the more I understand the more I see that politics works against the best allocation of resources and against what would be ultimately more wealth for all of us. 

I didn't say there should be no regulations. There should be laws that prevent businesses from doing harm to others, and taxes to cover there use of resources, etc. Truckers hauling stone, for example, should by law be required to cover their load so stones don't damage other vehicles. Factories should not be able to dump their sludge in the river. Stuff like that is obvious and nobody who believes in the free market denies that it must be within the framework of a good government and reasonable laws. 

But a law that says overtime must be paid at time and one half hurts workers who would like extra hours. Likewise with a law that says workers must be paid a "living wage" whatever that is supposed to be. You are at least in agreement that minimum wage laws are harmful, so I don't see why you can't extend that same reasoning to other ways the government would control prices of goods or labor. 

I didn't study but at least read through two of the cited encyclicals and I don't see any contradictions with the free market.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sure would be nice if we had some magisterial guidance on the moral nature of a just wage. Hmm. Wonder where one might start, trying to find such a thing.

Here is another doozy for the liberal capitalists (and to reiterate, all capitalists are liberals). The common good is not always market efficient.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Nihil Obstat

[Vernon]

22 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Sure would be nice if we had some magisterial guidance on the moral nature of a just wage. Hmm. Wonder where one might start, trying to find such a thing.

Here is another doozy for the liberal capitalists (and to reiterate, all capitalists are liberals). The common good is not always market efficient.

That's your opinion. Your definition doesn't fall within current accepted terminology, just like some pro-abortion SJW types call themselves "pro-lifers."

It doesn't make any sense and goes against reason that economics benefiting the common good is more wasteful than allowing people to have the freedom to make their own choices and transactions.

Anyway, you cited three encyclicals. I read through two of them. Where is the conflict with the free market there?

My pastor once said EVERY job must provide a "living wage." Is this how you see it too? Or should there only be a living wage for some. Those who are privileged union government workers, for example, by force of law have enormous amounts of resources shifted to them for wages and nice pensions at the expense of burdening the taxpayers. So sure, government workers have their living wage, but there might not be enough left over for others to have it so well.  

Perhaps you could by force of law decree that we each get a minimum of $100,000 a year so everyone has a living wage and then some. (And when you pull up to McDonalds you'll pay $100 for a Big Mac).

Pope Leo didn't have a car or a TV or a computer and people living in his day were not as well off as many today living below what is a "living wage" whatever that is. Thankfully capitalism wasn't so restrained that we couldn't make those advances and have machinery that multiplies a man's labor many times, giving us all more wealth and leisure time than would have been dreamed of centuries ago.

Anyway, maybe you might come up with something specific instead of just claiming that capitalists are liberals. What would you change in the economy if it were in your power?

Thomas Woods:

"Vainly barking commands at the economy cannot make reality otherwise than it is. We may as well harangue the law of gravity for dashing our hopes of soaring through the air. "

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Vernon

[Nihil Obstat]

21 minutes ago, Vernon said:

 

Anyway, you cited three encyclicals. I read through two of them. Where is the conflict with the free market there?

 

 

 

I have some difficulty believing that you think you can fully reconcile Pope Leo's social encyclicals with free market fundamentalism. Perhaps you have spent too much of your time and energy ingesting a very narrow and very idiosyncratic way of thinking, and perhaps stepping outside of that will feel uncomfortable for some time.

As for me, I do not have the time for Phatmass debates like I used to. I am happy to share some of where my journey has taken me, but I really do not debate anymore.