The words greed and capitalism don't appear
The press on the Pope's new encyclical, Caritas in veritate, is downplaying the message and importance of the document mainly because he does not say what the Obamaite/left wants him to say.
The message of the large and theologically substantive statement is reduced, in the hands of the press, to a caution about profitability as an institution and the affirmation of the need to care for the poor. In fact, lacking anything to latch onto to confirm their worldview, The New York Times is happy to just make up the news, as when it claims that the document "lamented that greed had brought about the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."
Guess what? The word greed never appears even once in the document at all. The reliably "progressive" Jesuit publication couldn't really find much to help their cause either but at least they are more honest about it.
Fortunately, everyone can read the document for himself to discover that the Pope refuses to reject the idea of economic development and in fact praises economic development, blaming the economic crisis not on neither greed nor the market but on "the damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing" (21). He specifically rejects the idea that the market depends on impoverishing people. "Society does not have to protect itself from the market," he says in 36. He praises globalization and attacks protectionism by name (42). He praises international trade: "the possibility of marketing their products is very often what guarantees their survival in both the short and long term. Just and equitable international trade in agricultural goods can be beneficial to everyone." (58). Profit as an economic institution is affirmed as is the market generally ("permits encounter between persons" - 35). He further attacks the view that changing institutions alone will fix all problems ("Man does not develop through his own powers, nor can development simply be handed to him" - 11). He warns against the tyrannizing effects of the welfare and regulatory states (57) and calls for radical decentralization to remedy them.
Most exciting for me is this wonderful passage: "On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care" (22). I wish it had gone further to reject the whole idea of a IP but this is an excellent statement as far as it goes.
Overall, this encyclical--save one error concerning "equivalent value" in exchange--makes no great mistakes in economic analysis and offers no political blueprint that helps those who want to overthrow market institutions. Its focus is ethical and theological -- which is sort of what one hopes for from the Pope.
Comments (67)
Joe
And here I was worrying that the pope was anti-capitalist. Being catholic and believing in austrian economics just got easier.
Published: July 7, 2009 8:28 AM
Ireland
For the record, "capital" appears 11 times, and "capitalistic" makes 1 occurence.
There are some strange claims, like "the most valuable resources in countries receiving development aid are human resources: herein lies the real capital that needs to accumulate in order to guarantee a truly autonomous future for the poorest countries".
But all in all, at first glimpse it looks quite nice.
Published: July 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Sylvain
I think you're reading in this text what you want to read. For example your interpretation of 57 is
"He warns against the tyrannizing effects of the welfare and regulatory states (57) and calls for radical decentralization to remedy them."
Below is the actual excerpt from 57 that leads to this interpretation:
"In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."
In short: "globalization certainly requires authority".
Below is another excerpt (24):
"Today, as we take to heart the lessons of the current economic crisis, which sees the State's public authorities directly involved in correcting errors and malfunctions, it seems more realistic to re-evaluate their role and their powers, which need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as to enable them, perhaps through new forms of engagement, to address the challenges of today's world. Once the role of public authorities has been more clearly defined, one could foresee an increase in the new forms of political participation, nationally and internationally, that have come about through the activity of organizations operating in civil society; in this way it is to be hoped that the citizens' interest and participation in the res publica will become more deeply rooted."
So one could just as well argue that this encyclical can in fact be used as a "blueprint that helps those who want to overthrow market institutions".
Published: July 7, 2009 9:33 AM
Mike
Joe: http://mises.org/store/Church-and-the-Market-P199.aspx
Makes it extremely easy
Published: July 7, 2009 9:39 AM
RWW
Hopefully some of the intellectual damage done by previous Popes can begin to be undone by this one; apparently his inclinations are more reasonable. But I do wish more people would think for themselves rather than lazily adhering to the opinions of a "holy man" who is probably no more informed of economic principles than they are.
Published: July 7, 2009 9:42 AM
Inquisitor
I don't know, what Sylvain quoted pales by comparison to the anti-capitalist screeds that some of the previous encyclicals have been. If one expects the Pope to be a market anarchist they are deluded, but he does not seem to be an anti-market fanatic (saying this as an atheist.)
Published: July 7, 2009 9:43 AM
newson
i'm not catholic, but have a soft spot for this ex-defender of the doctrine, believing that he is one of the most thoughtful religious scholars alive.
i don't like his idea of strengthening trade-unions, nor does condemning part-time/casual work really address the root cause - excessive politicization and bureaucratization of the work force. so his appeal of work for all is well-intentioned but in conflict with the reality of most of western europe.
i was pleased that the un and ongs copped an admonition regarding third world aid.
Published: July 7, 2009 9:45 AM
RWW
Ah, in light of what Sylvain points out, it appears I spoke too soon.
Published: July 7, 2009 9:45 AM
8
Almost any journalist writing about the Vatican is completely ignorant of the Church. None of them expected Ratzinger to be Pope, but he was the odds on favorite.
The Church moves very, very slowly and reversing past anti-capitalist doctrine takes time. You cannot read this encyclical in isolation. That said, the Church will never move beyond a Christian libertarian position. Consider Ratzinger in 1985:
It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse. An economic policy that is ordered not only to the good of the group – indeed, not only to the common good of a determinate state – but to the common good of the family of man demands a maximum of ethical discipline and thus a maximum of religious strength.
Published: July 7, 2009 10:43 AM
I Can't Believe It
Why do people claim that the Pope, biased media, mainstream media etc. can "damage" the intellect of the people ?
What ? Are people so stupid that they immediately believe anything being told to them ? Especially if it's said on television or by a celebrity ?
A celebrity said it so it must be true ???
Oprah said it so we must blindfully trust and obey Oprah ?
The Pope said it so let's all obey the Pope ?
It appeared on TV so let's all obey TV ??
Are people really like that ?
Am I the only one who questions everything and distrusts everything ?
Am I the only one who requires proof and who wants to verify information ?
I am accused of being crazy and I am treated like a lunatic everytime I refuse to take any information at face value.
I can't believe it but it would seem that independent tought and critical thinking is frowned upon by society and humanity as a whole.
Are we genetically programmed to be herds of stupid unthinking and docile individuals ?
If this is so then I think that free market capitalism and libertarianism will never see the light because we are programmed in our DNA to defeat ourselves.
Published: July 7, 2009 11:11 AM
jeffrey
@I can't believe it, it's fine that you don't care what the Pope says or don't think it matters. That's up to you. I just posted in case there are people who are interested in what he actually says as versus what the NYT says that he says.
Published: July 7, 2009 12:19 PM
fundamentalist
After reading the encyclical, I don’t understand how Jeff and Sam Gregg at the Acton Institute can spin it in such positive ways. The Pope clearly intends to stand in the middle between communism and laissez-faire capitalism as former Popes have for centuries. All Popes have seen evil in both systems.
Throughout the encyclical, the Pope insists on “social justice,” which at times he explicitly defines as redistribution of wealth. He regularly laments inequality as feature of economic development. He promotes unions throughout as well as the leftist environmental agenda.
In the excerpts below, all of the italicized words are from the original.
Par 21: “Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.”
Par 25: “From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many countries in Paul VI's day, are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today's profoundly changed environment… The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.”
Par 32: “The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner[83], and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.”
Par 35: “But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy... In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function.”
Par 36: “Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
Par 37: “.Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift.”
Par 39: “Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other.”
Par 40: “… Without doubt, one of the greatest risks for businesses is that they are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limiting their social value… there is nevertheless a growing conviction that business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various elements of production, the community of reference.
Par 49: “…What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them….”
Par 63: “In many cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work… For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for “a global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144], supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization…”
Par 64: “While reflecting on the theme of work, it is appropriate to recall how important it is that labour unions — which have always been encouraged and supported by the Church — should be open to the new perspectives that are emerging in the world of work.”
Par 67: “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago… Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.”
Published: July 7, 2009 12:48 PM
Inquisitor
I don't believe anything that doesn't stand up to reason, regardless of whether someone tells me or not - I think what Jeffrey was doing was questioning that socialists can use this in their defence, that their religious leaders are also for socialism, for clearly it is not the case in this encyclical.
Published: July 7, 2009 12:49 PM
fundamentalist
I wish the current Pope had the fire in his belly that the late Scholastics enjoyed. They thrashed the Spanish king for diluting the money and price controls. They extolled the virtues of the free market in producing the "just price" and insisted on the sanctity of property.
Most Popes seem to have decided that the morality of an action lies not in the process or in intentions, but in the outcome, as if theft can be justified if it's by the poor against the rich.
He never once mentions property, the moral foundation of most ethics, yet claims to speak about morality. And he writes about ethics, while never discussing the unethical treatment of money by the government.
Published: July 7, 2009 12:55 PM
jeffrey
Redistribution can occur through market means or statist means -- you have to read this through the eyes of tradition and expectation. Words here do not conform to existing political vocabulary: that's a bare minimum understanding if you are to read this correctly. Also, in most places in the world huge disparities of wealth do indeed suggest injustice. As for workers associations, they can be forced or voluntary and note that he calls for the reform of unions as they currently exist.
Now, as for the equivalent value error, that is obviously a mistake and a regrettable one.
On the whole, this document is not what the socialists had hoped. I think that should be clear. And it does contain much that is either good or unobjectionable from a libertarian point of view.
Published: July 7, 2009 12:55 PM
David C
@jeffrey
Yeah, but that's what's so irritating about the Catholic church. For example, they'll go on and on about social justice. Theologically speaking, that doesn't mean "have the government take peoples money and redistribute it", but pratically speaking most Catholics read it that way and the Church refuses to be unambiguous about it. One can read parts of Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, or Hope and have little or no confusion about the morality of state intervention in peoples lives. Read parts of the encyclical, and one comes out wondering what the hell it really said.
Why don't they just get up there and say something like, "taxation is theft", as in violation of the 7th commandment, as in stealing, as in not doing onto others as you would have them do on to you? It's simple, it's moral, and it's the truth. Instead I'm likely to get some long ambiguous sermon about give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God. What the hell is wrong with these people, I'm having the daylights knocked out of me here. I've herd sermons and guilt-trips for 30 years, but have had yet to hear anything even remotely close to relief or acknowledgement of the hell that the state has become. Also, what ever happened to the 10th commandment, "do not covet thy neighbours goods." - have you ever even herd the rantings of big name Catholic democrats going on and on about getting their fair share from the "rich". When is someone going to call their bluff, ex-communicate these bastards, it's the least of what they deserve.
Moral leadership? Like the hell it is.
Published: July 7, 2009 2:17 PM
I Can't Believe It
Jeffrey,
My point being that people should make up their own mind and should not just believe everything their told.
My complaint is not about your or your post but about humanity as a whole who can't seem to make up it's own mind.
Humanity seems to be genetically programmed to believe and obey celebrities and television and never question their word. That is very scary.
Published: July 7, 2009 2:55 PM
Robbie Clark
This blog post over at LewRockwell.com is instructive. Whether many Catholics will get it, I cannot say.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029146.html
Published: July 7, 2009 3:02 PM
fundamentalist
Jeff: "Redistribution can occur through market means or statist means..."
Technically, the market wouldn't redistribute wealth or income, it would create new wealth, particularly for the poor. But if you look at the way the US Bishops interpret redistribution, they understand it as state redistribution of wealth and I think the Pope makes it clear that is his understanding, too.
Jeff: "most places in the world huge disparities of wealth do indeed suggest injustice."
That's true, and the Pope mentions those, but he also mentions the inequalities in wealthy nations and between nations as being unjust.
Jeff: "As for workers associations, they can be forced or voluntary and note that he calls for the reform of unions as they currently exist."
Forced or voluntary association isn't the issue with unions, it's the coercive power they have over businesses with the backing of the state that's the problem and the Pope seems to have no problems with that.
David: "Read parts of the encyclical, and one comes out wondering what the hell it really said."
The Pope is just perpetuating the historical position of the Church in the middle between socialism and capitalism. It opposes socialism on principle, but opposes capitalism because of outcomes it doesn't like. The Pope still clings to the illusion that the state can "moderate" a market economy through intervention that produces the outcomes the Church desires, in spite of the centuries of evidence that state intervention causes the undesirable outcomes, not the free market.
Published: July 7, 2009 3:03 PM
Rafael
fundamentalist:
Jeff's use of the word "resitribution" is accurate. The state does not just destroy wealth, it also redistributes (mainly from the deserving to the undeserving and from the poor to the privileged). To that extent, free-market reforms would redistribute wealth back to the rightful owners, many of whom are poor. That said, you are right that many Catholics, including clergy, misinterpret which forms of redistribution are just and which are not.
You also contradict yourself on unions. Jeff is correct that their coercive nature is the unjust part. You grasp this as well, given your mention of the state's backing. But their influence over business is not relevant to the morality of unions. As an empirical fact, we know that absent state backing, collective bargaining by labor would have little influence over wages. But even if it did have influence, because of a shortage of labor, for example, it would still be legitimate so long as employers were not penalized for firing the organized workers.
And finally, you are right that the modern leadership of the Church has for a couple of centuries seemed hostile to laissez-faire. But as others here have noted, the Church has a much longer history of supporting freedom against statist intervention (e.g. the Scholastics). He is also pointing out that believing Catholics who are libertarians have little to fear from the encroaching ideology of social democracy further corrupting communications from the Vatican. If anything, this Pope appears to be moving in a salutary direction on these things.
Published: July 7, 2009 3:32 PM
fundamentalist
Rafael: "Jeff's use of the word "resitribution" is accurate."
Technically accurate in the terms you describe it, but that is clearly not the definition the Pope is working with in the encyclical and not the way Bishops understand it.
Rafael: "As an empirical fact, we know that absent state backing, collective bargaining by labor would have little influence over wages."
But I believe the Pope is addressing the real world, where every union has state backing it, not a theoretical world without it. Unions must have the gun of the state pointed at business's head or they will be totally ineffective and they know it.
Rafael: "He is also pointing out that believing Catholics who are libertarians have little to fear from the encroaching ideology of social democracy further corrupting communications from the Vatican."
I disagree. As Mises and Hayek pointed out, state intervention in the economy is creeping socialism. Piecemeal intervention as the Pope advocates always ends in socialism because you can't eat just one. One intervention begets another because each interventions causes problems that require either a return to a free market or increased intervention. The state always opts for greater intervention.
We would have to go back 80 years to find a time when the state intervened less than it does today, yet the Pope calls for greater state intervention?
Published: July 7, 2009 4:08 PM
realnumber
fundamentalist: Some of the inequalities in wealthy nations and between nations -are- unjust, being produced by statism and fascism.
Published: July 7, 2009 4:11 PM
Rafael
On the whole, unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with fundamentalist. It seems strange for a Catholic to rejoice when a pope lets slip a stray truth here and there on socio-economic matters. More troubling is the ignorance of economics and deference to our statist masters that continue to pervade communications even from the top of the hierarchy.
Published: July 7, 2009 4:32 PM
sicsempertyrannis
The Popes will probably never come out in favor of total laissez-faire. That is something many Catholics like myself who support free markets will just have to accept.
David C"
"Why don't they just get up there and say something like, "taxation is theft", as in violation of the 7th commandment, as in stealing, as in not doing onto others as you would have them do on to you? It's simple, it's moral, and it's the truth."
That has never been the Catholic understanding of the 7th Commandment. Taxes, in of themselves, are not considered theft by Catholic tradition. Since we Catholics do not accept the protestant notion of sola scriptura, we do not 're-interpret' the Bible. The 7th Commandment means what the Catholic Church says it means.
Published: July 7, 2009 4:52 PM
Borislav
I'm Orthodox Christian (I can say devoted) and I think Austrian economics is on par with my faith (I especially like Mises' Human Action).
As far as I know there no universal Orthodox stand to the free market economy (Orthodox Churches are against statism as majority of them suffered under Communist regimes), but Russian Orthodox Church published "Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church".
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=25
Enjoy in reading:
VI. Labour and its fruits
VII. Property
In Holy Scriptures there is no censure of richness as such. Abraham and the Old Testament patriarchs, the righteous Job, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were well-off people. An owner of a considerable wealth does not sin if he uses it in accordance with the will of God to Whom everything belongs and with the law of love; for the joy and fullness of life lie not in acquirement and possession but in giving and sacrifice.
In general, the Church cannot approve the alienation and re-distribution of property with violations of the rights of its legitimate owners.
Published: July 7, 2009 4:56 PM
David V
There must be two different encyclicals published, because the one the NYT reads has an entirely different message:
He criticized the current economic system, “where the pernicious effects of sin are evident,” and urged financiers in particular to “rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity.”
He also called for “greater social responsibility” on the part of business. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty,” Benedict wrote in his new encyclical, which the Vatican released on Tuesday. "
Published: July 7, 2009 4:59 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Jeff, let's hope that the Vatican now changes its own copyright policy. As I noted in Holy Copyright!, the US, unlike many states, claims no copyright in any official works of the government or its agencies, but unfortunately the Vatican has assigned the copyrights to papal texts to the Vatican publishing house and “it appears the Vatican is determined to enforce the copyrights.” For example,
I don’t often side with fundamentalists, but I will admit I don’t see anything in the Bible authorizing the Church to institute copyright law….
Pope Benedict: Tear Down Your Copyright Walls!
(Still, as I noted in the post, the Vatican does not tax; it’s supported by voluntary contributions. As such, it's the only libertarian state in the world.)
Published: July 7, 2009 5:04 PM
Borislav
Accidentally hit submit...
This is interesting:
As donation is a special case of economic and social relations, it should not be made automatically subject to the laws regulating finances and economy of a state, in particular, public taxation. The Church declares that the income drawn through entrepreneurial activity can be taxed, but any encroachment on the donations of believers is a crime before people and God.
From VI. Labour and its fruits:
Holy Scriptures points to the two moral motives of labour: work to sustain oneself without being a burden for others and work to give to the needy. The apostle writes: 'Let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth' (Eph. 4:28). Such labour cultivates the soul and strengthens the body and enables the Christian to express his faith in God-pleasing works of charity and love of his neighbours (Mt. 5:16; James 2:17). Everyone remembers the words of St. Paul: 'If any would not work, neither should he eat' (2 Thes. 3:10).
VI. 5. The Church blesses every work aimed to benefit people. At the same time, she does not give preference to any form of human work if it conforms to Christian moral standards.
Therefore, she calls upon society to ensure the equitable distribution of the fruits of labour, in which the rich support the poor, the healthy the sick, the able-bodied the elderly. The spiritual welfare and survival of society are possible only if the effort to ensure life, health and minimal welfare for all citizens becomes an indisputable priority in distributing the material resources.
(No mention of state welfare but call for voluntary welfare).
Any comment?
Published: July 7, 2009 5:08 PM
Rafael
sicsempertyrannis:
I think you grant too much deference to popes' personal opinions on the state. It is true that taxation has not been considered theft in "the Catholic" tradition, insofar as the Church has never authoritatively taught that taxation is intrinsically immoral. But neither has it taught that it is *not* intrinsically immoral. And I would venture to suggest (as a Catholic) that the Church has no authority to teach that taxation is not theft.
It has authority to teach on faith and morals, which govern relations between individuals. If the state is just a bunch of individuals, then they are bound by the same laws as others. Those include not stealing from your neighbor in order to fund your own projects (philanthropic or otherwise).
If, on the other hand, the state is a different kind of entity than an individual, which is subject to different laws, then it is no longer within the authority of the Church to instruct it (except to prohibit its transgressions against individual rights). Rather, it becomes subject to the secular discipline of political philosophy, on which the Church has and can have no official positions (except where political philosophies directly oppose Christian moral law by transgressing against individual rights).
Published: July 7, 2009 6:03 PM
fundamentalist
Rafael: "And I would venture to suggest (as a Catholic) that the Church has no authority to teach that taxation is not theft."
Actually, the Church has that authority because the Bible deals with. The Bible and the Church consider the state to be a legit institution and therefore can collect taxes. The problem with Church doctrine is that it doesn't clearly define the role of the state and therefore what is legit taxation.
Published: July 7, 2009 6:22 PM
Bruce Koerber
Divine Economy Ethics
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Will Pope's Encyclical Stimulate Interest In The Divine Economy Theory?
I became aware of the new encyclical because it appeared on Google Blog under the key words 'divine economy.'
It is interesting to see how people of all persuasions feel about the pronouncements made, but I think the most interesting aspect is the raising of awareness about the divine economy.
Ready to greet that heightened awareness, the divine economy theory is definitely increasingly pertinent since it has the uncompromising and ethical foundation to purge all human intervention out of the economy. Scientifically, it proves that economic intervention is nothing but a corruption.
Published: July 7, 2009 6:50 PM
David C
@fundamentalist, @Rafael
See it proves my point, the "taxation is theft" debate is just one of millions of examples. You will never pin it down, because they are a fraud. LVMI has more moral leadership than the Catholic Church. I don't think the Church knows what's right or wrong, they just sort of figure it out long after it's no longer the relevant issue at hand.
Published: July 7, 2009 7:31 PM
newson
to david c:
the catholic church is a beneficiary of taxation, sorry to burst your bubble. the italian state devolves billions of euros annually to the vatican state. i've nothing against the church being exempt from taxation, but the "uno per mille" contribution goes to the catholic church by default, unless the taxpayer chooses an alternative charity.
any attentive follower of the vatican knows that it's an active player in domestic politics, too.
Published: July 7, 2009 7:47 PM
Nuke Gray
If you're curious about how papers treat news, our 'The Australian' emphasised the Pope's call for a UN with more powers. What did other papers emphasise?
Published: July 7, 2009 8:00 PM
Nick
Why is Mises.org/LRC so pro-Catholic? Weird. I did read a conspiracy once that said that Catholics killed Lincoln, and LRC DOES hate Lincoln....oh, didn't Kinsella attack the protestant reformation of all things ? *runs*
My reading of the Pope's statements today is that he is a new world order toadie like all the rest.
Published: July 7, 2009 8:07 PM
sicsempertyrannis
"See it proves my point, the "taxation is theft" debate is just one of millions of examples. You will never pin it down, because they are a fraud. LVMI has more moral leadership than the Catholic Church"
Oh Please. LvMI is a think tank; it does not deal in the salvation of people's immortal souls. To suggest a think tank has more 'moral leadership' than the Catholic Church is nothing short of blasphemy.
"any attentive follower of the vatican knows that it's an active player in domestic politics, too."
As long as a state exists, the Church has a moral duty to be involved. (not that I agree with the concept of a state) Now, over time the Church has become more and more wary of state involvement in its own politics (for example, Kingdoms used to have veto power over the appointment of Bishops within their realm).
"Why is Mises.org/LRC so pro-Catholic? Weird. "
Not really, when you consider that its president and many of its scholars are Catholic.
Published: July 7, 2009 8:51 PM
newson
to stephan kinsella:
hmmm, the vatican doesn't tax, but the italian government does, on its behalf. if you search for "l'uno per mille", you'll find details on how italian tax proceeds end up in vatican coffers (by default: taxpayers can chose other charities, if they so choose).
Published: July 7, 2009 9:11 PM
RWW
To suggest a think tank has more 'moral leadership' than the Catholic Church is nothing short of blasphemy.
Only if one considers the Catholic Church to be something that can be blasphemed against. I certainly do not.
Published: July 7, 2009 9:35 PM
Bruce Koerber
Economics and Religion
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Moral Authority Does Not Reside With The Ego-Driven.
Just as reprehensible as the ego-driven interventionists are the ego-driven interpreters.
And the sad plight of humanity in these Dark Ages of economics are the result of both of these (as individuals and/or as institutions) that do not have the moral authority that they think they have.
Published: July 7, 2009 10:25 PM
David C
"Oh Please. LvMI is a think tank; it does not deal in the salvation of people's immortal souls. To suggest a think tank has more 'moral leadership' than the Catholic Church is nothing short of blasphemy."
It's the truth, prove me wrong. Freedom and liberty are a moral cause. If it's blasphemy then refer me to excommunication hearing. I beg you, I'd die for the opportunity to set the record straight about whose acting like a moral authority and whose not.
Published: July 7, 2009 10:36 PM
sicsempertyrannis
"Only if one considers the Catholic Church to be something that can be blasphemed against. I certainly do not."
Fine, but I am only speaking within the assumption of belief.
"It's the truth, prove me wrong. Freedom and liberty are a moral cause. "
'Freedom' and 'liberty' are both idol gods without any context.
Published: July 7, 2009 11:23 PM
Jonas
I've skipped over some of the debate here, but I think it's worth pointing out that even the Pope's few policy prescriptions (like setting up a "global authority" to regulate economic issues) are generic enough to be embraced by free market types. I'm sure most people think of "global authority" in terms of something like an international regulatory agency that enforces oppressive tax regimes universally and things like that. But his prescription just as easily lends itself to an interpretation like: A sort of "global" Bill of Economic Rights (or something), in which nations could theoretically agree to competitive taxation, bank privacy, anti-protectionism, what-have-you.
Now, realistically, nations would never agree to such things... but the Pope's encyclical could be just as compatible with that sort of thing as the sort of social programming that people are arguing it espouses (and I'm not quite sure it does).
Just my two cents...
Published: July 7, 2009 11:26 PM
David C
sicsempertyrannis:'Freedom' and 'liberty' are both idol gods without any context.
No, freedom and liberty derive from free will which is a direct consequence of the Holy Spirit nature of God. Their context is absolute, they are an ends.
It's not a coincidence that the Holy Spirit was first revealed to Moses. You know, that guy who stood up to the Pharaoh demanding "let my people go" (free will), and who led the Jews out of slavery (freedom).
If anything, it's the LvMI that respects the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church's ambivalence that's acting blasphemous here.
Published: July 8, 2009 12:19 AM
David V
Jonas:
"Now, realistically, nations would never agree to such things... but the Pope's encyclical could be just as compatible with that sort of thing as the sort of social programming that people are arguing it espouses"
Yes, if you ignore the context of a document and of the author's beliefs, you can find a quote to suport just about anything. I'm sure I could find excerpts within the Communist Manifesto which can be twisted to appear to support capitalism. However, the reality is that the Vatican combines a Marxist European political philosophy with the evil moral philosophy of the bible. No the Pope not going to come out for socialism outright - 100 million dead victims of Communism make that a difficult evasion to state outright. But the moral philosophy of Christianity will always lead Christians to support principles which hold socialism as morally superior to free markets and individual rights.
Published: July 8, 2009 2:02 AM
jeffrey
The more I think about this, I'm realizing that core problem with the document might in fact be its underlying value theory. If exchange takes place between goods of equal value, there is really no point, no wealth created, and even a net loss to society because of the costs associated with making the exchange in the first place -- all views derived from Aristotle. Perhaps this is why the document doesn't show enough appreciation for the productive and creative powers of the market order. If it is just a matter of shuffling around existing goods, distribution becomes more important than anything else. It shows the danger of seemingly small theoretical errors.
Published: July 8, 2009 7:53 AM
fundamentalist
David C: "See it proves my point, the "taxation is theft" debate is just one of millions of examples."
"Taxation is theft" only applies to the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. If you don't subscribe to that ethical system, then it's not. Neither Mises nor Hayek subscribed to it. They followed the natural law ethic in which the state has a legitimate right to taxation. It's popular today to make up your own ethics and claim they apply to everyone. But most people realize that if they're made up, they don't apply to anyone. Nevertheless, if Rothbard and Hoppe have the right to make up an ethical system, the Church has that right as well.
Published: July 8, 2009 8:00 AM
fundamentalist
Jeff, I think you may have a valid point there. I did notice at times that the document appears to subscribe to the ancient limited wealth fallacy in which one group can increase its wealth only at the expense of others.
Published: July 8, 2009 8:06 AM
Bruce Koerber
Money and Ethics
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Can Taxation Ever Be Non-Coercive?
Taxation as we know it is coercive and so it is theft.
When corruption is removed - in other words, when the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters are recognized as having no moral authority and therefore are shunned - then taxation which is accepted voluntarily does serve a purpose and advances civilization.
Published: July 8, 2009 9:42 AM
RWW
"Taxation is theft" only applies to the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. If you don't subscribe to that ethical system, then it's not.
It's more a matter of definition than ethics. Any definition of "theft" in the common sense would have to make an incongruous exception for any organization calling itself a government, in order for taxation not to be included by default.
Nevertheless, if Rothbard and Hoppe have the right to make up an ethical system, the Church has that right as well.
The problem is that the Church's ethical system is at odds with their supposed ends.
Published: July 8, 2009 1:27 PM
Nuke Gray
David V, you don't know what you're talking about! The Bible supports capitalism. If the State was supposed to be our conscience, it would have been united with the temple from the first, but the Bible insists upon King and High Priest being different people, from different tribes. Also, the Bible commands us to love our neighbour AS ourselves! Not less than (paternalism/aristocracy), not more than (altruism). And let's not forget that the parable of the Good Samaritan was given as an example of loving your neighbour, even if he is from a different race. Jesus used it as a weapon against racism.
So what part of the Bible don't you like? Did you know that Calvin found Democracy in the Bible- he took a prophecy (in Micah?) about returning Israelites 'choosing their princes' as a prediction that Democracy was endorsed by God.
So what is your beef?
Published: July 8, 2009 7:58 PM
RWW
You speak of the Bible as if its writings were intended to be placed together in one consistent moral guidebook, and of Calvin and democracy as if they were worthy of praise.
Published: July 8, 2009 11:08 PM
Nuke Gray
Smart of you to notice, RWW! Well done!
And your point is...?
(Whilst Calvin and Democracy are not now considered ideal, they were better than other types of Government at the time, and democracy over public properties is still my preferred option- private properties should be personal monarchies.)
Published: July 9, 2009 1:01 AM
Gil
"No, freedom and liberty derive from free will which is a direct consequence of the Holy Spirit nature of God. Their context is absolute, they are an ends." - David C.
Call me pedantic but I 'liberty' as a term closer 'no-coercion' favoured by Libertarian (note the 'libert-' parts) whereas 'freedom' (to me) can mean licensure (i.e. 'freedom from' being honesly punishe for a despicable crime). Horses for courses I guess.
Published: July 9, 2009 1:42 AM
fundamentalist
RWW: "Any definition of "theft" in the common sense would have to make an incongruous exception for any organization calling itself a government..."
No, theft in the commons usage does not include taxes. Rothbard's ethic makes taxation theft by making the right to property absolute. Natural law, which guided moral thinking for centuries, provides a legitimate role for the state and therefore its right to tax, just as Mises and Hayek did.
RWW: "The problem is that the Church's ethical system is at odds with their supposed ends."
Are you referring to the modern Church or the historical Church? The modern Church deviates quite a bit from its historical stance on property and the role of the state. If you read the Scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries, you'll find them very pro free markets and against state intervention in the economy except in times of famine and war. Of course, I'm a Baptist so I care more about what the Bible says than what the Church says.
Gil: "'liberty' as a term closer 'no-coercion'"
Libertarians have no problem coercing criminals. Under natural law, a tax evader is a criminal.
Published: July 9, 2009 7:57 AM
fundamentalist
Jeffrey, On further reflection, maybe I'm just not used to interpreting encyclicals as Catholics are. I can understand why the Pope is intentionally vague on technical details. His main purpose is to teach on the moral aspect of things, not get into debates on the techniques of economics. And we should keep in mind that he has a wider audience than just Americans libertarians.
I think if I were going to spin the encyclical in a positive way for libertarians, I would focus on the call for greater morality in the financial markets. Most people will see that as a rebuke to the investment bankers and mortgage lenders, but we could also see it as a condemnation of central banks and their dishonest manipulation of money. That interpretation would bring the encyclical in line with the Scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries who condemned the dilution of gold coins and price controls by the king of Spain.
In addition, a central bank is a violation of the Church's principle of subsidiarity. The appropriate institution for determining the value of money is the marketplace.
And the encyclical's concern for the poor opposes inflationary policies that rob the poor and give to the rich. I can also see the encyclical as opposing the accumulation of debt by the federal gov because it removes the burden from our shoulders and places it on those of our children and grandchildren without their consent.
Published: July 9, 2009 8:08 AM
RWW
No, theft in the commons usage does not include taxes.
No, of course most people don't intend to include taxation when they speak of theft, but if they attempted to exclude it from the definition, they would have to do so exolicitly. The exclusion of so-called taxation from the definition of theft is by no means a natural or automatic thing.
Published: July 9, 2009 10:01 AM
RWW
That should read "explicitly," of course.
Published: July 9, 2009 10:01 AM
Daniel
When asked about his opinions on the global economic crash, Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan told PBS: "It’s a systemic crisis but the system’s been living for 300 years. And they’ve saved it every time. And the question is: will they save it this time?
"And I think the bets are that they will. Because this isn’t just a question of finance, but a question of political power. And if the western financial system collapses, the western political body goes with it...The cost has always been paid by the people in the past. The elites have gotten away with it." (quoted from http://www.newsy.com/videos/the_ethics_of_economic_survival)
So what does that have to do with this encyclical? I don't see that this word from the Pope will carry that much influence in a largely secular society. The elite will do what benefits them, whether that's maintaining the status quo or pushing for a NWO.
Published: July 13, 2009 11:24 AM
Brian
#36 seems to have many points that are in agreement with Austrian principles. However, I cannot see how the following squares with it:
"The Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it or “after” it. The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner."
Economics (and the market he says above) is not inherently evil, which is good to hear, but where does this leave Austrians of an Anarcho-capitalist bent? I can't square ethically governed economics with Austrian theory. Perhaps I am missing something?
Published: July 14, 2009 11:39 AM
fundamentalist
Brian, I think it's important to keep in mind that "thou shalt not steal" is the bedrock foundation of economics. It sanctifies property. Then if you build an economic system based on that moral principle and one which protects property as if it were holy from theft by anyone, you end up with the free market system of the Dutch Republic. After all, laissez-faire economics is nothing but the right to property, and its protection, instantiated.
Published: July 14, 2009 12:14 PM
fundamentalist
What really chaps my hide about all Christians, not just the Catholic Church, is their emphasis on charity. Yes, the Bible commands it as an act of love. Yes, we all should practice it. But if Christians care about the poor as they claim, all Christians would the foremost champions of capitalism. Capitalism is the form of government that protects life, liberty and property through the rule of law with honest courts and police. Free markets are nothing but the instantiation of property rights.
Capitalist thought began with the Late Scholastics, especially those of the School of Salamanca. But it became a reality only in the Dutch Republic. As a result, the Dutch were the first people in the history of mankind to escape the Malthusian cycles of famine and mass starvation. Capitalism spread throughout Europe, North America, Australia and eventually Japan and everywhere it lifted people from excruciating poverty to amazing wealth.
In our own generation we have witnessed the Chinese miracle. In the 1970’s and 80’s, the US had to “loan” China billions of dollars to buy grain to fend off mass starvation. Then Deng allowed a tiny, tiny sliver of freedom in agricultural markets and the Chinese suddenly had abundant food. The rise of China has been miraculous for those who don’t understand the power of the free market. India is also experiencing similar reductions in poverty by freeing its markets.
The West has sent billions of dollars in charity to the poor countries of the world since WWII and we have nothing to show for it. Charity has been an absolute failure any way you want to measure it, while the limited spread of capitalism has created miracles. So why aren’t Christians the main cheerleaders of capitalism? Are they completely brain dead! Or are they lying and don’t really care about the poor as they claim to?
I thought of an analogy. The Bible talks about praying over the sick and anointing them with oil. The Good Samaritan used wine and oil to treat the victim’s wounds. Do Christians promote wine, oil and prayer as the only medical tools that Christians should use? Of course not! Christianity views scientific truth as valuable and useful as Biblical truth.
So why do Christians insist that charity is the only way to help the poor, especially when it has been such a dramatic failure? The science of economics has demonstrated that free markets with the rule of law and property rights can lift billions of people out of poverty. Charity has never done that in the history of mankind.
Maybe the Pope should consider making Deng Xao Ping a Saint. Who has helped more people out of poverty than him? At the least, he should make Mises a saint for his promotion of liberty as a means of poverty reduction.
Published: July 16, 2009 12:22 PM
Brian
fundamentalist,
In the Pope's letter, you will note that he points out that charity that is forced is neither charity nor helpful (end of #39). Charity in the sense that the word is usually used is not supposed to be removed from caritas. Charity is a parent giving his kid a Christmas present. It's not the government taxing the most productive people 5.4% so that they can "donate" their money to low-income health care. That's why both you and the Pope, I believe, are in agreement that "The West has sent billions of dollars in charity to the poor countries of the world since WWII and we have nothing to show for it." He's quite harsh on the IMF/World bank and the idea that development can be obtained simply by short-term programs of tossing a few sacks of rice or bundles of dollars their way. It's the old, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life." idea.
Now, as to your analogy for Charity. If we find a guy beat up on the side of the road, we're going to call 9-11, but even if we're unable to do anything medically, we can all at least be there with him, comfort him, give him food/drink (if his injury allows), etc until medical help arrives. Charity does not conflict with logic, science, etc...it's a supernatural thing, rooted in love.
Published: July 17, 2009 7:07 AM
fundamentalist
Brian, I agree. Charity is important, but not so much for the poor as for the discipline is gives Christians. I don't oppose charity of any kind. The more the better. But compared to what capitalism has done for poor people, charity appears almost worthless to the poor.
If Christians are going to trumpet their concern for the poor, then they should promote capitalism. Without capitalism, the appeals to charity are like a hollow.
I think some of the Christian emphasis on charity and lack of focus on capitalism comes from the old socialist fallacy that if all the wealth in the world were distributed equally, we would all be well off. Instead, we would all be equally poorer, and worse for the future we would all consume what we had and leave nothing to invest in capital formation.
Wealth comes from savings and capital accumulation and both need capitalism to happen. Charity provides a small meal for the poor to quickly consume. Capitalism teaches a man to fish while charity gives him a fish.
Published: July 17, 2009 7:51 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Fundamentalist, just as there is charity and something falsely called charity that is simply being virtuous at other people's expense, so also is there capitalism and something falsely called capitalism that is simply going through the motions of the free market on the back of state support and privilege - and it is the latter that most people think of when they hear the word "capitalism". That is why Kevin Carson calls his approach "free market anti-capitalism". Indeed, to avoid confusion and the risk of having it thrown back in your face, it would be better to use different language than phrases like "compared to what capitalism has done for poor people, charity appears almost worthless to the poor". You risk being told - accurately - what that other capitalism has done for the poor, very forcibly and in no uncertain terms, and then being ignored as someone who is completely out of touch.
Published: July 17, 2009 8:47 AM
fundamentalist
PM Lawrence, You may be right. Everyone has his own private definition of capitalism. For many, captitalism means multinational corps bribing politicians with both working together to shaft the public. That's what makes communication so difficult.
Socialists have always used the method of changing definitions in order to win the debate. That's why they ca call themselves "liberals" even though when they adopted the term it meant exactly the opposite of socialism.
For the time being, I'm content to try to rehabilitate the term. I think it's important to fight the socialist tactic of redefining words. I may give up before long, but the alternative is to use "free markets" with qualifications a mile long.
Published: July 17, 2009 10:43 AM
fundamentalist
PS, After learning Austrian econ, I think the term "capitalism" is even more appropriate for the system of "natural liberty", as Smith called it, because Austrians emphasize that the path to greater wealth requires more capitalistic methods of production, that is, using more capital in the production of consumer goods.
My understanding of the origin of the term is that socialists used it as an insult. But they didn't realize how accurate their term was, and besides there is a long tradition of taking terms meant as insults and using them as a badge of honor.
Published: July 17, 2009 10:48 AM
DavidW
Being a Catholic myself, I have read the encyclical and like others before me have found it to be very confusing and contradictory. The many preceding comments (and disagreements therein) are proof that Benedict did a poor job explaining his position at the very least. I sincerely feel there is no excuse for this.
For one, it's clear to me that the Pope did not separate Capitalism from and injustice very effectively. Capitalism, by definition, CAN NEVER RESULT in injustice as he suggested, since it depends entirely on mutual respect for property and its voluntary trade. Granted, I agree with the Pope that absent compassion and love the world will suffer, but he seemed to have neglected the fact that both these things require a boundary of respect between individuals. Theft is theft no matter who is doing the coercion. The fact that we are imperfect mortals does not justify the call for a world-wide "authority" made up of imperfect mortals.
Secondly, as newson pointed out before me, the Church (and others like it mind you) appreciates a special position under the State through tax-exceptions and government subsidies. Very rarely will you hear a Catholic priest call out the tyrannical acts of the State, since, you know, that would make the Church "a political organization" subject to taxes and regulation. This is probably the biggest reason why it is losing membership; you can't separate politics from religion without looking like a hypocrite. Compromising religious discussion to favor the State is anathema to Christianity itself.
It is no secret to me that the Catholic church (for the most part) supports Socialism so long, of course, that it doesn't depart too far from Capitalism...which is a contradiction in terms of course! There are many church members, even leaders, who disagree with this. But we are the minority.
People like Fundamentalist are right; I cannot in good conscience agree with the Pope 100% based on his encyclical. His call for Charity and Love is just, but the State will only diminish both in quantity and quality.
Published: July 20, 2009 4:53 PM