Can someone be a Christian and a lassiez faire Capitalist?

[FirstSunday33ad]

I am anticipating Duder here.

I say no they cannot. Just communism contradicts Christianity too deeply to allow someone to claim both beliefs, so does lassiez faire capitalism.

[C. D. Ward]

As laissez-faire capitalism is essentially defined by the separation of state and economy and nothing else, I see no reason why a Christian cannot be an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, but obviously, the burden of proof is on anyone who argues the positive case...

[jason]

I guess it depends.

A capitalist economic system is obvious superior to any of the communist alternatives based on historical reality. The market works extremely well to regulate itself.

However the principle problem with Capitalism is that to function and work properly in a just society it requires an underlying moral principle that it cannot provide. So capitalism needs a moral foundation or else it will spin out of control, but it cannot provide that foundation and it will probably in many cases tend to undermine it.

So can a christian be a lassiez faire capitalist, maybe ...

Jason

[Nicholas]

Wasn't the reason we stopped practicing lazziez fair capitalism that there was very low pay, terrible working conditions, child labor, and such problems? Capitalism only works because there are regulations to prevent abuse and exploitation.

[Ryokan]

Wasn't the reason we stopped practicing lazziez fair capitalism that there was very low pay, terrible working conditions, child labor, and such problems? No. It could be argued, for all pratical purposes, the US has practiced this since the 80's. Capitalism only works because there are regulations to prevent abuse and exploitation.
I disagree. Obviously, some rules are required, but regulation rarely prevents exploitation. "Exploitation" ended in the West because of higher productivity, and as a result, a greater demand for labor.

[Sheepdog]

good comments from the four posters so far.

the problem is, the Bible itself is not political. we can draw politcal principles from it, but the writers were cautious to make political statements and for good reason.

in terms of economics, the fundamental principle that I'd use to discern what is compatible vs. incompatible with Christianity is that it doesn't take wealth by threat of "the sword" and redistribute it, except only in cases where it is a necessary evil (i consider unemployment benefits and welfare as such). Rather, a Christian economic model would be one that encourages philanthropy, but in the sense that it is voluntary. Jesus told to the rich man to give his possessions to the poor and follow Him. Jesus, however, did not take the man's wealth by force. The early Christians used a communal fund for their needs... however it was absolutely voluntary, as evidenced in Acts 5.

[edit to add] I would say that capitalism (note i don't say lassiez faire capitalism) is compatible with Christianity, provided that some provision is available to take care of the unemployed. I say that because by necessity, capitalism always needs a pool of unemployed workers to draw from in order to fill the work force when it is in an upswing, and to dump workers in a downswing. even a perfect lassiez faire capitalist model would require such.

[Nicholas]

No. It could be argued, for all pratical purposes, the US has practiced this since the 80's.

At first I thought I may have been thinking of something different with regards to Lassiez Faire Capitalism, but then after doing some research I found this:

Modern industrialised nations today are not typically representative of laissez-faire principles, as they usually involve significant amounts of government intervention in the economy. This intervention includes minimum wages, significant redistribution through tax and welfare programs, government ownership of businesses and regulation of market competition. The major exception to this is Hong Kong, which officially has a laissez-faire economic policy since the 1960s and perhaps earlier. Moreover, many suggest that President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom followed a generally laissez-faire perspective.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

When I heard the term lassiez faire capitalism I was thinking that it meant no regulation of of things such as monopolies.

I disagree. Obviously, some rules are required, but regulation rarely prevents exploitation. "Exploitation" ended in the West because of higher productivity, and as a result, a greater demand for labor.

Perhaps I should have been more specific when I talking about regulations and exploitation. The types of regulations I was referring to were those that involve things such as safe working conditions, and preventing child labor.

[The Creep]

Can one be a Christian and a lassiez faire Capitalist at the same time?

Only if he can be a Christian and a member of the mob, or a drug gang, or the Church of Satan at the same time.

Who were the first communists in world history?

Can anybody guess?

Does the phrase "Book of Acts" provide a clue for you? Or have you confused Adam Smith for the Apostle Paul?

[Sheepdog]

Who were the first communists in world history?

Can anybody guess?

Does the phrase "Book of Acts" provide a clue for you?

however, that "system" was totally voluntary, and i have never seen any implementation of communism that wasn't coercive. in a way it would have to be, as some people will be like Ananias and Sapphira, and want to keep something for themselves. (note, also, they were condemned not for keeping the property to themselves, but saying they sold everything when they didn't, and thus lied to God.)

I'm not so sure that economic model worked out too well. only decades later, Paul had to start taking a collection from the churches in Gentile lands to help out the church in Jerusalem. perhaps we should consider the Acts account as descriptive history, not necessarily proscriptive in everything.

[Darth Executor]

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

While communism includes socialism, communism =/= socialism. To say Christianity encourages Communism is blasphemy.

[Ryokan]

At first I thought I may have been thinking of something different with regards to Lassiez Faire Capitalism, but then after doing some research I found this:

Modern industrialised nations today are not typically representative of laissez-faire principles, as they usually involve significant amounts of government intervention in the economy. This intervention includes minimum wages, significant redistribution through tax and welfare programs, government ownership of businesses and regulation of market competition. The major exception to this is Hong Kong, which officially has a laissez-faire economic policy since the 1960s and perhaps earlier. Moreover, many suggest that President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom followed a generally laissez-faire perspective. I think we are discussing something different.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

When I heard the term lassiez faire capitalism I was thinking that it meant no regulation of of things such as monopolies. Nobody, well except monopolists, support this



Perhaps I should have been more specific when I talking about regulations and exploitation. The types of regulations I was referring to were those that involve things such as safe working conditions, and preventing child labor.Safe working condition laws create unemployment, not less exploitation. To get someone to work in an unsafe enviroment, assuming of course there are other opportunities available, which is the case 9 out of 10 times but we can't dismiss the one tenth, a firm has to pay more. So the firm pays higher wages and makes safety adjustments based on that principle in mind, creating an optimum level of safety. Things are safer now more because people are wealthy enough to demand more money for their safety, than any regulation. Child labor is a good law, I agree.

[Nicholas]

Safe working condition laws create unemployment, not less exploitation. To get someone to work in an unsafe enviroment, assuming of course there are other opportunities available, which is the case 9 out of 10 times but we can't dismiss the one tenth, a firm has to pay more. So the firm pays higher wages and makes safety adjustments based on that principle in mind, creating an optimum level of safety. Things are safer now more because people are wealthy enough to demand more money for their safety, than any regulation. Child labor is a good law, I agree.

Interesting point, but I'd think that there would have to be some safety regulations.

[Ryokan]

Interesting point, but I'd think that there would have to be some safety regulations.
Why? You don't think people should have the freedom to choose the risks they are willing to take for an appropriate reward. Maybe regulations forcing companies to be honest about risks, but I find it hard to justify much else.

[Nicholas]

Why? You don't think people should have the freedom to choose the risks they are willing to take for an appropriate reward. Maybe regulations forcing companies to be honest about risks, but I find it hard to justify much else.

What about safety precautions?

[jason]

Who were the first communists in world history?

Can anybody guess?
Not really, but I know you are mistaken in thinking that the early christians are in any way similar to the modern day marxists and their off shoots.

Christianity is not utopian in the way communism is.

I'm sorry creep but your way off the mark here.

Jason

[Darth Executor]

Not really, but I know you are mistaken in thinking that the early christians are in any way similar to the modern day marxists and their off shoots.

Christianity is not utopian in the way communism is.

I'm sorry creep but your way off the mark here.

Jason

Creep(like most of tweb) mixes up socialism with communism.

[Ryokan]

What about safety precautions?
They will take as many precautions as is cost effective vs. paying higher wages, without that kind of regulation. See what I mean?

[Nicholas]

But what is to prevent companies from cutting corners with regards to safety? Such as people whose jobs involve working with hazardous chemicals? Yes, it was their choice to choose that line of work, but surely the company has some obligation to provide a safe working environment for those working there?

[Ryokan]

But what is to prevent companies from cutting corners with regards to safety? Such as people whose jobs involve working with hazardous chemicals? Yes, it was their choice to choose that line of work, but surely the company has some obligation to provide a safe working environment for those working there?
As long as they are honest about the risks to the employees, they should be allowed to cut corners. If the company said, we will pay you $70,000 a year to work at our plant, but we could only afforc to pay you $50,000 with safety measures, alotta guys will take their chances at $70,000. Without coercion or regulation. And this would be the most efficient.

[Nicholas]

As long as they are honest about the risks to the employees, they should be allowed to cut corners. If the company said, we will pay you $70,000 a year to work at our plant, but we could only afforc to pay you $50,000 with safety measures, alotta guys will take their chances at $70,000. Without coercion or regulation. And this would be the most efficient.

I will admit at this point I can't actually think of a reason why I disagree with the conclusion that we don't need the government the government to implement saftey regulations. Perhaps what it simply comes down to is a difference of opinion about the obligations that employers have to their employees.

[Darth Executor]

But what is to prevent companies from cutting corners with regards to safety? Such as people whose jobs involve working with hazardous chemicals? Yes, it was their choice to choose that line of work, but surely the company has some obligation to provide a safe working environment for those working there?


If the company is a death trap, they're gonna go under very fast. I think that's the point Ryokan is trying to make: If the company doesn't find a good balance between cutting costs and safety, people won't work for them and they'll go under.

[Ryokan]

If the company is a death trap, they're gonna go under very fast. I think that's the point Ryokan is trying to make: If the company doesn't find a good balance between cutting costs and safety, people won't work for them and they'll go under.
Exactly!

[HRG_new]

As long as they are honest about the risks to the employees, they should be allowed to cut corners. If the company said, we will pay you $70,000 a year to work at our plant, but we could only afforc to pay you $50,000 with safety measures, alotta guys will take their chances at $70,000. Without coercion or regulation. And this would be the most efficient.

As you said: as long as they are honest; many companies will pay you $50,000 and tell you that all is safe. What we need governments for is to keep them honest.

[Sheepdog]

the problem is see is that while this talk is fine and dandy, it would require the job market to always be supply side (assuming i don't have things mixed up... the potential employers are the ones supplying the service). if that's the case, then corporations will have to work at hiring and keeping employees, and thus have a good incentive to either increase safety standards or increase pay. or both.

However, sometimes the employers own the market. this is the case now, and i suspect it was the case a century ago, when child labor and workplace accidents were rampant. if the market shifts so the demand side has the power, then you as an employee won't have so much of a choice. the low paying job in a high risk environment may be the only thing available to you, unless you want to spend your time in the unemployment line. the assumption that the employers always have to be competitive in order to hire workers is simply not going to always be valid.

[jason]

Creep(like most of tweb) mixes up socialism with communism.
No to mention he can't tell the difference between generosity and theft.

Jason

[jason]

But what is to prevent companies from cutting corners with regards to safety? Such as people whose jobs involve working with hazardous chemicals? Yes, it was their choice to choose that line of work, but surely the company has some obligation to provide a safe working environment for those working there?
Actually market forces from a responsible and ethical public would work wonders in acheiving that in a way that regulation could never.

However it would require a responsible and ethical public. Which is the first problem.

As I noted Capitalism requires a certian amount of moral fortitude in the citzens to allow it to work. But it cannot supply this and probably will weaken it.

Jason

[Nicholas]

However, sometimes the employers own the market. this is the case now, and i suspect it was the case a century ago, when child labor and workplace accidents were rampant. if the market shifts so the demand side has the power, then you as an employee won't have so much of a choice. the low paying job in a high risk environment may be the only thing available to you, unless you want to spend your time in the unemployment line. the assumption that the employers always have to be competitive in order to hire workers is simply not going to always be valid.

Exactly. While at the current time working in a dangerous line of work is more of a choice who is to say that at some point people might have to work in dangerous jobs because they have no choice and have to feed their family?

[Mr. Tinkles]

I'm going to jump into this discussion as safety regulation and government policy is one of the few things discussed on this board that I actually know about!

The posters' differences of opinions come from trying to balance the rights of an individual with the obligations of a broader economy. Everyone has assumed so far that it is a fundamental, individual right to a safe workplace. May ommuntiies, particularly in Asia, would not assume this right - they would argue that there is a greater, community good and so working down an unsafe coal mine is fine because the additional money goes to the wider community. Even in the industrial Revolution, we are talking about higher accident rates, not wanton slaughter.

And whilst we're on the topic of safety expenditure, why are companies required to spend millions of dollars in what are now marginal safety improvements whilst the countries they operate in have no safe water and poor medical facitlies? Even in first world countries, the risk of dying in a car accident is hundred of times higher than being killed at work.

[Sheepdog]

some good points, TInkles.

i think the idea of obligations of the whole to the individual is a Western tendancy. personally, i'm neutral on the debate of whether collectivism or individualism is better.

i'd note the same occurs with environmental laws. there comes a point where throwing more money at cleanup and prevention will not make an iota of difference... economic activity seems to be intrinsically lead to a degree of polution.

[Epoetker]

I see nothing wrong with laissez-faire capitalism not only being compatible with Christianity but even partly derived from it-but as with most other things, it can't exist in a vacuum. Sure I'll support it-reservedly in an average country, wholeheartedly when in a country that stresses social consciousness, rigorous honesty, open communication, impartial justice, education, and freedom.

Capitalism is merely the mirror which efficently focuses and reflects the desires of the people. The flows of money show where the treasures and the hearts of the people really are at any given time. That's why so many people, especially those 'leaders' whose job it is to bolster their reputations by lying about their people, are terribly leery of it. It brings the hidden sins of the people to light, and they want to pretend everything's all fine and righteous.

[Amazing Rando]

good comments from the four posters so far.

the problem is, the Bible itself is not political. we can draw politcal principles from it, but the writers were cautious to make political statements and for good reason.

:no: Strongly disagree. The writers of the Bible were extremely politically conscious- but not in the way we'd think of. The very act of saying "Jesus is Lord" is a highly charged political statement, because it implies that Caesar is not, just as the President is not Lord. I feel you do a grave disservice to the Biblical text by saying that the Bible is not a political.

[Sheepdog]

:no: Strongly disagree. The writers of the Bible were extremely politically conscious- but not in the way we'd think of. The very act of saying "Jesus is Lord" is a highly charged political statement, because it implies that Caesar is not, just as the President is not Lord. I feel you do a grave disservice to the Biblical text by saying that the Bible is not a political.

Lord in what sense? if you mean we aren't calling Caesar son of god or even god on earth, i'd agree. I even wouldn't call the President "lord" in the same sense i'd call Jesus Lord. they are simply authority figures, and while Paul told us to respect the authorities that carry the sword, they do not trump the Lord.

Certainly Jesus was Lord, but of what? any nation on earth? of course not, because if he was, he would not have retreated from the Jewish people when they sought to make him king. rather, He tells us of the Kingdom of which He is Lord over: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36. For this reason i don't consider the New Testament as political. (i realized that i was mistaken in saying the Bible wasn't, as the Old Testament was very political. this is something i'm willing to correct.) At least, not political in the common sense.

[Amazing Rando]

Lord in what sense? if you mean we aren't calling Caesar son of god or even god on earth, i'd agree.
Though this is precisely what the Romans did- that's why saying "Jesus is Lord" was such a subversive act that got so many Christians killed.

I even wouldn't call the President "lord" in the same sense i'd call Jesus Lord. they are simply authority figures, and while Paul told us to respect the authorities that carry the sword, they do not trump the Lord.

Certainly Jesus was Lord, but of what? any nation on earth?

Actually... he's Lord of every nation on earth- they just haven't recognized that fact yet! :wink:

But the gospels are absulutely crammed with political rhetoric that point to God's kingship. Even Jesus' central message, "The Kingdom of God/heaven is near" is an emphatic proclamation of who's really in charge.

of course not, because if he was, he would not have retreated from the Jewish people when they sought to make him king. rather, He tells us of the Kingdom of which He is Lord over: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36. For this reason i don't consider the New Testament as political. (i realized that i was mistaken in saying the Bible wasn't, as the Old Testament was very political. this is something i'm willing to correct.) At least, not political in the common sense.

:smile: Not political in the "Republican/Democrat" sense, certainly not. But highly political in that the very act of worship is itself a political declaration that we have no other Lord than Jesus and we are citizens of his kingdom, rather than any earthly kingdom (Phil. 3:20). :smile: Even the Greek word for church (literally, "assembly" or "town meeting") is a political word.

[Ryokan]

As you said: as long as they are honest; many companies will pay you $50,000 and tell you that all is safe. What we need governments for is to keep them honest.
I completely agree.

[Ryokan]

the problem is see is that while this talk is fine and dandy, it would require the job market to always be supply side (assuming i don't have things mixed up... the potential employers are the ones supplying the service). if that's the case, then corporations will have to work at hiring and keeping employees, and thus have a good incentive to either increase safety standards or increase pay. or both.
Right.

However, sometimes the employers own the market. this is the case now, and i suspect it was the case a century ago, when child labor and workplace accidents were rampant. if the market shifts so the demand side has the power, then you as an employee won't have so much of a choice. the low paying job in a high risk environment may be the only thing available to you, unless you want to spend your time in the unemployment line. the assumption that the employers always have to be competitive in order to hire workers is simply not going to always be valid.
Its cuz they didn't have cars. Now, labor has mobility, so it can go where the jobs are, rather than the firms having market power

[dizzle]

In theory lassiez faire should work. In theory communism should work (or more appropriately socialism). They don't. Why? Because man is sinful and the tendency to exploit is ever-present.

I am right now listening to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle - any portion of that being true is enough to know we need regulations. It is not just those who are willing to exchange high pay for increased danger that would take such jobs. It is the desparate. Moreso when the dangerous job is unskilled or marginally skilled.

[Ryokan]

In theory lassiez faire should work. In theory communism should work (or more appropriately socialism). They don't. Why? Because man is sinful and the tendency to exploit is ever-present. I actually, Laissiez faire capitalism has the built in assumption that man is "sinful", greedy, and willing to exploit anything for personal gain. It has too flawed assumptions, however. The first is that the government will prevent collusion on the part of the businesses, or violent revolt on the part of those less fit to compete. THe second assumption is that we all have perfect knowledge, which is not hte case. A lack of information throws alot of lassiez faire capitalism's assumptions into questions.

I am right now listening to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle - any portion of that being true is enough to know we need regulations. It is not just those who are willing to exchange high pay for increased danger that would take such jobs. It is the desparate. Moreso when the dangerous job is unskilled or marginally skilled.But the desperate, Dee Dee, are not made better off by being unemployed. Regulation makes since when a labor market has single buyer, or to force the businesses to be honest about risk, but otherwise, safety regulation makes those desperate homeless and unemployed.

[dizzle]

But the desperate, Dee Dee, are not made better off by being unemployed. Regulation makes since when a labor market has single buyer, or to force the businesses to be honest about risk, but otherwise, safety regulation makes those desperate homeless and unemployed.

I do not agree. Unregulation can make the desparate employed and still homeless. This thread was from assuming Christianity as a starting point which is why I piped in. Laws are supposed to be God's agent of good. The OT gives examples of "regulations" that are forced mercies even if the person would not ordinarily do it. And even a safety regulation of death to someone who does not put a railing on their roof and someone falls to their death. We are to value life, and not value money over life. To encourage the selling of one's safety for lucor is immoral.

[Ryokan]

I do not agree. Unregulation can make the desparate employed and still homeless. True, but their spending their lucor on something, while they'd still be homeless, but "lucorless" too with regulation, which decreases the average benefit to a firm of an employee, creating fewer jobs. This thread was from assuming Christianity as a starting point which is why I piped in. Laws are supposed to be God's agent of good. Is it good to put some "on the street" for the benefit of others? The OT gives examples of "regulations" that are forced mercies even if the person would not ordinarily do it. And even a safety regulation of death to someone who does not put a railing on their roof and someone falls to their death. Safety regulations of homes are not the same thing. That is a public good. Safer roofs, especially at a time when roof travel was real, benefits everyone more than the cost to put up railing. We are to value life, and not value money over life. By driving cars everyday, you are valuing time over life. And time has a fungible value, so you are valueing money over life. To encourage the selling of one's safety for lucor is immoral.To encourage an economic system that slows down growth so that crummy jobs aren't a necessity, and harms peoples right to chose, is immoral.

[Mark_S]

Can one be a Christian and a lassiez faire Capitalist at the same time?

Only if he can be a Christian and a member of the mob, or a drug gang, or the Church of Satan at the same time.

Who were the first communists in world history?

Can anybody guess?

Does the phrase "Book of Acts" provide a clue for you? Or have you confused Adam Smith for the Apostle Paul?

Christians are commanded to help those in need. I believe this is independent of whatever type of government or economic structure you are under. The Bible doesn't tell you to give to the government so that they may help the poor, widows, etc. The Bible tells you to give to the church so that they may distribute the offerings. This is a critical point. While governments will rise and fall, and economic ideologies will wax and wane, the church should act independently from all that.

[Tfbandie]

I'll just note quick support for recent arguments of Mark S and DeeDee, and put in my opinion that the community of believers set up in Acts was not really communism but what I call communalism. It is something that I am very interested in and will be workign towards enacting in a small way on campus next year. Basically the way i view it now, is that while I may 'own' possessions and money, they are all truly God's, and thus sharing and in some cases giving to others freely from it. An example is use of car, as our 'misson' in our small dorm community is more towards frehsman who don't have cars, freely allowing the use of my car to them is one way to share what God has blessed me with.

[Ryokan]

I'll just note quick support for recent arguments of Mark S and DeeDee, and put in my opinion that the community of believers set up in Acts was not really communism but what I call communalism. It is something that I am very interested in and will be workign towards enacting in a small way on campus next year. Basically the way i view it now, is that while I may 'own' possessions and money, they are all truly God's, and thus sharing and in some cases giving to others freely from it. An example is use of car, as our 'misson' in our small dorm community is more towards frehsman who don't have cars, freely allowing the use of my car to them is one way to share what God has blessed me with.
Communalism is what communism is supposed to be like, but with God and no cohersive period in between. And I don't see how "fallen" people, or real people, could pull it off on a large scale.
And your answer dodges the question of how to organize society on a larger level, as does Mark's. Dee Dee, at least, deals with the issue, even if I don't agree with her answer. Communalism, while perhaps admirable, is a small community answer.

[bar Jonah]

How on earth does lassaiz-faire capitalism contradict Christianity? :rihrm:

I am a passionate evangelical Christian, and I lean strongly toward mostly (but not absolute) lassaiz-faire capitalism, keeping only very minimal regulation. I see no conflict, whatsoever.

As for the book of Acts, that does put forth a miniature and localized commune system. And that's the only way communism can work -- in a small and localized context. And even then, only maybe. We see it didn't work out for them; it quickly was mismanaged and went bad. But yes, it could have worked.

It was also only a temporary situation, a method of survival for a minority of people during the 7-year tribulation back then.

So, that hardly qualifies as a model for nations, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[dizzle]

True, but their spending their lucor on something...

Eeking out an existence?


, while they'd still be homeless, but "lucorless" too with regulation, which decreases the average benefit to a firm of an employee, creating fewer jobs. Is it good to put some "on the street" for the benefit of others? Safety regulations of homes are not the same thing. That is a public good.

And safety regulations on jobs are the public good. Now I think you misunderstnad me that I am in favour of some of the ridiculous things we regulate in America - no I am not. But I believe that a certain standard of safety regulation is simply a means to restrain evil - we should not put someone in a position of selling their safety to the highest bidder as a regular practice. This is the same philosophy behind the idea that we don't let poor people sell their second kidney.


Safer roofs, especially at a time when roof travel was real, benefits everyone more than the cost to put up railing. By driving cars everyday, you are valuing time over life. And time has a fungible value, so you are valueing money over life.To encourage an economic system that slows down growth so that crummy jobs aren't a necessity, and harms peoples right to chose, is immoral.

You misunderstood me. I am speaking of balance. Lassiez faire is an extreme at one end. An activity should be as safe as reasonably possible, all factors considered. I am not saying there is never a time or place where quite simply the feasibility does not justify the effort. But for instance the meat-packing situations raised in The Jungle - it was not necessary that those jobs be so dangerous and it is feasible both economically and technically to make them safer. You separate public from private good too readily. Should I be able to have the choice to buy meat that is not inspected for cheaper? This concept goes far beyond jobs but to anything we choose.

[dizzle]

How on earth does lassaiz-faire capitalism contradict Christianity? :rihrm:


I explained above. In a "Christian" society perhaps it would not. But in practice in our society it encourages the exploitation of the desparate, the weak, the less gifted, the sick, etc.


I am a passionate evangelical Christian, and I lean strongly toward mostly (but not absolute) lassaiz-faire capitalism, keeping only very minimal regulation. I see no conflict, whatsoever.

L-F has virtually no regulation. I advocate moderate regulation.


As for the book of Acts, that does put forth a miniature and localized commune system. And that's the only way communism can work -- in a small and localized context. And even then, only maybe. We see it didn't work out for them; it quickly was mismanaged and went bad. But yes, it could have worked.

It should work on a global scale in theory. But the fact that you have to throw people into the mix makes it practically impossible. There are of course other objections to a communist system that even worked, that its working is not something to be desired, and I myself would make those arguments - it is contrary to how we are made, and thus un-human and un-natural. But L-S is too human, meaning it has the possibility to condone the making of monsters.

I am not educated in economics by any stretch. I am sure most posters in this thread are way over my head.

[bar Jonah]

Extreme?

So...?

Someone accused Dr. Martin Luther King, jr. of being "extreme." I love his response. He observed that Jesus was an extremist for love, and Jefferson was an extremist for liberty, so he (King) considered himself in good company.

Calling something "extreme" doesn't make it wrong.

[dizzle]

Christians are commanded to help those in need. I believe this is independent of whatever type of government or economic structure you are under. The Bible doesn't tell you to give to the government so that they may help the poor, widows, etc. The Bible tells you to give to the church so that they may distribute the offerings. This is a critical point. While governments will rise and fall, and economic ideologies will wax and wane, the church should act independently from all that.

In a Christian society L-F could conceivably work. But that is because there ARE regulations, they are self-regulations imposed upon us by God, voluntary theocracy so to speak. But L-F is without regulation but with each man doing what is right in his own eyes.

[dizzle]

Extreme?

So...?

Someone accused Dr. Martin Luther King, jr. of being "extreme." I love his response. He observed that Jesus was an extremist for love, and Jefferson was an extremist for liberty, so he (King) considered himself in good company.

Calling something "extreme" doesn't make it wrong.

And pointing out that some things considered extreme were good doesn't make all extremities good. The Bible also cautions for moderation, so don't be so quick to think that all things extreme are good. This was just rhetoric RI - cherry picking one word that I said which I stand by. All of this looks great on paper, and terrible in real people's lives.

[bar Jonah]

I dind't say that proved it was good, either.

I merely pointed out that "extremism" in and of itself is wholly irrelevant.

[dizzle]

I am not gifted in this area nor educated. I will likely explain myself poorly. But I see in Scripture that the government is to be God's minister for good, and that we have to weigh carefully what is in the best interest of the governed. I do not support socialism so obviously I do not believe in the other extreme. But I do believe that government has a role in preventing exploitation of those in vastly inferior positions of bargaining.

Where is this middle road? I don't claim to know. I honestly don't know. But I hope in our discussions we keep in touch with the human factor - it is easy to talk so easily about things in the abstract - I made this point when I was speaking about the war in Iraq which I support, yet I don't ever want to lose sight of the fact that there are real people involved, people who have the same needs, wants, dreams and feelings that I do.

[dizzle]

I dind't say that proved it was good, either.

I merely pointed out that "extremism" in and of itself is wholly irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant, it is very relevant. You are confusing mistaken frames of reference with realities.

[bar Jonah]

It should work on a global scale in theory. But the fact that you have to throw people into the mix makes it practically impossible. There are of course other objections to a communist system that even worked, that its working is not something to be desired, and I myself would make those arguments - it is contrary to how we are made, and thus un-human and un-natural. But L-S is too human, meaning it has the possibility to condone the making of monsters.

I am not educated in economics by any stretch. I am sure most posters in this thread are way over my head.
I agree on a large scale, of course.

But, I'm curious. If you believe it is actually un-human and un-natural in any case, why on earth would God have wanted believers to live that way in the tribulation years immediately after the resurrection? Was God mistaken? Did He misjudge human nature? Or was He perhaps right?

[Duder]

Greetings, RightIdea -

Unless I have misunderstood Dee, all she is asking you to see is that it is a mistake to ignore human suffering in one's adherence to an ideology.

First, neither capitalism nor communism nor socialism, as developed economic theories, came down to us from heaven on a string. They are artifacts of human reason. And I think we will have to agree that the authors of these respective theories all had somethong good to say. They made sense; otherwise, their theories never would have caught on.

Since all of these theories have something good to say, it should come as no surprise that a person reading the Bible will sometimes encounter a passage that reflects a capitalist sentiment, and at other times a passage that reflects a communist sentiment. That is because the Bible is a good book and all these social thinkers had something good to say - so naturally these thinkers will sometimes happen to say a good thing that the Bible happens to say, too.

The BIG MISTAKE comes when you point to the human theory and say "this is what God says, and whatever contradicts this, God condemns."

The BIGGER MISTAKE comes when you apply the human theory (which you mistook for a divine theory) and blindly follow it without regard to the effects you cause.

Did I understand you right, Dee?

[dizzle]

But, I'm curious. If you believe it is actually un-human and un-natural in any case, why on earth would God have wanted believers to live that way in the tribulation years immediately after the resurrection? Was God mistaken? Did He misjudge human nature? Or was He perhaps right?

I have no idea of what you saying theologically. There has been no resurrection or orders to live that way after the resurrection

[bar Jonah]

:shocked:

[dizzle]

Greetings, RightIdea -

Unless I have misunderstood Dee, all she is asking you to see is that it is a mistake to ignore human suffering in one's adherence to an ideology.

First, neither capitalism nor communism nor socialism, as developed economic theories, came down to us from heaven on a string. They are artifacts of human reason. And I think we will have to agree that the authors of these respective theories all had somethong good to say. They made sense; otherwise, their theories never would have caught on.

Since all of these theories have something good to say, it should come as no surprise that a person reading the Bible will sometimes encounter a passage that reflects a capitalist sentiment, and at other times a passage that reflects a communist sentiment. That is because the Bible is a good book and all these social thinkers had something good to say - so naturally these thinkers will sometimes happen to say a good thing that the Bible happens to say, too.

The BIG MISTAKE comes when you point to the human theory and say "this is what God says, and whatever contradicts this, God condemns."

The BIGGER MISTAKE comes when you apply the human theory (which you mistook for a divine theory) and blindly follow it without regard to the effects you cause.

Did I understand you right, Dee?


Yes and no. I think the Bible lays out certain precepts upon which to base our philosophy and there should be safeguards in place to curb human evil. When is enough, enough is where it gets tricky. But I do not think that just throwing it all to the wind and let every man bargain for himself is the way to go either.

[dizzle]

:shocked:

Care to explain what I said that was so shocking? You know my theological beliefs, they have not changed so there must be a miscommunication here somewhere.

[Mark_S]

Communalism is what communism is supposed to be like, but with God and no cohersive period in between. And I don't see how "fallen" people, or real people, could pull it off on a large scale.
And your answer dodges the question of how to organize society on a larger level, as does Mark's. Dee Dee, at least, deals with the issue, even if I don't agree with her answer. Communalism, while perhaps admirable, is a small community answer.

I didn't think I was dodging the question, 'cause I wasn't answering that question :teeth: I'll expand my thoughts a bit. Hopefully, that will clear things up. First Can someone be a Christian and a lassiez faire Capitalist? Sure. I also believe that one can be a Christian and a socialist, or a Christian and under a totalitarian regime, or whatever economic system you are born into or choose to follow. The economic's of the Church however, are pretty clearly spelled out and I don't think there is an issue there. Now, If one is a Christian and follows the word of God, he would make an ideal capitalist (or socialist, etc) because his/her priorities are straight. Love your neighbor as yourself goes a long way. You will be conscientious of your employee's safety, bacause its the right thing to do. You will care for the enviroment, because its God's creation and its the right thing to do. The problem, of course, is that most people, christians included, do tend to care more for the Almighty dollar than for the Almighty God. So practically speaking I am left somewhere with Dee Dee :shudder: in the middle of the road. I'd like to keep government intervention to nothing, but I don't think it is at all possible.

[Ryokan]

Eeking out an existence? The thing is Dee Dee, it a choice between crummy jobs and no jobs at all, at least in the third world or early 20th century America, not crummy jobs or good ones. And their was no welfare. Nor could America really afford adquate welfare at the time.



And safety regulations on jobs are the public good. A public good is something everyone benefits from when produced. What I meant is roof railing in ancient Israel didn't help any individual home owner, but if all homeowners did it it would help them all. So it makes sense to codify it into law in that way. Now I think you misunderstnad me that I am in favour of some of the ridiculous things we regulate in America - no I am not. But I believe that a certain standard of safety regulation is simply a means to restrain evil - we should not put someone in a position of selling their safety to the highest bidder as a regular practice. Anytime someone takes a job that is slightly more dangerous than another, they are effectively doing just that Dee Dee. This is the same philosophy behind the idea that we don't let poor people sell their second kidney. The issue that is different here is that the poor can't maintain themselves with just one kidney without public support.



You misunderstood me. I am speaking of balance. Lassiez faire is an extreme at one end. I agree, but not because of man's sinful nature, but rather because of its idealized ideas about knowledge. An activity should be as safe as reasonably possible, all factors considered. Who gets to draw that line? Why should it be you, rather than the person taking the risk? I am not saying there is never a time or place where quite simply the feasibility does not justify the effort. But for instance the meat-packing situations raised in The Jungle - it was not necessary that those jobs be so dangerous and it is feasible both economically and technically to make them safer. The problem was that they weren't honest with their employees about the risk, and they existed as the sole employers. You separate public from private good too readily. You need to take more economics classes to understand the way I am dividing, but it is the usual way, i promise. Should I be able to have the choice to buy meat that is not inspected for cheaper? This concept goes far beyond jobs but to anything we choose. I agree. And I think maximizing choice is the best answer. Unexpected meats is a por example though, because the spread of disease is a communal problem, seperate from on the job safety.

[dizzle]

The thing is Dee Dee, it a choice between crummy jobs and no jobs at all, at least in the third world or early 20th century America, not crummy jobs or good ones. And their was no welfare. Nor could America really afford adquate welfare at the time.

But we are not at that point today. I am judging my reaction in light of modern times in America. And you may cringe but I think in the long term to promote the value of persons that no jobs are better than crummy ones (meaning ones that are unsafe but don't have to be - they are unsafe so that profits can be greater, but they would still be profitable if made more safe)

A public good is something everyone benefits from when produced. What I meant is roof railing in ancient Israel didn't help any individual home owner, but if all homeowners did it it would help them all. So it makes sense to codify it into law in that way. Anytime someone takes a job that is slightly more dangerous than another, they are effectively doing just that Dee Dee.

No I don't think they are in the sense that I mean. They are both taking a job that is as safe as it can be. I know I am not explaining myself well, I guess I am saying this - doing something in an unsafe manner that could be done in a safe manner should not be something that is for sale. In a loose analogy, prostitution is illegal for sex is somethikng that should not be for sale. It improves the public good by valuing human safety and not exploiting the desparate.


The issue that is different here is that the poor can't maintain themselves with just one kidney without public support.

What? Sure they can. You only need one.

I agree, but not because of man's sinful nature, but rather because of its idealized ideas about knowledge. Who gets to draw that line? Why should it be you, rather than the person taking the risk?

Because many of these arrangements will be exploitation - as a society we also frown on adhesion contracts because both parties are not on even ground. And it should not be "me" but the elected government.


The problem was that they weren't honest with their employees about the risk, and they existed as the sole employers.

Are you serious? They didn't hide the risks - it was take it or lump it and exploitative of immigrants. And there are always situations of sole employers of mass numbers of unskilled laborers.


You need to take more economics classes to understand the way I am dividing, but it is the usual way, i promise. I agree.

I believe you. I have taken zero economics classes. I am coming at this more from a theological/moral standpoint since the OP inquired about what a Christian could or could not do. I rarely jump into a economics discussion as I am not too informed.

And I think maximizing choice is the best answer.

I think the choice is an illusion in many cases. It is easy for me to say I have a choice - I have a college degree, I have had a lot of training, I have some advantages and the means to go elsewhere. Others don't. And I think we have the duty to prevent exploitation of the weaker (in any sense) members of society and not allow the stronger to exploit them for pure gain.


Unexpected meats is a por example though, because the spread of disease is a communal problem, seperate from on the job safety.

Would you say the same if the potential diseases were noncommunicable? I do not know if communicalbe diseases are spread by bad meat, but for this hypothetical let's say we are just dealing with noncommunicable diseases.

[Ryokan]

But we are not at that point today. I am judging my reaction in light of modern times in America. And you may cringe but I think in the long term to promote the value of persons that no jobs are better than crummy ones (meaning ones that are unsafe but don't have to be - they are unsafe so that profits can be greater, but they would still be profitable if made more safe). They'd still be profitable, but not AS profitable. And every dollar not made is another job someone didn't get, another kid that didn't get to go to college, etc. In this day and age, most people don't take dangerous jobs out of desperation, either. Welfare actually provides an alternative to crummy jobs, so firms are voluntarilly forced to increase either wages or safety. And that way, it is less distortionary on the market.
And as far as no jobs to crummy ones goes, that kind of thinking doesn't produce anything, doesn't lead to economic growth, and ultimately ends in poverty for everyone. Sometimes, we have to do what we have to do, like it or not.



No I don't think they are in the sense that I mean. They are both taking a job that is as safe as it can be. No they aren't. Bullet proof glass, for instance, would make the job safer. As would body armor.[/QUOTE] I know I am not explaining myself well, I guess I am saying this - doing something in an unsafe manner that could be done in a safe manner should not be something that is for sale. [/QUOTE] What I am saying is that that is impossible. To a greater or lesser degree, everything is unsafe. And it just isn't feasible for a pizza delivery guy to drive around with an army of monkey guard robots in his personal tank. SO...what you are really saying is that, I, Dee Dee Warren, should be able to tell other people how safe their particular needs to be before they take it. I know that not the way you are concieving it, and I realize you think its your Christian duty to keep people from having to make desperate choices, but you are better of giving charity to people to keep them from desperation than you are telling them what they can or can't do. In a loose analogy, prostitution is illegal for sex is somethikng that should not be for sale. It improves the public good by valuing human safety and not exploiting the desparate. Actually, prostition's illegality may or may not improve the public good, but its illegal because we are in a judeo christian society.



What? Sure they can. You only need one.

Having known people with just 1, it requires alot of care, maintenece, and upkeep. Its not just a little surgery.

Because many of these arrangements will be exploitation - as a society we also frown on adhesion contracts because both parties are not on even ground. And it should not be "me" but the elected government.
Exploitative contracts don't exist. A person in desperate straights may take what we would see as a crummy offer, but only because it is better than the alternative. And I know the gov. does this. its because they have well meaning but economically uneducated voters like you to elect them, Dee Dee :wink: .


Are you serious? They didn't hide the risks - it was take it or lump it and exploitative of immigrants. And there are always situations of sole employers of mass numbers of unskilled laborers. The problem wasn't the number of laborers so much as that they had no mobility. They had to work at a place near home, and that was it. That gives the firms market power. What fixed this was a. unions, which gave the workers in these situations market poer too, and b. auto mobiles, which gave them mobility. Not regulation.



I believe you. I have taken zero economics classes. I am coming at this more from a theological/moral standpoint since the OP inquired about what a Christian could or could not do. I rarely jump into a economics discussion as I am not too informed. Well, what I am saying is, while it is fine to say that people shouldn't have to make these decisions, you need to figure out what to do with them. And that it isn't cheap.



I think the choice is an illusion in many cases. It is easy for me to say I have a choice - I have a college degree, I have had a lot of training, I have some advantages and the means to go elsewhere. Others don't. And I think we have the duty to prevent exploitation of the weaker (in any sense) members of society and not allow the stronger to exploit them for pure gain. I disagree, I am making a hard choice to pull me and my family through school so that I can have money and power. It isn't easy going to school full time, working full time, and raising a baby, but I am choosing to do it. Hard choices aren't no choices.



Would you say the same if the potential diseases were noncommunicable? Do they have medicare? I do not know if communicalbe diseases are spread by bad meat, but for this hypothetical let's say we are just dealing with noncommunicable diseases.
If I have to pay for than no.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Hej, Hej, from Sweden where I am an exchange seminary student right now, digging into my roots.

I've read a good deal of the thread and had some comments.

1a. There are intrinsic problems with the notion of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, inasmuch it directly translates as Let it Be, but since our economies are not naturally given to us(or divinely preordained to be a certain way once and for all, or teleologically driven by the HSpirit), but rather social artefacts that are determined in part by history and subject to change, the practical effect of Laissez-Faire is to say "Let me be or decide". The real issue is whether from a missiological standpoint, we Christians should let our lights shine before others by participating in the ongoing redetermination of the rules that govern us.

1b. This includes, but is not limited to, what is popularly understood as getting political. Prolife activists at heart want to change the regulations of the abortion industry to make its practices with their perception of the public good. And likewise, opponents of gay marriages at heart are trying to influence the cultural norms that influence our behavior that undergirds the stability of the nuclear family, a very important institution for society.

1c. The issue for me is the effectiveness of their strategies and the completeness of their factual understandings of the issues, as well as the need to encourage them to count the cost and weigh more issues in their deliberations. It would help if the language used facilitated better intercultural communication, rather than acrimony that not only make compromise more difficult, but inevitably sets up barriers to the formation of relationships wherein the Gospel can be shared.

2. Laissez-Faire language obscures how the root issue is the legal determination of rights. There is no such thing as a "free market", inasmuch as there is always a need to determine what are the rules of the game. The rules that say who can do what to whom and what recourses others have when they are harmed by the actions of others.

3. It also obscures how Capitalism is not a set thing. Consider the economies of the US, Germany and Japan. They are very different, and yet they all are capitalist economies. Often times the issue is not Capitalism vs Communism/Socialism, but rather what sort of Capitalism we are going to have.

4. We do not have a free market. Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/004335064X/102-8673069-2899350?v=glance") sets out the virtues of the creative destruction (http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/liu/english25/materials/schumpeter.html) of Capitalism, while at the same time arguing that there is no way that an unfettered Capitalism could be continued as it would undermine the social morality that first made it possible. Some forms of socialization are inevitable, and those that are familiar with the inner workings of Corporations, realize that they operate more often by command and control, rather than free enterprise relations. Ronald Coase, in his article, the theory of the firm (http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/coase.htm), showed that firms are not guided by free market relations and for good reason. The reasons being that humans are bounded in our rationality and we are opportunistic in ways that are often conveniently excluded from standard economic theory.

5. Schumpeter's approach, Ryokan, centers on the role of creative destruction, or ongoing developments, as the source of jobs/improvements. It may be that giving workers the right to demand significant compensation in the event they are injured on the job will result, in the short run, in a reduction in the number of employees. But it will also give employers incentives to qualitatively change the production process to value more than just the fungible product created. New jobs will be created, not by means of keeping labor cheap but by increased investment/production based on expectations about the future and our improved understandings of the world we live in. And one should note that beliefs about the future are never purely rational, inasmuch as the future is, in part, undetermined(at least from our human perspective).

6. Likewise, it may be in the self interest of businesses to cut corners to save on costs, but this inevitably harms the predictability of their products and can inevitably lead to a loss of consumer confidence. Consumers need to be assured that there will be a relative homogeneity of products so that they can infer price differentials as reflecting whether products are good deals, rather than reflecting hard to detect before purchase, differences in quality.

7. Even small probabilities of serious defects can have strong impacts because people do not generally understand small probabilities well. It is hard to sense the difference between a 1 in a million chance of something happening and a 1 in a thousand chance of something happening. This was developed by psychologists into what is called Prospect theory (http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/prospect.htm). Their work earned a Nobel Prize and helps to explain why people buy lottery tickets when their expected winnings are much less than they pay for the ticket. It also explains why accidents on the job are not best left to workers to get insurance. If the probability of an accident for a given worker is relatively low then they might not consider it or even might overreact. On this basis, there is a need for a more objective approach that would assess the probability of an accident and what the fair compensation should be for the worker. That is what worker's compensation does and even though it can be abused, it works better than a system that runs roughshod over workers or permits them to sue for potentially unreasonable sums of money in the case of an accident.

8. Kudos a AR for bringing up arguments that were compiled by John Yoder in the Politics of Jesus (http://www.geocities.com/savageparade/poj). I think it is more accurate to say that Jesus's teachings were integrated, inasmuch as he did not treat the personal/collective or political/economic/social as distinct categories like we do today. The issue is that, given Jesus and the early church chose a definite strategy for interacting with the State, is that same strategy mandated for all Christians today? Or does it need to be adapted some to take into account our context?

To sum up, I don't generally find arguments about Capitalism vs Socialism to be terribly fruitful. I think it is better to focus on particular issues in a manner that seeks to be fair to all of the interests involved, including businesses, consumers, workers, those whose environment is affected and to try to work out compromises that will leave no one perfectly happy, but give some voice to all of the above. I think we as Christians should be peacemakers that help to facilitate these sorts of compromises. This includes checking our own partisan tendencies.

dlw

[dizzle]

2. Laissez-Faire language obscures how the root issue is the legal determination of rights. There is no such thing as a "free market", inasmuch as there is always a need to determine what are the rules of the game. The rules that say who can do what to whom and what recourses others have when they are harmed by the actions of others.

I think this is what I was trying to get at. There has to be ground rules. Stating that well there is risk in everything so my position is wrong or misguided is basically just advocating that since it is hard to determine what the rules are or that someone besides our own individual selves are going to decide them to throw out the idea of rules entirely. It doesn't protect the weak.

[Lazy Agnostic]

I think the Bible lays out certain precepts upon which to base our philosophy and there should be safeguards in place to curb human evil.Like codifying slavery and communal execution of non-virgin females?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Like codifying slavery and communal execution of non-virgin females?

Did that accomplish any good?

Try reading the OT within light of its context and the greater revelation of the NT.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I think this is what I was trying to get at. There has to be ground rules. Stating that well there is risk in everything so my position is wrong or misguided is basically just advocating that since it is hard to determine what the rules are or that someone besides our own individual selves are going to decide them to throw out the idea of rules entirely. It doesn't protect the weak.

Do they teach legal aides about the dangers of run on sentences?

jk,

I agree and I think that way too.

dlw

[Ryokan]

Hej, Hej, from Sweden where I am an exchange seminary student right now, digging into my roots.

I've read a good deal of the thread and had some comments.

1a. There are intrinsic problems with the notion of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, inasmuch it directly translates as Let it Be, but since our economies are not naturally given to us(or divinely preordained to be a certain way once and for all, or teleologically driven by the HSpirit), but rather social artefacts that are determined in part by history and subject to change, the practical effect of Laissez-Faire is to say "Let me be or decide". The real issue is whether from a missiological standpoint, we Christians should let our lights shine before others by participating in the ongoing redetermination of the rules that govern us. Well, I think thats the thing. Do you think a person is the best judge of what is good for them. If yes, my point of view holds water. If not, well, then I am clearly wrong, but I think you open a whole new bag of worms, especially in a pluralistic society.

1b. This includes, but is not limited to, what is popularly understood as getting political. Prolife activists at heart want to change the regulations of the abortion industry to make its practices with their perception of the public good. And likewise, opponents of gay marriages at heart are trying to influence the cultural norms that influence our behavior that undergirds the stability of the nuclear family, a very important institution for society. I question the importance of the nuclear family as an institution, given its recent inception, but I get what you are saying.

1c. The issue for me is the effectiveness of their strategies and the completeness of their factual understandings of the issues, as well as the need to encourage them to count the cost and weigh more issues in their deliberations. It would help if the language used facilitated better intercultural communication, rather than acrimony that not only make compromise more difficult, but inevitably sets up barriers to the formation of relationships wherein the Gospel can be shared. A classic love-warrior point, but its still true.

2. Laissez-Faire language obscures how the root issue is the legal determination of rights. There is no such thing as a "free market", inasmuch as there is always a need to determine what are the rules of the game. The rules that say who can do what to whom and what recourses others have when they are harmed by the actions of others.
Right.

3. It also obscures how Capitalism is not a set thing. Consider the economies of the US, Germany and Japan. They are very different, and yet they all are capitalist economies. Often times the issue is not Capitalism vs Communism/Socialism, but rather what sort of Capitalism we are going to have. Again true.

4. We do not have a free market. Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/004335064X/102-8673069-2899350?v=glance") sets out the virtues of the creative destruction (http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/liu/english25/materials/schumpeter.html) of Capitalism, while at the same time arguing that there is no way that an unfettered Capitalism could be continued as it would undermine the social morality that first made it possible. Some forms of socialization are inevitable, and those that are familiar with the inner workings of Corporations, realize that they operate more often by command and control, rather than free enterprise relations. Ronald Coase, in his article, the theory of the firm (http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/coase.htm), showed that firms are not guided by free market relations and for good reason. The reasons being that humans are bounded in our rationality and we are opportunistic in ways that are often conveniently excluded from standard economic theory. I am not gonna lie. i have not studied to much Schumpeter, largely because UC is more of neo-classically oriented university, but what I have read of him I have questioned. I agree that completely unfettered capitalism would never work, but I think its not because of man's lack of social morality but because of assumptions inherent in the model.

5. Schumpeter's approach, Ryokan, centers on the role of creative destruction, or ongoing developments, as the source of jobs/improvements. It may be that giving workers the right to demand significant compensation in the event they are injured on the job will result, in the short run, in a reduction in the number of employees. But it will also give employers incentives to qualitatively change the production process to value more than just the fungible product created. True The thing Schumpeter fails to address though, is that people, as a group, tend to value tommorrow, not today, and the value isn't being created based on market forces. So you might ose value because of the time delay, and because the value is being commanded to be given by one group to another group that didn't necessarilly ask for it, which might lead to inefficiency. Again, it really just depends on how qualified you think the employees are to make their own decisions, and whether or not it is your goal to maximize value. New jobs will be created, not by means of keeping labor cheap but by increased investment/production based on expectations about the future and our improved understandings of the world we live in. We don't want to keep labor cheap, but we don't want to make it to expensive so that it lowers our over all utility and stifles growth. ANd business are going to try to grow as long as they have the resources and the hope. But they will have less resources to use to grow if they have it tied up in safety measures that may not be the most efficient choice. And one should note that beliefs about the future are never purely rational, inasmuch as the future is, in part, undetermined(at least from our human perspective). Yep. But that still doesn't take away from my point, I don't think.

6. Likewise, it may be in the self interest of businesses to cut corners to save on costs, but this inevitably harms the predictability of their products and can inevitably lead to a loss of consumer confidence. Consumers need to be assured that there will be a relative homogeneity of products so that they can infer price differentials as reflecting whether products are good deals, rather than reflecting hard to detect before purchase, differences in quality. Which is where I think regulation needs to come in. To keep the businesses honest about what they are doing, rather than tell them what they can or cannot do, in most cases.

7. Even small probabilities of serious defects can have strong impacts because people do not generally understand small probabilities well. It is hard to sense the difference between a 1 in a million chance of something happening and a 1 in a thousand chance of something happening. This was developed by psychologists into what is called Prospect theory (http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/prospect.htm). Their work earned a Nobel Prize and helps to explain why people buy lottery tickets when their expected winnings are much less than they pay for the ticket. It also explains why accidents on the job are not best left to workers to get insurance. If the probability of an accident for a given worker is relatively low then they might not consider it or even might overreact. On this basis, there is a need for a more objective approach that would assess the probability of an accident and what the fair compensation should be for the worker. That is what worker's compensation does and even though it can be abused, it works better than a system that runs roughshod over workers or permits them to sue for potentially unreasonable sums of money in the case of an accident. Okay, this line of reasoning I can buy. I will look at the link, but if this is the case, then i respectfully withdraw my arguement with Dee Dee Warren.

8. Kudos a AR for bringing up arguments that were compiled by John Yoder in the Politics of Jesus (http://www.geocities.com/savageparade/poj). I think it is more accurate to say that Jesus's teachings were integrated, inasmuch as he did not treat the personal/collective or political/economic/social as distinct categories like we do today. The issue is that, given Jesus and the early church chose a definite strategy for interacting with the State, is that same strategy mandated for all Christians today? Or does it need to be adapted some to take into account our context?

To sum up, I don't generally find arguments about Capitalism vs Socialism to be terribly fruitful. I think it is better to focus on particular issues in a manner that seeks to be fair to all of the interests involved, including businesses, consumers, workers, those whose environment is affected and to try to work out compromises that will leave no one perfectly happy, but give some voice to all of the above. I think we as Christians should be peacemakers that help to facilitate these sorts of compromises. This includes checking our own partisan tendencies.

dlw
Since I am not a Christian, I can't really comment.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Well, I think thats the thing. Do you think a person is the best judge of what is good for them. If yes, my point of view holds water. If not, well, then I am clearly wrong, but I think you open a whole new bag of worms, especially in a pluralistic society.

It's not just whether a person can judge what is good for them, but rather also the forms of interdependencies that take place between us and cause conflicts that will have to be worked out.

I question the importance of the nuclear family as an institution, given its recent inception, but I get what you are saying.

And bear in mind, its not that I agree with them 100%, but that I am trying to translate their approach into terms that would fit with general public policy analysis.

I am not gonna lie. i have not studied to much Schumpeter, largely because UC is more of neo-classically oriented university, but what I have read of him I have questioned. I agree that completely unfettered capitalism would never work, but I think its not because of man's lack of social morality but because of assumptions inherent in the model.

The idea is that if much more than prices are in play as the form of competition between corporations, this will inevitably be a source of disruption towards others, including families which ideally require some stability to pass on important ethics that mitigate opportunism some and make legal social control more effective. According to Geoffrey Hodgson of the Hertfordshire school in his recent book, "How Economics forgot History (http://www.herts.ac.uk/business/esst/Staff/g-hodgson/How%20Economics%20Forgot.htm)", Schumpeter was a closet institutionalist/historicist who shielded the fact he was borrowing from these traditions because of the anti-institutionalist bias at Harvard where he was a professor.

Are you familiar with the paper (http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/papers/Religion_and_Economic_Growth.pdf) by Barro about religions with a belief in hell making for more effective social control/economic growth? I think they forgot to control for a belief in Santa Claus, as well, but it is still an interesting empirical finding connecting our ontotheological beliefs with what causes economic growth.

True The thing Schumpeter fails to address though, is that people, as a group, tend to value tommorrow, not today, and the value isn't being created based on market forces. So you might lose value because of the time delay, and because the value is being commanded to be given by one group to another group that didn't necessarilly ask for it, which might lead to inefficiency. Again, it really just depends on how qualified you think the employees are to make their own decisions, and whether or not it is your goal to maximize value.

Sorry I didn't really follow that sentence. In many cases there are conflicts because poor workers do not value the future very much at all and are willing to accept situations that do not serve them well in the long run. I am thinking here of stuff like child labor.

We don't want to keep labor cheap, but we don't want to make it to expensive so that it lowers our over all utility and stifles growth. ANd business are going to try to grow as long as they have the resources and the hope. But they will have less resources to use to grow if they have it tied up in safety measures that may not be the most efficient choice. Yep. But that still doesn't take away from my point, I don't think.

The agnostic def'n of Utility is a way to aggregate things that otherwise can't be aggregated. Its purportedly an ordinal, not a cardinal, concept and so one can't make comparisons across individuals and judge whether or not some arrangements are better than others. The use of the term utility and efficiency often implicitly appeal to a Social Welfare Function that makes normative welfare judgments about how the impact of policy changes should be aggregated.

As mentioned earlier, the determinants of growth are complicated. Recent research has indicated that institutions are essential to longterm growth (http://wetzell.blogspot.com/2004/05/institutions-as-fundamental-cause-of.html). This makes sense when you consider that we derive our lifesubstance from the energy given out by the sun. What keeps us from developing further in terms of the amount and complexity of our enjoyment of creation are the conflicts that rage among ourselves. As such, yeah, it is not good to have a situation where unions run the whole show and can set ridiculously high minimum wages causing extensive unemployment like observed in Europe. But, while it is well and good for consideration to be given for business's bottom lines, that is not the end-all-be-all of what permits us to create newer and more effective ways of production, distribution and consumption. Entrepeneurialism does not depend on keeping wages low to earn its profits. It also potentially experiences efficiency wages, wherein the higher wages and better work conditions of workers make them better and more reliable workers in the long run.

later,
dlw

[Ryokan]

It's not just whether a person can judge what is good for them, but rather also the forms of interdependencies that take place between us and cause conflicts that will have to be worked out. But in this case, I don't recognize the interdependecy.



And bear in mind, its not that I agree with them 100%, but that I am trying to translate their approach into terms that would fit with general public policy analysis. Fair enough.



The idea is that if much more than prices are in play as the form of competition between corporations, this will inevitably be a source of disruption towards others, including families which ideally require some stability to pass on important ethics that mitigate opportunism some and make legal social control more effective. According to Geoffrey Hodgson of the Hertfordshire school in his recent book, "How Economics forgot History (http://www.herts.ac.uk/business/esst/Staff/g-hodgson/How%20Economics%20Forgot.htm)", Schumpeter was a closet institutionalist/historicist who shielded the fact he was borrowing from these traditions because of the anti-institutionalist bias at Harvard where he was a professor. He didn't shield it very well. Its pretty clear he was a institutionalist. I don't know. Too much stability can also be a impediment to growth, limiting creativity, which was very important to Schumpeter.Its alsonot clear to me how we determine how much protection ought to be enacted to protect families. Its not exactly measurable, nor is it consistent family to family and industry to industry. And how do we decide which ethics to pass on? I am more comfortable trying to maximize our well being with the society we have, rather than try to social engineer a more efficient society.

Are you familiar with the paper (http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/papers/Religion_and_Economic_Growth.pdf) by Barro about religions with a belief in hell making for more effective social control/economic growth? I think they forgot to control for a belief in Santa Claus, as well, but it is still an interesting empirical finding connecting our ontotheological beliefs with what causes economic growth. No, but I am interested in reading it.



Sorry I didn't really follow that sentence. In many cases there are conflicts because poor workers do not value the future very much at all and are willing to accept situations that do not serve them well in the long run. I am thinking here of stuff like child labor. Sorry. What I was trying to get out is that often, the short run benefit is more important to the poor than the long run. And without short run help, their may be no long run for them. And I think that things like unemployment insurance of one type or another, would work better than safety regulations to keep them from making stupid, desperate short run decisions.



The agnostic def'n of Utility is a way to aggregate things that otherwise can't be aggregated. Its purportedly an ordinal, not a cardinal, concept and so one can't make comparisons across individuals and judge whether or not some arrangements are better than others. The use of the term utility and efficiency often implicitly appeal to a Social Welfare Function that makes normative welfare judgments about how the impact of policy changes should be aggregated. Theoretically, everyone has a level of well being. What I meant to say is that, in the big picture, we want to make everyone as well as possible.

As mentioned earlier, the determinants of growth are complicated. Recent research has indicated that institutions are essential to longterm growth (http://wetzell.blogspot.com/2004/05/institutions-as-fundamental-cause-of.html). This makes sense when you consider that we derive our lifesubstance from the energy given out by the sun. What keeps us from developing further in terms of the amount and complexity of our enjoyment of creation are the conflicts that rage among ourselves. As such, yeah, it is not good to have a situation where unions run the whole show and can set ridiculously high minimum wages causing extensive unemployment like observed in Europe. But, while it is well and good for consideration to be given for business's bottom lines, that is not the end-all-be-all of what permits us to create newer and more effective ways of production, distribution and consumption. I didn't say that businesses bottom lines were all important, or that institutions don't matter. It is my feeling though, that shrinking labor demand by adding costs onto hiring, is going to be worse in the long run than shrinking supply by providing welfare. Entrepeneurialism does not depend on keeping wages low to earn its profits. It also potentially experiences efficiency wages, wherein the higher wages and better work conditions of workers make them better and more reliable workers in the long run.

later,
dlwI agree. But I think forces in the market are more likely to strike a balance that is most favourable, in this case.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Did that accomplish any good?Not for this thread, no. Keep up the good work.



Try reading the OT within light of its context and the greater revelation of the NT. You mean like the parts that say women can't teach or be in position of leadership?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

But in this case, I don't recognize the interdependecy.

It doesn't matter if you recognize it, it is either there or not. Our actions affect each other and each other's opportunity sets in a variety of manners.

He didn't shield it very well. Its pretty clear he was a institutionalist. I don't know. Too much stability can also be a impediment to growth, limiting creativity, which was very important to Schumpeter.Its alsonot clear to me how we determine how much protection ought to be enacted to protect families. Its not exactly measurable, nor is it consistent family to family and industry to industry. And how do we decide which ethics to pass on? I am more comfortable trying to maximize our well being with the society we have, rather than try to social engineer a more efficient society.


I agree that there can also be such a thing as too much stability and that the amount of protection given to families is not an exact science. As for ethics, that is not something one should leave up to the economists but rather "civil society".

Sorry. What I was trying to get out is that often, the short run benefit is more important to the poor than the long run. And without short run help, their may be no long run for them. And I think that things like unemployment insurance of one type or another, would work better than safety regulations to keep them from making stupid, desperate short run decisions.

In the long run we are all dead...
I agree that workers need some basic income guarantee (http://www.widerquist.com/usbig/), but also think that it is wise to assign the duty to bear the damage from when an injury happens to the party that is best able to prevent injuries from happening. I believe that in many cases this is the employer.

Theoretically, everyone has a level of well being. What I meant to say is that, in the big picture, we want to make everyone as well as possible.
I didn't say that businesses bottom lines were all important, or that institutions don't matter. It is my feeling though, that shrinking labor demand by adding costs onto hiring, is going to be worse in the long run than shrinking supply by providing welfare. I agree. But I think forces in the market are more likely to strike a balance that is most favourable, in this case.

I think there are serious linguistic shortcoming in how one defines what it means to make everyone as well off as possible. The notion of paretian efficiency reifies the existing status quo distribution of wealth. There is no single paretian efficiency, inasmuch as so long as there are differences in preferences, what is the efficient combination of final products depends on the initial distribution of wealth. And likewise, what is the efficient form of production depends on the available technology and what outputs/inputs are given prices based on markets. I.e., do the usage costs of natural resources or polluted air have a market value assigned to them that takes into account adequately all of the parties whose well being will be affected by their use?

Also, I generally don't think it is the duty of the economist to pronounce what is right. We have a knowledge that helps us to understand better what the likely consequences of different potential arrangements would be, but we are in the same position as others in terms of judging morally what ought to be the case or what criterion should be used ultimately to decide between the alternatives.

dlw

[Xavier]

...women can't teach or be in position of leadership...

I cannot believe that you said that. You misogynist pig.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Not for this thread, no. Keep up the good work.

It did not do any good at all and I wish you would post things like that only where appropriate and in a spirit that seeks answers.


You mean like the parts that say women can't teach or be in position of leadership?

I've just sat in on a class on the Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Tim and Titus in Sweden, where they have had female pastors for some time now.

The general sense was that this was a contextual teaching of Paul, as he did not let females teach, that reflected his general cultural conservativism. He knew that changes were taking place within the church socioculturally, but did not want them to be too radical so as to draw undue persecution from the society around them. There would be plenty enough persecution as it is. And it may also have reflected how females, lacking the needed education, were not prepared well to teach or serve in leadership positions at the time.

But that's for another thread. Or maybe we should demand that DDW give over her leadership of TWeb and take down her website where she teaches others the pure unadulterated truth of Orthodox Preterism. After all, it's in the Bible...

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I cannot believe that you said that. You misogynist pig.

I can't believe you posted that. How about loving one's opponent and discerning that they are referring to the Pauline Epistles...

dlw

[Xavier]

I can't believe you posted that. How about loving one's opponent and discerning that they are referring to the Pauline Epistles...

dlw

*watches the point of the post fly over people's heads*

:frown:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

*watches the point of the post fly over people's heads*

:frown:

Sorry man. :flowers:
my bad.
dlw

[Lazy Agnostic]

dlw is one of few Christians who has the courage to think for himself.

Sorry for the distractions; carry on.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

dlw is one of few Christians who has the courage to think for himself.

Sorry for the distractions; carry on.

If you became a Christian, there would be more of us...

dlw

[Ryokan]

If you became a Christian, there would be more of us...

dlw
That's very sneaky. :teeth:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

That's very sneaky. :teeth:

What can I say, I'm a sneaky kind of guy!!!

:wink:
dlw

[Hoosier]

I'm not so sure that economic model worked out too well. only decades later, Paul had to start taking a collection from the churches in Gentile lands to help out the church in Jerusalem. perhaps we should consider the Acts account as descriptive history, not necessarily proscriptive in everything.

Acts is clearly descriptive history, not a model to emulate. The epistles are specifically written to address the church re: doctrine and practice. Besides, the early history of the Jerusalem church is neither duplicated in other NT cities, nor is it indicative of a form of 'communism'. The people were continually selling the things they had to share with one another so none had need, which clearly points to private property which they could willingly dispose of.

[Hoosier]

Lassiez faire Capitalism does not mean no form of civil authority at all over business. It simply denies government the right to regulate and redistribute wealth. It does not deny it the right to enforce moral laws prohibiting the use of force and fraud.

What we have today is in no way lassiez faire because government is intimately involved in the economy at its most basic level, the medium of exchange, our money. The fact that money is printed into existence out of thin air reduces the science of economics to hand waving. Our saved wealth, capital which should maintain value and be invested back into the economy, is under assault and hidden taxation through inflation. I mean inflation in the correct, scientific sense, not the common usage. Inflation is an increase of the money supply, which makes each unit of less value relative to other goods. This results in higher prices, but higher prices is the effect of inflation, not inflation itself.

Today people believe we have no inflation because they see it as rising prices, and the goods measured by government to compile the Consumer Price Index has been made more and more selective, measuring only things that have changed little. Much of the inflation of the money supply has gone into bidding up things like investment vehicles and real estate (which people see as good if they have them, not so good if they want to buy them).

Nonetheless, the actual value of saved money has steadily eroded. Think about what $10,000 of saving would have bought free and clear for your grandparents in their youth compared to what it will buy today. This is a hidden tax which has funded the growth of government, as they are first in line at the creation of much of the added supply of money. It has also flowed to government clients, to the banking industry and to their clients. Banks also create money out of thin air when the create loans. The money they loan you to buy a house is not from savings other people have stored in their institution, as popular opinion believes. They only have to have a fractional reserve to back loans they make, and these are largely created through creative trading of government securities. When they credit you money for a house most of that money is backed by nothing but debt, and then that increase of the supply bids up the price of real estate.

You are able to buy a house at prices determined by the market before the 'new money' entered the supply to compete with existing dollars, but that is then reflected in a rising market which makes the money someone might be saving to buy a house free and clear worth less relative to houses in general. Savers are penalized and taxed surreptitiously to support your present consumption. It is really a form of fraud perpetrated by government and its clients. In a true lassiez faire environment banks would not have a lender of last resort poised to bail them out with money created from nothing. They would, on individual basises, fail from time to time, and some people would lose savings. But each of us would not trust banks implicitly, and would watch their ration of obligations relative to assets and move toward the most sound banks. The markets would give banks an incentive to remain solvent and slow the creation of thin air credit money, which would mean less units would compete for goods and drive up prices. There would be an incentive to save for purchases instead of rush to borrow and buy now before prices rise.

More on this later if anyone is interested.

One other point though. Regarding child labor, we need to recognize that child labor was a fact of life in pre-industrial society. The difference was that most of the labor took place in homes, on farms and in family businesses --- or in mercantilism through aprenticeships. Children used to work to fill roles now generally bought from service providers (food preparation, care of younger siblings --- daycare --- etc.) or provided through technology. The sweat shop factories that employed children in the early industrial age were often actually raising the standard of living of the family unit, which many times was near starvation in urban areas or near serfdom in rural ones. Many of the child laborers in US history were Irish immigrants who made their way here to escape the widespread starvation after the potato famine.

[Sheepdog]

heh, don't get me started on private property. "thou shalt not steal," which even the hardened atheist believes is a moral virtue despite their resistance to its religious context, presupposes the right to private property.

[Sheepdog]

and you know what? my understanding is that much of the national debt is due to the printing of money. after all, the paper your $20 bill was printed on isn't worth $20. "Federal Reserve Note" means that it is basically an IOU from the US Government.

Which is why they don't appreciate it when you deface your money (err, their money? legally, the paper money belongs to the government).

[kd1023]

I would say that regardless of what utopian ideals anyone would want to pursue and institutionalize, the free market will always be there. The black market exists in all of the communist regimes, and even in our capitalist dominated system goods are always available outside the normal regulated channels: so, lassiez faire is alive and well. I am encouraged by Creep, it is the thing that pains me the most today about the Body of Christ that we do not share with our brothers and sisters all that we posess, and moreover that the church, for the most part here in America is so worldly and materialistic.
Perhaps I should believe like the "name it, and claim it" crowd; after all, just the other day I was asking the lord for a bunny with a pancake on its head, and today.....

[kd1023]

Oh, my answer to the question is that as a Christian one should seek to share all that he or she has with other believers regardless of the institutionalized economic system in the geographical area where they live. We are citizens of Heaven and children of the King of Kings, after all.

[Ryokan]

and you know what? my understanding is that much of the national debt is due to the printing of money. after all, the paper your $20 bill was printed on isn't worth $20. "Federal Reserve Note" means that it is basically an IOU from the US Government.

Which is why they don't appreciate it when you deface your money (err, their money? legally, the paper money belongs to the government). Since the 70s, $20 is worth only what people will accept for it.

[kd1023]

Fiat Money, in fact.

[Ryokan]

The system works, though.

[Hoosier]

The system works, though.


Works for who? And compared to what?

And for how long?

Keynes, who's economics are the norm today, was confronted with the reallity that in the long run his ideas would lead to widespread systemic breakdown. He said that in the long run we'll be dead.

He's dead.

[Ryokan]

Works for who? And compared to what?

And for how long?

Keynes, who's economics are the norm today, was confronted with the reallity that in the long run his ideas would lead to widespread systemic breakdown. He said that in the long run we'll be dead.

He's dead.
Actually, Keynsian economics has long been discredited, and while he felt it could, in the long run, have a less efficient outcome than straight market ones, he said nothing about systemic failure. And what does that have to do with floating currency?

[Hoosier]

Actually, Keynsian economics has long been discredited, and while he felt it could, in the long run, have a less efficient outcome than straight market ones, he said nothing about systemic failure. And what does that have to do with floating currency?

Nixon, when he instituted wage and price controls, said that "We're all Keynesians now." Though the debate has ranged more in a supply side direction since that time, Galbraith's (a Keynsian) ideas have not departed. The so called Chicago school seems to be dominant presently, vying with neo-classisists, but Japan has been paving their entire landscape with public works to 'Keynes themselves' out of recession. Keynes quipped that we'd all be dead in response to a criticism ---- you're correct that he never said anything about systemic failure. He ignored it. I'd have to dig through a lot of material to nail down the exact circumstance, so apologize if I have the remark slightly out of context.

IMO, the Austrians shed the most light on market forces through the scientific study of praxeology. They built upon the classical economists, but refined their work. Most of the rebuttals of Austrian theory misunderstood the earlier work of Bohm-Bawerk, or ignored the clarity and correction of Mises. The Austrian model is really the only truly lassiez faire one today. The others all involve some sort of intervention to 'correct' market forces.

Regarding floating currencies, I didn't realize that your "It works, though," was specifically addressing that. Still, my questions stand. Floating fiat currencies could never exist had they not grown from specie, the offspring of commodity money. I think it works mainly because most people don't understand it, and that Argentina and the BIS debt loads of developing nations mitigate against your casual statement as well. If you wish to elaborate, I'll listen.

[Ned Netterville]

I posted this on another thread, but I think it applies equally here:

I have browsed this thread unsuccessfully to find a correct definition of economics.

In his magnum opus, entitled HUMAN ACTION, (Yale U. Press, 1948) the brilliant Austian-school economist Ludwig von Mises described economics as "the youngest of all sciences...Economics opened to human science a domain previously inaccessible and never thought of. The discovery of a regularity in the sequence and interdependence of market phenomena went beyond the limits of the traditional system of learning. It conveyed knowledge which could be regarded neither as logic, mathematics, psychology, physics, nor biology...

"It is the science of every kind of human action. Choosing determines all human decisions. In making his choice man chooses not only between various material things and services. All human values are offered for option. All ends and all means, both material and ideal issues, the sublime and the base, the noble and the ignoble, are ranged in a single row and subjected to a dicision which picks out one thing and sets aside another. Nothing that men aim at or want to avoid remains outside this arrangement into a unique scale of gradation and preference. The modern theory of value widens the scientific horizone and enlarges the field of economic studies. Out of the political economy of the classical school emerges the general theory of human action, praxeology. The economic or catallactic problems are embedded in a more general science, and can no longer be severed from this connection. No treatment of economic problems proper can avoid starting from acts of choice; economics becomes a part, although the hitherto best elaborated part, of a more universal science, praxeology...

"Economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should aim at. It is a science to be applied for the attainment of ends chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science. Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man must act if he wants to attain definite ends."

The principles that Jesus taught his followers, particularly in his Sermon on the Mount and his Sermon on the Plain, do tells us how we should act. And if we were to follow his instructions in our intercourse with other people, we would necessarily have to renounce the use of force in the conduct of our affairs, and that would make capitalists of all of us. For capitalism is the only system of economic exchange that is possible in the absence of force and violence. Any and all of the other socio-economic arrangements--socialism, communism, mixed, syndicalism, guild socialism, corporativism, etc.--require the initiation of force by the state and are incompatible with the principles Jesus espoused. Of course if people were to adapt the principles that Jesus taught, capitalist society would be very different from what exists today, but it would be capitalist nonetheless.

Many of the issues that have been raised in this thread are addressed in my essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, which may be downloaded without charge from website, http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/), which I invite you all to read. Rest assured that the hypotheses presented there in are amply supported by Scripture and other recognized authorities.

[Hoosier]

I'm in strong agreement with most of your post, Ned. I downloaded your essay, but haven't read it yet.

I agree too that a community or world comprised of Christians would be capitalist, not socialist. So, Christianity and lassiez faire are not incompatable. The market most quickly integrates human desires with human production, most quickly corrects mistakes of judgement regarding future demand, and delivers the widest array of goods at the lowest possible prices. That's why markets, albeit black markets, exist in even the most controled economy. These can't really be called free markets however, as they are closely tied to secret connections and inevitable graft and corruption, which effect pricing.

An excellent companion to Mises' HUMAN ACTION is Murry Rothbard's MAN, ECONOMY and STATE. It's available from the MIses Institute online, and is often priced very reasonably. Rothbard answers many criticisms of Mises, and points out the fallacies of modern economics, which either abandon praxeology in an attempt to impose an artificial, mathematical construct suited to physical, predictive sciences but unsuited to human action of willing, choosing beings, or which study the firm in isolation from the broader market of human choice.

Some of the periods of greatest Christian charity have been under the auspices of free markets, both in England and the United States.

I need to head off to work, but will have more to say later.

[Hoosier]

I said that I'd ike to say more, so will endeavor to attempt some sort of picture of a Christian 'economic'.

Before I do so, I would like to point out that the Austrian-school of economics, and most studies of economy, are basically utilitarian constructs. They are justified by the fact that they work, for some purpose. Any purpose is value laden. Austrian advocates often claim that they are 'pure economic science' but all science carries metaphysical preconceptions, or values, that exist a priori. The Austrian school presupposes the greatest happiness for the most people as it's aim, meaning the greatest economic developement to provide the products most desirable to the greatest number of people, through non-coersive means.

This point already makes it non-Christian, but not neccessary contra-Christian, as it places the ultimate value in the meeting of desires, and explicitly the most desires for the most people. As I pointed out, it is utilitarian, but utility is not, in and of itself, evil. Good and evil supercede utility. Utillity is means, coming forth to meet ends.

The desires it answers are those of physical 'progress', on one important level. There is no questioning the fact that advanced division of labor, technology and trade have brought benefit to almost all of mankind. Advanced employment of capital tools and investment have made it much easier to dig a ditch with a shovel than our fingers, and easier still with a back-hoe. It is impossible to deny the benefits of technological and market based progress. Physical, material advancement, the leisure time to pursue other interests beyond bare substinance, and the gadets we all enjoy, have brought us to a condition that counters the curse of earning bare substinance by the sweat of our brow. The curse was never intended to maim us --- only to cripple us, and to bring us back to the source of everything, as the meeting of physical needs is never enough.

But physical needs are utilitarian by there very nature. Wishes for well being are meaningless devoid of actual meeting of the physical needs which are wanting. The means with which to meet those needs can only be developed through the activity described by the praxeological science of human action, but exists prior to the 'logical', "words/thoughts about" it. Human action is teleological, and cooperative. Even though force can subvert it, it can't overcome it. Even those who employ force must convince others to cooperate in their commision, and to refrain from natural cooperation. Cooperation is the median condition, which most naturally derives, and which is built into the human condition, and built into it for an end. The end is the very one which the 'scientific economists' presuppose with no 'scientific' warrent. The means themselves point to the end, which is the greatest meeting of desires for the most. Only the fall subverts it's utility in the present, but will not subvert that utility in the end. Because the desires are the bottom line. Violent intervention does not falsify cooperation, because cooperation becomes the untiversal remedy, when universal violence is not.

I hope that introduction is of interest.

That introduces my thesis.

[geochron]

In my youth I spend a lot of time mucking around with optimisation routines in multivariate spaces. Laissez faire capitalism is, it seems to me, very analogous to "step downhill" algorithms. It takes you from where you are to a local optimum, but will completely ignore a much better solution if it happens to be isolated from the "valley" you start in. From certain starting points it drives you to hopelessly poor solutions. The role of government legislation is to drag you back to a new start position when the downhill mechanism has failed.

If the company is a death trap, they're gonna go under very fast. I think that's the point Ryokan is trying to make: If the company doesn't find a good balance between cutting costs and safety, people won't work for them and they'll go under.

It seems to me that this ignores variations among the attitude to risk of the workforce. The following scenario seems equally plausilbe to me.

The company employs the 0.1% of the population who are most willing to take risks - say people supporting crack habits. By doing this it markets its products cheaper than all the other companies. Pretty soon, all companies have to adopt equally dangerous practices in order to stay afloat, and the only jobs available are those associated with high risk. The original company cuts safety even more, and the cycle continues.

Eventually the government steps in and imposes minimum safety standards enforced by inspection. From the new starting position market forces drive to a different solution.

[Ned Netterville]

Good go, Hoosier. You have a pretty good grasp of Austrian economics. There are, as I point out in my essay, certain immutable laws of markets that are akin to physical laws such as the law of gravity, which laws must be taken into consideration by Christians and athiests alike if they are to avoid pratfalls. The similar nature of these market laws and physical laws suggest to me that free markets, like the physical universe, reflect the handiwork of a Divine Creator in their respective designs.

Geochron, the problem with your analysis, in my opinion, is that it presumes that the state knows better what is good for people than does the market. But you must tell me, without falling into the heresy known as statolatry, where does the state acquire its superior knowledge or superior concern for people's welfare? The state is comprised of very falible human bureaucritters, politicians, soldiers, jailers, executioners, etc., in limited numbers, whereas the market is comprised of everyone's decision to buy or refrain from buying. And of course in all of its regulating, the state must resort to force or the threat thereof against individuals in order to alter their decisions to buy or not buy. Corporations, which are creatures of the state created by it, do not respond to regulation for they are legal fictions immune to the lethal ministration of the state. And since the state ultimately relies on violence to achieve any and all of its objectives, its actions are sure to be counterproductive of producing any NET benefit by the law that precludes bad means from producing good ends. As Jesus put it, "Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit. but the bad tree bears bad fruit."

[geochron]

Hi Ned,



Geochron, the problem with your analysis, in my opinion, is that it presumes that the state knows better what is good for people than does the market. But you must tell me, without falling into the heresy known as statolatry, where does the state acquire its superior knowledge or superior concern for people's welfare? The state is comprised of very falible human bureaucritters, politicians, soldiers, jailers, executioners, etc., in limited numbers, whereas the market is comprised of everyone's decision to buy or refrain from buying.



You haven't shown how this is a good thing, whereas I've given an example of a situation where it is a bad thing. I showed how everybody's choice was dictated by the choice that a few were willing to make.

If 10% of the people vote for a state policy, it never gets enacted into law. In the absence of law, 10% of the people choosing to work in dangerous conditions compel everyone to work in dangerous conditions or not work.



And of course in all of its regulating, the state must resort to force or the threat thereof against individuals in order to alter their decisions to buy or not buy.



Indeed, we use the threat of force to control the market for child pornography. Bad thing or good thing?



And since the state ultimately relies on violence to achieve any and all of its objectives, its actions are sure to be counterproductive of producing any NET benefit by the law that precludes bad means from producing good ends.



So the threat of force to stop child pornographers cannot achieve a net good?



As Jesus put it, "Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit. but the bad tree bears bad fruit."



I think you take this quote somewhat out of context.

[Ned Netterville]

Hi Geo,

You wrote, You haven't shown how this is a good thing, whereas I've given an example of a situation where it is a bad thing. I showed how everybody's choice was dictated by the choice that a few were willing to make.

I need not show how the free market is a good thing. It has demonstrated its utility for one and all to see too often over too long a period for me to try to add to its lustre. Furthermore, you have not shown how the free market is a bad thing. You have merely postulated a hypothetical situation that is entirely unrealistic and thus beyond the realm of economic analysis.

Geo wrote, If 10% of the people vote for a state policy, it never gets enacted into law. In the absence of law, 10% of the people choosing to work in dangerous conditions compel everyone to work in dangerous conditions or not work.


Geo, again you are stating your opinion regarding another hypothetical situation. In a free market, people don't "vote," although their buying and selling or refraining from buying and selling has often been referred to metaphorically as voting with their purses. There is nothing in the science of economics that supports your opinion regarding what would happen in the absence of law. Keep firmly in mind, when you regulate, you deprive individual people of their free choices. Where have you, or the state, obtained the superior intelligence to know what is good for people better than they do? That is the basis for your hypothetical assumption and until the state is able to explain wherein its God-like, superhuman knowledge is derived, I am not buying it. Besides its brutal to force your, or the state's. economic beliefs on others. Socialism (central planning of the economy) cannot exist in the absence of force, whereas capitalism is the only economic arrangement that can exist in such an environment.

Geo wrote,

Indeed, we use the threat of force to control the market for child pornography. Bad thing or good thing?

Bad thing, of course. You see, Geo, force is not the way of Jesus. He said, love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, turn the other cheek to force and violence, don't use it for your own selfish or even unselfish purposes because a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. You see, the powerful state with its monopoly on force that you would create to regulate child pornography is perforce also powerful enough to commit a multitude of sins with impunity, such as war and genocide to name just a few of the crimes that states are notorious for commiting. So, I say to you: Genocide, good thing or bad thing?

Geo asks,

So the threat of force to stop child pornographers cannot achieve a net good?


No, it cannot! Even if the threat of force could be applied efficaciously so as to successfully stop child pornographers, and we know from experience that it cannot because it hasn't, the question is what is the NET effect? The great French economist/philosopher Frederic Bastiat wrote a beautiful little essay that goes directly to your question with some wonderful dry humor. The title of his essay is WHAT IS SEEN AND WHAT IS NOT SEEN. His point was that the average person only looks at the immediate and visible evidence of the effect of a public policy, whereas the economist looks at ALL of the evidence, including that which may be invisible to the causal observer or does not become evident until later--in the so-called long run, in economic speak. The fact of the matter is that using force to stop child pornogrophy has many deleterious side effects and is surely counterproductive, creating more child porn than it stops.

Geo wrote,

I think you take this quote somewhat out of context.
Not at all. In fact I used it in the same sense that Jesus did. In his great Sermon on the Mount, he used the 'bad fruit = bad tree' analogy to tell us how to recognize a false prophet "who comes to you in sheep's clothing..." The state comes before its citizens under many guises, including much pomp and circumstance to give it an aura of great power, wisdom and authority. But behind it all lies its monopoly on the use of force--the club that hides beneath its black robe. Rest assured that the state can produce nothing that is good because its method--force and violence--is bad.
Keep the faith!

[geochron]

Hi Geo,

I need not show how the free market is a good thing. It has demonstrated its utility for one and all to see too often over too long a period for me to try to add to its lustre. Furthermore, you have not shown how the free market is a bad thing. You have merely postulated a hypothetical situation that is entirely unrealistic and thus beyond the realm of economic analysis.



I disagree. The mixed economy, with free market + regulations, has demonstrated its utility for all to see. Whether making it more free or more regulated would improve the current situation is arguable either way. I would argue that the removal of regulation over the past 20 years has tended to leave the average person worse off. There is a problem with defining better or worse, however, which is a whole different argument. According to the IMF (I think, cited in Wheen's book, I'll look it up if necessary), world production has grown less quickly since monetarist deregulation than it did in the state-controlled 70s.



Geo, again you are stating your opinion regarding another hypothetical situation. In a free market, people don't "vote," although their buying and selling or refraining from buying and selling has often been referred to metaphorically as voting with their purses. There is nothing in the science of economics that supports your opinion regarding what would happen in the absence of law.



A free market is an entirely hypothetical situation too - that's one of my points.

Are you really claiming familiarity with the entire science of economics? If so, since there is plenty in the history of labour to cover this situation - we can look back to the 1930s to see what unregulated industry is capable of - I would suggest that the entire science of economics is startlingly incomplete.

Let's not forget that the science of economics produced the obviously spurious Laffer curve argument as well.



Keep firmly in mind, when you regulate, you deprive individual people of their free choices. Where have you, or the state, obtained the superior intelligence to know what is good for people better than they do? That is the basis for your hypothetical assumption and until the state is able to explain wherein its God-like, superhuman knowledge is derived, I am not buying it. Besides its brutal to force your, or the state's. economic beliefs on others.



Not if it prevents them from acting brutally.

And we can't all have our economic beliefs reified. Your economic belief in the unrestrained free market encounters everyone else's economic belief in the regulated free market. Clearly there can only be one market. What makes imposing a belief one way brutal, while imposing it the other is not?

I'm not suggesting the state is infallible. The ideal modern state takes an empricial approach. It listens to theorists, makes changes, sees what happens, then makes more changes. The feedback system is poor, but this is isn't a terrible way of seeking an optimum solution mathematically. It's better than assuming somewhere is optimum and sitting on that point with your fingers in your ears.



Socialism (central planning of the economy) cannot exist in the absence of force, whereas capitalism is the only economic arrangement that can exist in such an environment.



How does it stop people establishing a socialism then?

We're not talking worker ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. We're taling about regulation of a free market - through health and safety law, for instance.



Bad thing, of course. You see, Geo, force is not the way of Jesus. He said, love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, turn the other cheek to force and violence, don't use it for your own selfish or even unselfish purposes because a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. You see, the powerful state with its monopoly on force that you would create to regulate child pornography is perforce also powerful enough to commit a multitude of sins with impunity, such as war and genocide to name just a few of the crimes that states are notorious for commiting. So, I say to you: Genocide, good thing or bad thing?



It's not my position that states do no bad things. I'm disputing your position that states do no good things. Examples of bad things done by states don't trouble me.



No, it cannot! Even if the threat of force could be applied efficaciously so as to successfully stop child pornographers, and we know from experience that it cannot because it hasn't,



We know no such thing. We know there is a law against it and there is still some. I suggest that abolishing the law on child pornography would be a somewhat risky step. What happens if your theory is wrong, and child pornography mushrooms?



the question is what is the NET effect?



The question has changed then, a NET effect can include some good fruit.



The great French economist/philosopher Frederic Bastiat wrote a beautiful little essay that goes directly to your question with some wonderful dry humor. The title of his essay is WHAT IS SEEN AND WHAT IS NOT SEEN. His point was that the average person only looks at the immediate and visible evidence of the effect of a public policy, whereas the economist looks at ALL of the evidence, including that which may be invisible to the causal observer or does not become evident until later--in the so-called long run, in economic speak. The fact of the matter is that using force to stop child pornogrophy has many deleterious side effects and is surely counterproductive, creating more child porn than it stops.



Since you've looked at the long run, could you cite some evidence that regulation has created more child pornography than it has stopped?



Not at all. In fact I used it in the same sense that Jesus did. In his great Sermon on the Mount, he used the 'bad fruit = bad tree' analogy to tell us how to recognize a false prophet "who comes to you in sheep's clothing..." The state comes before its citizens under many guises, including much pomp and circumstance to give it an aura of great power, wisdom and authority. But behind it all lies its monopoly on the use of force--the club that hides beneath its black robe. Rest assured that the state can produce nothing that is good because its method--force and violence--is bad.
Keep the faith!



No, you used it out of context. The passage doesn't say "identify false prophets theoretically, then you'll know that these people can do no good". It says "identify false prophets by examining what comes from them (their fruit), then you'll know that their prophecies are false" Also, it's an anthropomorphic fallacy. "The state" is neither a person nor a prophet, false or otherwise.

If you turned it round and showed that everything that comes from the state is bad, then you could identify someone advocating a state as a false prophet. You can't start from the view that the state is a false prophet according to your theorisimg, therefore no effect of it can be good.

Well you can, of course, there's no regulation to stop you :wink:. It's just not convincing or based on a sound interpretation of the passage :smile:

[Paul]

I've noticed that some posts argue for capitalism or a variant thereof on the basis of its utility. They assume a utilitarian moral framework. Thus to that extent those systems would be incompatible with Christianity as Christianity proposes that what is good is much more than what maximizes utility. God is good. If something glorifies God while being economically inefficient, that doesn't make the system less good for economic inefficiency is only a secondary consideration to the primary considerations of justice, charity and truth.

[super dave]

I'm going to jump into this discussion as safety regulation and government policy is one of the few things discussed on this board that I actually know about!

The posters' differences of opinions come from trying to balance the rights of an individual with the obligations of a broader economy. Everyone has assumed so far that it is a fundamental, individual right to a safe workplace. May ommuntiies, particularly in Asia, would not assume this right - they would argue that there is a greater, community good and so working down an unsafe coal mine is fine because the additional money goes to the wider community. Even in the industrial Revolution, we are talking about higher accident rates, not wanton slaughter.

And whilst we're on the topic of safety expenditure, why are companies required to spend millions of dollars in what are now marginal safety improvements whilst the countries they operate in have no safe water and poor medical facitlies? Even in first world countries, the risk of dying in a car accident is hundred of times higher than being killed at work.
whoa! i don't mind employees getting paid "incentives" for hazardous work; but there are people (neighbors and/or victims) that did not agree to the "cutting corners" that the capitalistic (sic) and employee agreed upon. when hazards and damages occur peripheal to that work location, affecting others not privy to that employer/employee contract; can "hands off" capitalist simply relieve themselves of responsibility because the benefit to the public outweighs any injury to individuals? pure (however that french term for hands off government is spelled) insist this scenario.
has anybody considered the benefits that distributism(as advocated by chesterton) has to offer(local guilds and private property to all individuals)?

[Ned Netterville]

geochron wrote, It's not my position that states do no bad things. I'm disputing your position that states do no good things. Examples of bad things done by states don't trouble me.

Actually, geo, your position would be exactly right if you did argue that states do not do bad things. Only people do bad things. So when we say, as R.J. Rummel said in his monumental statistical analysis of the numbers of people murdered by various governmental regimes (Death by Government, 1994, Transactions Publishers), that the Soviet Union under Stalin slaughtered 42,672,000 innocent people between 1929 and 1953, and the Chinese government under Mao Tse-tung murdered 37,828,000 between 1923 and 1976, and Nazi Germany during the reign of Adolph Hitler murdered 20,946,00 between 1933 and 1945 (firgues do not include military combatants killed, rather only murdered innocent civilians), what we are really saying is that those leaders and the agents of their respective governments murdered that many innocent people. Of course it was only by means of the organized, tax-funded apparatus of modern government that these monsters were able to slaughter so efficiently and prolifically.

Geo, you may not understand the very nature of the state. Under and above all of the many things that the state is or that the state does is its use of force to accomplish its objectives. But, as we alluded to above, the state is truly only a "legal fiction." Only real live people can carry out the deeds attributed to the state. Probably the most insidious thing that this legal illusion does is allow those individuals in their capacity as agents of the state to escape responsibility--but not accountability before God--for innumerable crimes committed by individuals in the name of the state. When a tax collector extorts a portion of a laborer's wages, he is said to be merely doing his job, but that is the illusion. In fact, he is guilty of is stealing. When a military person drops a bomb that kills indescriminately, it is euphemistically called "unfortunate collateral damage," but what it really is is murder and what the bomb-dropping airman is is a murderer. These thieves and murderers may have acted "legally" under the state's sanctioned use of force, but rest assured that neither God nor Jesus are fooled by the illusion. Furthermore, because of the indisputable legal axiom that a principal is responsible for the acts of his or her agent in the course of the agent's duties, not only is the tax collector guilty of extortion and the soldier guilty of murder pursuant to the law of God (the Decalogue), but the agents' principals are equally guilty in the sight of God. In America, the principals who are equally guilty of those agents' crimes are the people--the citizens--who wield the "sovereign authority" over the United States government.

Geo, perhaps the reason that "bad things done by the state don't trouble [you]," is because you hold yourself guiltless when your government agents do wrong. You and I also may have a basic, irreconcilable philosophical difference. You see, I do not believe that the ends ever justify the means, whereas it appears that you think there are times when they do.

By the way, geo, if you would understand the science of economics, what it is and what it isn't, what it can do and what it can't, you must read Ludwig von Mises' epic exposition on that subject entitled Human Action, (1948, Yale Univeristy Press). Keep the faith--Ned Netterville (author, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, www.jesus-on-taxes.com (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/) )

[geochron]

geochron wrote,

Actually, geo, your position would be exactly right if you did argue that states do not do bad things. Only people do bad things.

[snip]



Certainly the actions of the state are carried out by individual people. But then so are the actions of any corporate body. And I think the sense of not being personally responsible is just as manifest in the guy who sells a pensioner an orthopedic chair she doesn't need, as it is in the tax collector.



Geo, perhaps the reason that "bad things done by the state don't trouble [you]," is because you hold yourself guiltless when your government agents do wrong.



The phrase was intended this way. "It is not a refutation of my argument that states do bad things." It is a refutation of your argument that states do good things. My personal reaction when states do bad things is probably much as yours is.



You and I also may have a basic, irreconcilable philosophical difference. You see, I do not believe that the ends ever justify the means, whereas it appears that you think there are times when they do.



Would you kill a man to stop him killing a child?



By the way, geo, if you would understand the science of economics, what it is and what it isn't, what it can do and what it can't, you must read Ludwig von Mises' epic exposition on that subject entitled Human Action, (1948, Yale Univeristy Press). Keep the faith--Ned Netterville (author, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, www.jesus-on-taxes.com (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/) )



I might be tempted to take your advice if you'd addressed any of the points in my last post.

[Ned Netterville]

geochron wrote in response to my statement that I do not believe that the end ever justifies the means:,Would you kill a man to stop him killing a child?

geo, you have asked a question about another hypothetical situation. As a miraculous result of adhering to the nonviolent ethic that Jesus urged, those who follow his way are never confronted with situations or choices such as you imaginatively propose. Most of the behaviors that Jesus advocated, particularly some of those he urged in his Sermon on the Mount (e.g., do not swear [an oath], do not resist an evildoer, turn the other cheek, give to everyone who begs from you, love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, do not worry about the things in life you need, for God will give them to you if you seek His kingdom first) are considered suicidal by worldly people--until they try them. Upon faithfully adopting these behaviors, one finds that they do not result in the disasters anticipated by the faithless, but in a more abundant life. So my answer is: No, I wouldn't kill a man to stop him from killing a child, and the consequences of my refusal to resort to violence in order to adhere to the way of Jesus is that God would see to it that the child lived long and productively and the man did too.

geo, I didn't respond to all of the points you raised in your earlier comment because I simply do not have enough time right now to belabor those issues. Essentially all of our differences are based on our different assessments of the value and utility of the nation-state. You assign the nation-state some or even considerable value for its utility, whiereas I believe that anything and everything people do with the "authority" or through the facilities of the nation-state is doomed to be counterproductive of any good purpose. We could go through the innumerable things real people really do on behalf of or in the name of the nation-state, and belabor whether or not it would better if those things remained undone by the state, but I am afraid that debate would go on forever for the list is virtually endless. And if we throw in hypothetical things that could or might be done in the name of the nation-state, we would be arguing eternally. I am sure you and I both have better things to do. However, please don't let my failure to respond keep you from benefiting from the wisdom of Ludwig von Mises. His stature among economists doesn't need my endorsement, but anyone interested in economics needs to read von Mises.

[Ryokan]

geochron wrote in response to my statement that I do not believe that the end ever justifies the means:,

geo, you have asked a question about another hypothetical situation. As a miraculous result of adhering to the nonviolent ethic that Jesus urged, those who follow his way are never confronted with situations or choices such as you imaginatively propose. Most of the behaviors that Jesus advocated, particularly some of those he urged in his Sermon on the Mount (e.g., do not swear [an oath], do not resist an evildoer, turn the other cheek, give to everyone who begs from you, love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, do not worry about the things in life you need, for God will give them to you if you seek His kingdom first) are considered suicidal by worldly people--until they try them. Upon faithfully adopting these behaviors, one finds that they do not result in the disasters anticipated by the faithless, but in a more abundant life. So my answer is: No, I wouldn't kill a man to stop him from killing a child, and the consequences of my refusal to resort to violence in order to adhere to the way of Jesus is that God would see to it that the child lived long and productively and the man did too.

geo, I didn't respond to all of the points you raised in your earlier comment because I simply do not have enough time right now to belabor those issues. Essentially all of our differences are based on our different assessments of the value and utility of the nation-state. You assign the nation-state some or even considerable value for its utility, whiereas I believe that anything and everything people do with the "authority" or through the facilities of the nation-state is doomed to be counterproductive of any good purpose. We could go through the innumerable things real people really do on behalf of or in the name of the nation-state, and belabor whether or not it would better if those things remained undone by the state, but I am afraid that debate would go on forever for the list is virtually endless. And if we throw in hypothetical things that could or might be done in the name of the nation-state, we would be arguing eternally. I am sure you and I both have better things to do. However, please don't let my failure to respond keep you from benefiting from the wisdom of Ludwig von Mises. His stature among economists doesn't need my endorsement, but anyone interested in economics needs to read von Mises.
Something new, a pacifist austrian schooler!

[geochron]

geo, you have asked a question about another hypothetical situation. As a miraculous result of adhering to the nonviolent ethic that Jesus urged, those who follow his way are never confronted with situations or choices such as you imaginatively propose. Most of the behaviors that Jesus advocated, particularly some of those he urged in his Sermon on the Mount (e.g., do not swear [an oath], do not resist an evildoer, turn the other cheek, give to everyone who begs from you, love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, do not worry about the things in life you need, for God will give them to you if you seek His kingdom first) are considered suicidal by worldly people--until they try them. Upon faithfully adopting these behaviors, one finds that they do not result in the disasters anticipated by the faithless, but in a more abundant life. So my answer is: No, I wouldn't kill a man to stop him from killing a child, and the consequences of my refusal to resort to violence in order to adhere to the way of Jesus is that God would see to it that the child lived long and productively and the man did too.



I don't see how this is a sustainable position. Clearly, men do in fact kill children. You could in fact go out and stop them by using lethal force. You don't choose this course of action, but the children die anyway rather than living productive lives as guaranteed by God. What's going wrong?



I didn't respond to all of the points you raised in your earlier comment because I simply do not have enough time right now to belabor those issues. Essentially all of our differences are based on our different assessments of the value and utility of the nation-state. You assign the nation-state some or even considerable value for its utility, whiereas I believe that anything and everything people do with the "authority" or through the facilities of the nation-state is doomed to be counterproductive of any good purpose. We could go through the innumerable things real people really do on behalf of or in the name of the nation-state, and belabor whether or not it would better if those things remained undone by the state, but I am afraid that debate would go on forever for the list is virtually endless. And if we throw in hypothetical things that could or might be done in the name of the nation-state, we would be arguing eternally.



You made a global, broad brush assertion. All I did was propose counter examples that falsified your theory.

[roddmann]

Ayn Rand was probably capitalism's chief apologist. Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" sold more copies than any book, save one (can you guess which one?. Here philosophical underpinnings: Objectivism

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
— Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.

Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.

Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.

Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.

Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.

Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.

Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.

"And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'"
Source: Anthem

[Ryokan]

Ayn Rand was probably capitalism's chief apologist. Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" sold more copies than any book, save one (can you guess which one?. Here philosophical underpinnings: Objectivism

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
— Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.

Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.

Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.

Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.

Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.

Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.

Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.

"And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'"
Source: Anthem
99/100 agnostics, aethiests, and capitalist think Rand is a nut.

[Ben Franklin]

99/100 agnostics, aethiests, and capitalist think Rand is a nut.

Yeah, I think the bit at the end of "Atlas Shrugged", with John Galt drawing a dollar sign in the air, was a LITTLE over the top...! :doh:

[Ned Netterville]

Paul wrote, I've noticed that some posts argue for capitalism or a variant thereof on the basis of its utility. They assume a utilitarian moral framework. Thus to that extent those systems would be incompatible with Christianity as Christianity proposes that what is good is much more than what maximizes utility. God is good. If something glorifies God while being economically inefficient, that doesn't make the system less good for economic inefficiency is only a secondary consideration to the primary considerations of justice, charity and truth.

I argue for capitalism because it is the only moral choice among conceivable economic systems, since it is the only one yet conceived that can exist in the absence of force and violence, or, in other words, it is the only one compatible with the principles Jesus urged. The fact that it also has the highest utility among all conceivable economic arrangements may be coincidental, or the work of a higher, unseen Power. The original question that started this thread is, Can one be a Christian and a laissez-faire capitalist? Unsure of exactly what a Christian believes, because there are so many divergent branches of Christianity, I should refrain from answering the question. However, I do believe that a disciple of Jesus can only be a laissez-faire capitalist. The interpretation of laissez-faire I rely on is best expressed in the phrase, "live and let live."

I do not think it is productive to say what "Christianity" proposes or doesn't propose, because "Christianity" doesn't speak with a unified voice. No one can say what Christianity proposes without being much more specific and designating the specific branch one is speaking for. My own observation of "Christianity," if I may momentarily imagine such a generalization, is that "Christianity" has strayed so far from the principles of Jesus as to be unatributable to him. (For example, if one speaks longingly of a "Christian nation," I must assume that one is not a disciple of Jesus seeking the kingdom of God.)

Justice, charity and truth produce the highest degree of economiic efficiency and are never incompatible therewith. Of course I could change my mind on this point if you can provide an example from real life--not a hypothetical.

Ryokan remarks, Something new, a pacifist austrian schooler!
Not new. Carl Watner, who publishes the VOLUNTARYIST may be another, although I hate to type cast him, and I presume most of his many subscribers are too. Furthermore, the breed can trace its lineage, according to Murray Rothbard, at least as far back as Lao Tzu (a contemporary of Confusius c.551-479 BC), his disciple Chuang Tzu (c.369-286 BC) and Pao Ching-yen (early fourth century AD). Jesus certainly was a laissez-faire pacifist, and Rothbard mentions a host of other forebears in his two-volume AN AUSTRIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT.

Geochron writes, You made a global, broad brush assertion. All I did was propose counter examples that falsified your theory.

Congratulations! You have vanquished me and leave me speechless. Give yourself an A+ for your deft debating skills, Geo.

Rodman writes, Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.

"And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'"
Source: Anthem

As a writer, Ayn Rand mastered the novel genre as few others have before or since. Although I believe she professed athiesm, Jesus would have agreed with the assessment that you quote from ANTHEM. The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' --and the scripture cannot be annuled."--Jn 10:34 Jesus was referring to Psalm 82, line 6, "I say, 'Ye are gods, children of the Most High, all of you...'"

Ryokan wrote, 99/100 agnostics, aethiests, and capitalist think Rand is a nut.

Ned asks, Your authority is...?