 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Christian Democracy--an Oxymoron? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/15/2010 12:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | Daniel: "Within the context of that metaphor, it's like Asher is suggesting that I shouldn't object to a system that allows for, and even promotes people getting raped. "At least they're not dead."
No, exactly wrong again! By no means do I suggest that one shouldn't object to a system that allows for and promotes rape!
What if a person lived in a society were murder was rampant and it was within my power to help them escape into a bordering territory where murder was not the order of the day...but rape was quite common...I absolutely would help them escape into such a land and I would not think to myself, "Well, murder and rape are both sin. No point in helping them escape one sin only to be victim to another sin."
Now, if it was also in my power once they were in the land of rape to help them escape into a land where both murder and rape were infrequent then absolutely I would do that. And if the intermediate land can be skipped altogether...then of course, that's what one should do.
My point all along has been that murder and rape are different and one is lesser than the other. And that is not simply utilitarian ethics...there is an objective difference between murder and rape.
And as for the political...I am torn between libertarian anarchy and minarchy. When you say, "I think there IS a way to do Christian politics, it's exemplified by serving one another in love." Yeah, I don't disagree. But I take seriously the logistics of saying such a thing. Simply to say the word "love" doesn't wave a magic wand over everything and make everything possible. I do think there are levels of approaching unto a truly loving society...and communism/socialism, both in theory and in practice is a FAILURE at providing a framework that allows love to function in a society. It is a big shell game. Our current mixed system is better than communism, but it still has too much state involvement (the state ONLY ever functions by force). And when I learn from historical study that a libertarian anarchy functioned in Iceland for three hundred years...I cannot but help pointing to that and saying "That's the right direction!" And no, by no means, do I think that just because something is a libertarian anarchy does that make it a perfect society. There have been many attempts at libertarian anarchy throughout history, many of them failing at providing a loving framework. But even the one example, and especially in light of it having lasted for THREE HUNDRED YEARS gives me hope (well, at least a concrete example to attach the theories of libertarian anarchy to).
I don't know if the United States will ever be such a libertarian anarchy, I kind of doubt it. I do know it DID function as a minarchy for several years after it's founding. But that is also mired by the fact of class preferences before the law, inequality of women, and slavery. But, that selfsame society with those injustices was a great deal better than everything else that was going on in Europe. Much like escaping a land of murder for a land of rape. Better, but not good enough. I want to say "The best political system is NO political system!" If it can be done in Iceland for 300 years..it is possible. But then the logistics come into the vision and one has to let the air out of one's balloon. And then minarchism seems like it is more achievable than libertarian anarchism...at least as a halfway house towards anarchy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/15/2010 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
I guess my point about Marx was simply that Communism as it was manifested in Russia, Cuba, and China isn't what Marx discussed. It's almost like using those instances as examples for Communism is like using Iraq during the 90's as an example of democracy. It's a farce. The instances don't represent the abstract idea, thus are not really examples at all.
That being said, Marx is found lacking on any number of points. I don't want to be misunderstood: I am not a Marxist. I simply thing it's inappropriate, if not intellectually dishonest, to discuss entities such as Russia when criticizing Communism qua Communism. Some of the questions for Communism would be : Where's the global revolution? Why doesn't the middle class revolt? Why is industry a necessary prerequisite for the revolution? etc.
Tom: This gets at the heart of it maybe. I do think 'rape' is by default better than 'murder'. I'd rather my daughter be raped than murdered, for example. But this is very far from "approving of rape"! Very far indeed.
Daniel: To continue the metaphor (I think the parallels are fascinating) and perhaps rephrase it. In terms of a Christian Politic how do we affirm a government that rapes a bunch of people and kills some of the people it raped? Do we affirm that government by saying "Well...at least it didn't rape and kill everyone." If that's the best we can do, then to echo a popular phrase on this board, Lord have mercy on us all.
I just think we can do so much better in terms of grounding our own politics and perceptions of governmental structures. If supporting liberal democracy is the best we can do, and the best reason for our supporting it is "at least we're not killing as many people as the Stalinists...", then again: Lord have mercy on us all.
Tom: Then help me express the consequential difference between Communism and Democracy. You don't seem to be saying they're morally equivalent in terms of the consequences and damage and misrelation they propagate generally. So...express the distance between them for me.
Daniel: They are 2 sides of the same coin. They are different, but they achieve a very similar affect. The Soviets and Maoists coerced the populace through use of fear and explicit violence. Democracies are effectively subverted by, and consequently controlled by, corporations, who control the populace through very clever and subtle techniques.
To quote Eugene McCarraher (I've been reading a bunch of his work lately):
"Now I know that most Christians don't immediately fear the corporation as a bearer of that "culture of death" excoriated by the Holy Father. To be sure, Evanqelium Vitae spends a considerable amount of time on "life issues" such as abortion, euthanasia, and genetic engineering, in which the biological integrity of human selfhood is most clearly at issue. But if we look carefully at other passages in the encyclical, we can both enlarge the scope of its concerns and reinterpret other papal documents --especially Centesimus annus and Laborem exercens --in the light of a "gospel of life." ~ commits Catholics to opposing "whatever insults human dignity" and to dissenting "whenever people are treated as mere instruments of gain." The scourges of indignity and instrumentalization are embodied, not only in abortion and euthanasia, but also in an obsession with "efficiency" that points (as I'd gloss the encyclical with,. a bow to John Milbank) to the ontology of scarcity that undergirds capitalist economics. The culture of death subsists as well on a notion of freedom as autonomous will, the clashes of which in the forum of the marketplace put a premium on what His Holiness calls a "completely individualistic conception of freedom." And because it understands freedom in this way, the culture of death idealizes democracy either as a "substitute for morality" or as "a panacea for immorality."
On each of these counts the economy and culture of corporate capitalism merits a verdict of "guilty." Take "efficiency." It's considered one of the impregnable argumentative defenses of capitalism to laud its "efficiency," and yet few people pose what should be the first and obvious question: efficient in terms of what? Making more stuff at a cheaper cost, is the usual uncomprehending response. But what about the stuff? Does it, from the standpoint of the gospel, foster a community of life, love, and worship? It's worth noting, especially in the light of recent news, that part of that stuff is the commodification of biological processes which, conducted under corporate auspices, looks to be one of captialism's most lucrative and sinister areas of expansion. And what about the cost? Does cheapness justify unemployment, deskilling, sweatshop misery, and other assaults on the livelihood, talent, and freedom of workers? If we're serious about a culture of life, we should repudiate in the strongest terms all the cruel and tiresome rejoinders made in response to these moral challenges. You know, all that dim-witted and callous talk about tight belts and "tragic necessity" that rolls so easily off the tongues of the nouveau bourgeoisie. We also need to recall the central but forgotten truth that the spur of production under capitalism is not moral or spiritual but accumulative. The level of this forgetfulness is a sign that the conflation of reason and morality with accumulation has already poisoned the American moral imagination."
Later on in the same article he writes:
"Most important, Christian socialists and the radical orthodox have rooted their vision in an ontology of abundance that must - provide the metaphysical foundation for a political economy of life. In their view, the capitalist claim to realism about scarcity and will --the twin pillars of modern economic culture -- is a foolish and lethal delusion. However upbeat and cheerful the pecuniary imagination may appear, its latent nightmare is dispelled by Christian socialism with an account of creation as plenitude, fertility, and gifted exchange. I think it was something like this faith in abundance --a conviction expressed, for Jews and Christians, in the very first sentence of Genesis --that underlay Ruskin's wonderful maxim that there is no wealth but life. Thus, a Christian resistance to capitalism must rest, not on "idealism" or on a stoic wisdom of "regulation," but on a claim to realism that Christians have become all too faithless, modest, or intimidated to avow."
(the full article can be found : http://ethicscenter.nd.edu/archives/documents/McCarraher.pdf )Post Edited (Daniel M) : 2/15/2010 11:50:35 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/15/2010 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel,
Anytime and anywhere and under whatever circumstances that injustice occurs we should put our voice against it.
That said, there is a difference between types of injustices. There are some injustices that warrant the use of FORCE to stop the injustice. There are many others, that although warranting disapprobation, do not warrant the use of FORCE to put a stop to.
Initial use of force always warrants responding use of force to stop it's injustice. That doesn't mean that one MUST use force in those instances, only that it is warranted. Having workers that are little paid, and must work in a bad environment does not warrant the use of force if the workers are free to not work for their employer. It may warrant disapprobation. And I would not be one to take up the defense of a corporation when warranted disapprobation was being directed toward it. But when force is being directed toward a corporation that uses sweatshop techniques then the use of force trumps the milder injustice of the sweatshop and I think I am then called upon by justice to decry the use of force.
Now, most all instances of corporate injustice is indeed fostered by "clever and subtle techniques"...and they do warrant disapprobation. However, most instances of corporate injustice DO NOT come from use of FORCE by said corporation, and so do not warrant use of FORCE to interdict.
Most all instances of state injustice is fostered by FORCE. And even their "clever and subtle techniques" are built upon a foundation of FORCE. (One such clever and subtle technique being - "Look at the corporation and all their injustices! Let's get em!" and then the state continues on it's way, a way of force, unhampered by either adequate disapprobation or countering force by those who are on a crusade to take down the EVIL corporations)
Yes, we can speak disapprobation to both structures. But it's the state that's wielding force. And it's the state that you yield the field to when you are distracted by their shell game.
There are many, many business people who are not unjust in their day to day dealings, there are a few who are...and they deserve the full extent of what their injustice warrants. But for the most part, their day to day dealings are not sitting on a foundation of FORCE, unlike nearly all governmental action. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/15/2010 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: Brandon: "When it becomes evil is when it becomes individualism. With individualism, all social institutions are seen as derivative from and subject to the sovereign wills of the individuals."
Brandon, what exactly about all social institutions being seen as derivative from and subject to the sovereign wills of the individuals is evil to you?
Here is an excerpt that applies here. It is a little long for a cut a paste job, so if you want to just ignore it I'll understand.
OK, I read your excerpt Asher and I think it totally misses the point that I’m talking about here. I’ll hope this responds to Tom as well. Don’t get me wrong. There are some really good things about living in a democracy FROM A CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW. What I mean by that is that there are created goods. People and citizens are more than just citizens. They are plumbers, they are wives, they are teachers, they are electricians, police officers, preachers, doctors, nurses. There are associations, such as clubs, unions, neighbourhoods, etc. There are institutions such as universities and banks and schools, businesses, etc. Government ought to serve citizens in their diversity. Now, injustice is injustice. Yes. Murder may be worse than rape. Or that ideology (at least in practice and not in creed) lines up MORE BEAUTIFULLY with the Kingdom and its values. That is not the point. Injustice is injustice no matter what scale. The point is looking at systems as a whole not in the sense of saying, this is better than that but rather this does creates injustice here and that justice there. In this ideology, this is more just and that over there is more Unjust. So. To get involve in what is better or worse seems to be off course. Injustice (that which does not reflect Kingdom values such as when each of the entities above is stifled from carry out their God-given responsibilities) is THE point is. It seems that if one concentrates on what ideology is better or worse, this draws away at least to some extent (that is it minimizes how bad WE are) where the focus should be on justice itself. Per se. That is, is the state being just here? Is it being just there? More poignantly, what if, in our Western democracy (as we understand it today), in our call for GREATER democracy and equality throughout society, in order to liberate individuals into FULLER PARTICIPATION in institutions where they live and work, we for example, compel the Catholic Church to ordain women? If you want to talk in purely moral terms, go ahead. But I’m not interested in that. What I’m saying is that the ideals of democracy, such as liberated individuals (some feminists for example, this is what I mean Asher) and even the common good are not or do not provide sufficient definition or qualification of the state. In other words, communities and institutions can arrive at perfectly unjust and unstewardly decisions through democratic means. It isn’t about, “Well, see, democracy is good here but it is bad there.” It’s not about, “Communism is good here and bad there.” It IS about how each of these ideologies fall short of the Kingdom by elevating this or that good thing in creation to the point of idolatry and thus creating injustice. Simple as that. To think in the categories of extremes or this is better than that or this is worse than that seems to me to completely miss the point.
Back to work.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 2/15/2010 12:22:16 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/15/2010 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: "When it becomes evil is when it becomes individualism. With individualism, all social institutions are seen as derivative from and subject to the sovereign wills of the individuals."
Brandon, what exactly about all social institutions being seen as derivative from and subject to the sovereign wills of the individuals is evil to you?
I'm gonna try this one again...
1) What are social institutions derivative from if not the wills of individuals?
2) Why should social institutions not be subject to the wills of individuals?
My thinking on institutions of all types is that they simply act as "force" modifiers. Me as a lone individual has the force...of argument and also of physical power...of only myself. If I am a member of an institution, but have no authority within the institution to speak for the institution...then I still only have the force (within the institution) of myself only. If I have authority to speak for or make policy for an institution then I am under a force modifier...my voice is the voice of every individual within the institution...even those that disagree with my policy directives as long as they remain within the institution. I speak and carry the force of the whole institution.
If, as a leader of a state (a kind of institution), I wrap the mantle of supreme legitimate authority around myself then I am acting with a HUGE force modification. And hence, a Bush or an Obama, can by FORCE carry out policy directives that large swaths of individuals within the institution disagree with. And hence, a Hitler or a Stalin, can by FORCE...you get the point.
Private institutions, also depositories of force modification, act similarly...but they are concretely limited. They compete with other institutions and individuals...and cannot take upon themselves the mantle of supreme legitimate authority.
(The mantle of supreme legitimate authority is only possible because enough individuals have either agreed to the status or ceded the field. If enough people disagree and meet the institution with force of their own, then the idea of supreme legitimate authority is shown to be DERIVED from the wills of individuals.)
This is why I favor either libertarian anarchy (only private institutions competing) or minarchy (a small, weak, state clearly delineated in it's authority)
This is usually the point of the conversation where an opponent throws up the idea of MONOPOLIES and how that they are similar in force modification to states. And that is because they do not differentiate natural monopolies from state established monopolies. Natural monopolies that price themselves out of the market find themselves supplanted by the next best alternative...that is why natural monopolies tend to police their own pricing structures so that next best alternative competitors do not become attractive...so, there is a limit to the force modification that a natural monopoly can wield. But a state established monopoly operates under the umbrella of the state and hence has the force modification apparatus of the state at it's disposal...and so has no bounds,save those of the state, to it's force modification.
All in all, when I encounter people who decry the evils of capitalism they 1) do not have any suggestions as to a WORKABLE alternative and 2) so misunderstand capitalism as to make their indictments directed at who knows what...but not capitalism. Usually they are confusing mercantilism with capitalism. And if they understood the difference, a real capitalist would likely be their allies not their enemies. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/16/2010 12:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher,
I honestly have no idea how you are synthesizing your economic ideas of libertarianism with Christian morality. I'm a pacifist, so you lost me with "There are some injustices that warrant the use of FORCE to stop the injustice". No. All injustices can, and should, be fought in the same way: imitation of Christ on the Cross (giving of yourself even for the very people who are murdering you).
You seem terribly invested that liberal economics be correct. I'm not sure why. I think you really need to read Zizek. Or Milbank, or McCabe. While Zizek is in desperate need of theological critique (he claims to be an atheist-Christian), he clearly identifies the empirical violence embedded in the capitalist system. You seem to be formulating your theoretical conceptualizations of property-relations abstractly and then projecting them onto what is actually happening in any "capitalist" society. Instead of actually looking at what is happening (which is manifestations of violence in every form). Now, I have nothing against theoretical abstractions. You can even say that the American Empire, and it's brutal reign of oppression are not really examples of Capitalism. Or that imperial Europe and it's bloody reign weren't really examples of capitalism.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Capitalism is bad, but not that bad? Capitalism is great, and all the evils attributed to it are people just not knowing what they're talking about? Are you talking about Capitalism as idealized by scholars, or Capitalism as the primary economic mechanism at work within most liberal democracies? Is gentrification a myth made up by the left? Are the brutal repressions in South America not related to our economic investments there? Is the commoditization of the Imago Dei not a manifestion of capitalism? Isn't the destruction of livelihoods and unemployment due to globalization a evil perpetuated by Capitalism? Are the billions of people living in the slums of globalizations wake just lazy? Are those starving kids just not dedicated enough? Are these things simply not related?Post Edited (Daniel M) : 2/16/2010 12:16:08 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/16/2010 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "I honestly have no idea how you are synthesizing your economic ideas of libertarianism with Christian morality."
First, there is no ONE thing called Christian morality that every Christian agrees to, it just isn't the case.
And pacifism and libertarianism although having significant differences share some common values. Libertarianism calls for force ONLY as a response to the initial use of force...and even when force is warranted, if there is another solution then there is no reason not to take it. But, this does put a separation between libertarian thought and pacifist thought.
Daniel: "All injustices can, and should, be fought in the same way: imitation of Christ on the Cross (giving of yourself even for the very people who are murdering you)."
Christ on the cross is a snapshot of God in totality. The cross had a definite purpose and function. The method of the cross is not the only method God has used against injustice. There was a casting out of Adam and Eve from the Garden, there was a casting out of Cain, there was a flood that killed many, there was destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Christ himself used a whip, there is a passage in which He says to turn the other cheek, there is a passage in which He tells his disciples to buy swords, it is not as simple as pure pacifism, that is why I am not a pacifist.
Daniel: "You seem terribly invested that liberal economics be correct."
I am only invested to the extent that I think liberal economics is 1) more just than any other option and 2) true to reality...not just a conceptual theory that does not function in reality
Daniel: "I think you really need to read Zizek. Or Milbank, or McCabe."
Yep, familiar with 'em and disagree with the broad swath of their ideas. For example,
Daniel: "he (Zizek) clearly identifies the empirical violence embedded in the capitalist system."
No, he clearly identifies the violence embedded in the MERCANTILIST system that he identifies as the capitalist system. Capitalism is an economic system...it need not be conjoined to a political system. There have been instances throughout human history in which it was not so conjoined and it functions quite nicely when that is the case. When it is conjoined with a political system then there is violence...because almost all political systems have violence as their authority. The violence stems from the political system, not the economic one...but for what it's worth, when capitalism is conjoined (mercantilism) it is subsumed by the political system and so I can see why it is easy for most people to see the "evils" of the "capitalist system"...especially as opponent political systems, such as all varieties of socialism, decry the "evils" of "capitalism"...when the evils they decry are actually the evils of another political system. Evils that they (the socialists) are also guilty of in their system, by the way.
Daniel: "You seem to be formulating your theoretical conceptualizations of property-relations abstractly and then projecting them onto what is actually happening in any "capitalist" society."
The irony of this is so rich, but I know you don't get it. Once again, you should differentiate between a mercantilist system and a capitalist one...they are not the same. There have been mercantilist "happenings" in human history...the current American economic system is an example, I am not defending THAT system. There have also been capitalist "happenings" in human history...one such example as I have already noted took place in Iceland for three hundred years...there are examples from Ireland...Rhode Island...many Scandinavian communities...many other examples throughout history. Iceland is sufficient to show that the theoretical conceptualization of capitalism (not mercantilism) is actually functional in reality. America itself, even with all it's initial institutional injustices, started with some promise to actualize capitalism...but it did not come to fruition. The benefits of wealth creation of capitalism were used by the political system to further it's increase in power...and where a political system crosses the libertarian bound is the same place you will see it begin to use force and violence to gain more power and consolidate the power it has. And subverting capitalism into mercantilism is another such engine for state consolidation of power. When you decry THAT...I am right beside you adding my voice. But when you decry the ONLY reality proven economic system itself, not being able to understand the difference between the political system that has subverted it and the system itself then I can no longer ally with you.
Daniel: "I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Capitalism is bad, but not that bad? Capitalism is great, and all the evils attributed to it are people just not knowing what they're talking about? Are you talking about Capitalism as idealized by scholars, or Capitalism as the primary economic mechanism at work within most liberal democracies? Is gentrification a myth made up by the left? Are the brutal repressions in South America not related to our economic investments there? Is the commoditization of the Imago Dei not a manifestion of capitalism? Isn't the destruction of livelihoods and unemployment due to globalization a evil perpetuated by Capitalism? Are the billions of people living in the slums of globalizations wake just lazy? Are those starving kids just not dedicated enough? Are these things simply not related?"
All bad things indeed! But they should justly be attributed to the workings of a political system. And if the political system is holding the economic system as a shield to protect itself against your onslaught...evidently you would see the economic system destroyed with the political. Whereas, I think, the economic system of capitalism - separated from enslavement to the unjust political system - is actually the ANSWER to many of the problems caused by the political system.
There is a tangle of threads and you want to go at the whole thing with a pair of scissors. Yeah, it's more simple that way. Easy to follow conceptually. And dead wrong! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/16/2010 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
Alright, now I think we're getting somewhere. So the primary economic mechanism in America isn't capitalism? Got'cha.
Asher: Capitalism is an economic system...it need not be conjoined to a political system.
Daniel: But it can be, and almost always is. I don't see how we can legitimately disengage between the two unless there is no political system. In which case the economic structure becomes the polis by which a nation would operate (thus becoming the political system itself). Libertarianism is a political and economic stance. Indeed, the suggesting of a small impotent government is suggesting a political structure is necessary for your type of economics. The only negative example that I can think of off the top of my head would be Brazil. Which has a history of both governments utterly embedded in the wealthy's interests, and completely powerless governments that have no choice by bend to the will of the rich. If you're suggesting that capitalism must always be considered separate from state power, then capitalism is simply unattainable in the world of nation-states. Should corporations have any political voice?
Asher: There have also been capitalist "happenings" in human history...one such example as I have already noted took place in Iceland for three hundred years...there are examples from Ireland...Rhode Island...many Scandinavian communities...many other examples throughout history.
Daniel: When did these instances take place? The majority of Scandinavian states are socialist right now. Why did they give up capitalism?
Asher: But when you decry the ONLY reality proven economic system itself, not being able to understand the difference between the political system that has subverted it and the system itself then I can no longer ally with you.
Proven in what way? If America is a mercantilist state, then mercantilism seems pretty successful at what it does. Economics and the state are always intertwined. Even in your libertarian utopia, the government is necessarily small. Which implies that economics and politics are inseparable.
I have more, but I don't have time at the moment. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/16/2010 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Asher: Brandon: "To think in the categories of extremes or this is better than that or this is worse than that seems to me to completely miss the point."
It COMPLETELY misses the point?
All progress has happened by measures. We move from a state of dissatisfaction to a state that is more satisfactory than the last, even if it still is far from the best we can imagine. And the reason that that seems to be the only way that progress is even possible is that we do not all agree about what is the best state (by state I am not talking about governmental states, but states of affairs) or even what the Kingdom looks like.
Sure, if I can completely ignore your desires and even force you to comply with my desires then I can "let go" having to deal with things in measures...but that is to use injustice to bring about my supposedly "just" vision. And THAT is the frame of mind that for me completely misses the point!
Tom: Right, Asher. Agree.
We ought to confront evil wherever we face it and not condone rape just because it's not murder. My goodness. But to say rape is a lesser evil than murder is not to WILL rape. It's just to perceive its relative consequences. I wouldn't even know how to get by in a world where no difference in value was recognized and one thought the difference between rape and murder was utterly meaningless because to make that distinction is to posit EXTREMES at either end and THAT'S a no-no. I can't help but see the extremes. The Killing Fields in Cambodia, Hitler's gas chambers, Stanlins pogroms...are a more extreme form evil than are sweat-shops for minors. Sorry.
Why does God wipe out the world in Gen. 6, and not in every other chapter of the Bible? Why are Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed and not every other city every year for all history? Because some are WORSE than others.
Oh well.
Tom
Brandon: I starting writing my response and lost it. Can’t believe that. Ugh…anyhow…try this again. Truth be told, I think you Asher and Tom, need to take this a little slower. When I say that to think in terms of extremes misses the point I’m talking about the point I’M making about the RELIGIOUS ROOTS of ALL ideologies. I NEVER made any statement about one being better than another. I never made a judgment either way. In saying they are “besides the point” I’m NOT saying those are not important questions. I’m saying that IN RELATION to the point of the religious roots of all ideologies that the question of whether one is better than the other misses this point. That’s all. You seem to be saying that because I think this is besides the point that that somehow means I am saying that we can’t know the difference between one being better than the other. I’m simply saying that one being better than the other is not the question I’m addressing here. As a matter of fact, who started this thread? I did. What is it called? “Christian DEMOCRACY--An Oxymoron?” Thus I see value in democracy in trying to understand it from a Christian perspective. If one views ideologies or takes sides with one over another they will fail to see ideologies as intrinsically religious and will see not only their own stance as a supposedly neutral account of reality but will also short-circuit JUSTICE in the process. If one approaches ideologies this way, they will view them as systems or structures that can be shown to be more or less reasonable or serviceable to the attainment of commendable goals worthy of implementation.
So, if as Christians we debate the virtues and vices of capitalism and socialism and view them as competing economic and political arrangement capable of meeting such criteria as greater efficiency and productivity, more effective protection of human rights, and expanded economic and personal opportunities (none of which is bad) we will ignore the spiritual roots of capitalism or socialism, which inevitably impact the way such goals are chosen, articulated and pursued. If socialism could live up to it’s promises, to eliminate poverty and redistribute more equally the abundance of the world’s goods? This would in no way exculpate it of its spiritual underpinnings--the belief in human autonomy coupled with a collectivist social ontology. Also, because of socialism's false soteriological and distorted way of seeing the world those promises would be fulfilled at the price of other undoubted social goods, ie., freedom. The same with liberalism. You have the protection of human rights and freedoms but this should not blind us to the incompatibility of liberalism’s religious foundation with those of biblical Christianity.
If you fail to understand this then you will ontologize and instrumentalize the ideologies. To ontologize means to ignore their spiritual, and directional character (thank you Daniel) and to ascribe to them a certain structural and creational status. To instrumentalize means seeing the ideologies as a means to any of a number of ends. So. If one makes a decision for capitalism, socialism, liberalism, nationalism conservativism, etc, it will not be seen as a choice between alternative, through, related, religious accounts of politics and its place in human life. No. The decision will be seen as a choice between arrangements of institutions and individuals that are or are not conducive to the attainment of such ends as prosperity, greater equality, greater freedom and defense of the downtrodden. Again, what’s missing here? The comprehension that all ideologies are inescapably religious AND IDOLATROUS in character. See the point? Wow. Again. That this one or that one is better is beside the point.
I’ll get to your other question to me tonight when I get back home from work Asher.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/16/2010 3:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher,
Asher: But when you decry the ONLY reality proven economic system itself, not being able to understand the difference between the political system that has subverted it and the system itself then I can no longer ally with you.
So Democracy in America has subverted capitalism? Should we throw out democracy in favor of a more capitalistic type structure? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/16/2010 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "So the primary economic mechanism in America isn't capitalism? Got'cha."
Not exactly right, but you are moving in the right direction. As I've said, capitalism is an economic system that CAN operate and HAS so operated apart from an established political system. Just because that is the case does not mean that it CAN'T be conjoined to a political system. Because capitalism is so fruitful at wealth creation, any political system naturally desires to be joined to capitalism...and when evils arise from such a joining they should rightly be assigned to the political system not the economic system. Wealth is a value that nearly ALL humans desire. (Now when I say this, please try to understand charitably...I am not saying that wealth should be the primary value we seek and therefore when gaining of wealth conflicts with other values then wealth should come out as the main deciding factor in our deliberations...I am simply saying that to be wealthy is a greater value than being in a state of poverty. But it is a value that should rightly be joined to other values such as honesty, integrity, charity, etc.) Wealth, being a desired value, also draws the attention of those who are not honest, etc (thiefs, swindlers...). It also draws the attention of unjust individuals within a political systems because wealth will buy for them access to or entrenchment in the seats of power of the political system. The wealth is a value...to everyone. What is done with the wealth is either just or unjust depending on how it is used. And governments almost always use wealth unjustly...even when saying they are using wealth in the cause of justice. As I have previously posted...there are essentially only three ways that I can get another person to help me achieve my end's: love, trade, and force. Pure Love can operate alone, Pure trade can operate alone, Pure love and Pure trade can operate without conflict. When force enters the equation everything takes on it's characteristics...or they counter that force with defensive force.
(Asher: Capitalism is an economic system...it need not be conjoined to a political system.)
Daniel: "But it can be, and almost always is. I don't see how we can legitimately disengage between the two unless there is no political system. In which case the economic structure becomes the polis by which a nation would operate (thus becoming the political system itself). Libertarianism is a political and economic stance. Indeed, the suggesting of a small impotent government is suggesting a political structure is necessary for your type of economics. The only negative example that I can think of off the top of my head would be Brazil. Which has a history of both governments utterly embedded in the wealthy's interests, and completely powerless governments that have no choice by bend to the will of the rich. If you're suggesting that capitalism must always be considered separate from state power, then capitalism is simply unattainable in the world of nation-states. Should corporations have any political voice?
Just because it can be and almost always is does not make capitalism evil, it makes it a value producing economic system that is highly desirable...desired by the just and the unjust...and the unjust are willing to use force to get it and maintain it. And if the just are not willing to use force to counter unjust seizure of the value then you get further unjust use of the value by the unjust.
analogy: capitalism is the fire-starting flint, wealth is the fire....when the unjust use fire for destructive ends and starts fires whenever they will gain by it...should we decry the flint or the fire? Or should we decry the injustice of the unjust people? Should we rally around the cry of "No more use of fire! Destroy the flint!"
Daniel: "unless there is no political system"
I am fine with anarchy. Anarchy is not a synonym for chaos. That is why I have continually been pointing to the example of medieval Iceland that had an anarcho-capitalist system for three hundred years.
Daniel: "In which case the economic structure becomes the polis by which a nation would operate (thus becoming the political system itself)."
No, that's not correct. You must differentiate between societal institutions and political institutions. The political system of anarchy is "no political system"...an arch...no leader...every man is his own leader...(which also means that he can willingly submit himself to the counsel of other men or some religious teaching or some ideology, etc)
There are however some social institutions that are either prior to or concurrent with capitalist functioning. An unstable society is not likely to foster a very strong capitalist economic system. A commitment of most of the populace to the idea of no use of force, save as interdiction to the initial use of force, and basic honesty, no fraud, etc. The economic system will then most likely provide on the free market the other things that a society needs and values.
But there need not be a political system. Look, one of the primary things that differentiates a political system from all individuals within a society and from all other societal institutions in a society is that it and it's agents have special privileges that no one else does. Here is an excerpt from "The Machinery of Freedom" that explains this:
-----
A government is an agency of legitimized coercion. I define 'coercion', for the purposes of this definition, as the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals.
For instance, people in this society believe that an individual has the right to turn down a job offer; the denial of that right is a form of coercion called enslavement. They believe that an individual has the right to turn down a request for money or an offered trade. The denial of that right is called robbery or extortion.
Government is an agency of legitimized coercion. The special characteristic that distinguishes governments from other agencies of coercion (such as ordinary criminal gangs) is that most people accept government coercion as normal and proper. The same act that is regarded as coercive when done by a private individual seems legitimate if done by an agent of the government.
If I yell 'Stop, thief!' at a stickup man escaping with my wallet, the bystanders may or may not help, but they will at least recognize the reasonableness of my act. If I yell 'Stop, thief!' at an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, leaving my house after informing me that he has just frozen my bank account, my neighbors will think I'm crazy. Objectively, the IRS is engaged in the same act as the thief. It seizes my resources without my permission. True, it claims to provide me with services in exchange for my taxes, but it insists on collecting the taxes whether or not I want the services. It is, perhaps, a fine point whether that is robberyor extortion. In either case, if it were the act of a private party, everyone would agree that it was a crime.
Suppose that a private employer, offering low wages for long hours of unpleasant work, failed to find enough workers and solved the problem by picking men at random and threatening to imprison them if they refused to work for him. He would be indicted on charges of kidnapping and extortion and acquitted on grounds of insanity. That is exactly how the government hires people to fight a war or sit on a jury.
It is often argued that government, or at least some particular government, is not merely legitimized but legitimate, that its actions only appear to be coercive. Such arguments often involve social contract theories—claims that the citizen is somehow contractually bound to obey the government. To those interested in that argument and its refutation I recommend No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.
Government is distinguished from other criminal gangs by being legitimized. It is distinguished from legitimate nongovernmental groups which may serve some of the same functions by the fact that it is coercive. Governments build roads. So, occasionally, do private individuals. But the private individuals must first buy the land at a price satisfactory to the seller. The government can and does set a price at which the owner is forced to sell.
Government is an agency of legitimized coercion. If the institutions which replace government perform their functions without coercion, they are not governments. If they occasionally act coercively but, when they do so, their actions are not regarded as legitimate, they are still not governments.
-----
Daniel: "Indeed, the suggesting of a small impotent government is suggesting a political structure is necessary for your type of economics."
No it's not. I'll respond more later, I've just had company arrive. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/16/2010 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "Indeed, the suggesting of a small impotent government is suggesting a political structure is necessary for your type of economics."
No, I have already shown that it is not necessary...BUT...I am open to a VERY minimalist minarchy. If for no other reason...such a state is pragmatically more likely to be achieved than an outright anarchy...and it could be a trial run at an anarchy. For example, all government functions except national defense could be privatized, because national defense is the BIGGY that causes pause even among libertarians. And if we can get everything running on the free market except national defense, then national defense could be privatized at a later point.
I am not looney tunes here...I do understand that an anarchic society is so very unlikely...I just think that it is important to recognize that it has been achieved before, it has functioned well, and it is provides the backdrop for a just society.
Another option I would be ecstatic to participate in, in light of structures we have actually experienced, is a libertarian form of government that financially functions by subscription instead of taxation. Take away the special privilege that government operates with...i.e. no legitimized coercion...and take away government's power of taxation. We can still have government have a department for every particular function they already fulfill (well, not every function, there are some things government currently does that is illegitimate under all cases...there should be no governmental use of force, coercion or fraud PERIOD! Which does mean that any private institution can compete with the government over any function they choose to)...and citizens can donate money to the particular functions of government that they are passionate about. Give what you want for national defense. Pledge a monthly amount, whatever. If you think government welfare programs are a good thing...by all means, pledge as much as you want earmarked for those programs. Another benefit of this type of a system is that money distribution within government, appropriation committees, etc. would be virtually done away with. And those are the places where much of the power in the governmental system resides. If we make that function obsolete by earmarking exactly what we want our donations to go to...so much the better for taking the power out of the hands of the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. And hey, if welfare programs aren't getting enough money...have a pledge drive. If you can get more people interested in whatever government function interests you...via verbal advocacy...then more power to you.
Here is an option that allows people to opt out financially if they want to or just aren't financially able to contribute. But the majority of the populace are likely to contribute. And if government is not getting enough money to do the things YOU want government to do...YOU give more and YOU urge more people to give more. Put your OWN money where your mouth is!
This isn't anarchy. Nor is it minarchy. But it does pass the line of libertarian I think. No force, no coercion, no fraud. (If anyone dare point out the logistical headaches this type approach would have...I immediately point you in the direction of the CURRENT I.R.S.)
Daniel: "Should corporations have any political voice?"
Under anarchy there is no political entity to direct your voice to. Under minarchy, the functions of government are so strictly bound that there is very little to no room for difference, so your voice (or corporate voices) makes very little difference. Under the third type system I briefly sketched, EVERYONE, including corporations can put their money where their mouths are. If corporations want improved infrastructure...they can either build it themselves...or donate to that governmental function.
That's the answer that sidesteps your obvious distrust of corporations. Here's the one that challenges it...Should unions have any political voice? Should PACs have any voice? On what authority and/or grounds would you restrict corporate free speech?
Daniel: "When did these instances take place? The majority of Scandinavian states are socialist right now. Why did they give up capitalism?"
The example from Iceland was like 900 something til 1200 something, around 320 or so years duration. It ended because a state was formed around the Catholic church, which bought up all the private defense organizations and then made it illegal to form new ones. Most other anarchic societies were also either gobbled up by other states, or saw the formation of an indigenous state. And again, differentiate the capitalism from the state...they did not give up capitalism...they are all mixed economies, not fully socialist ones...granted they are more on the socialist end of the spectrum than America. Here is a link to some statistics dealing with the performance of the Scandinavian economies:
www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510
Why did they give up capitalism? (Meaning: why did they move away from the capitalist end of the spectrum and more toward the socialist end of the spectrum) For probably the same reasons you are prepared to do so. (What do you think I mean when I give that answer?)
Daniel: "Proven in what way? If America is a mercantilist state, then mercantilism seems pretty successful at what it does. Economics and the state are always intertwined. Even in your libertarian utopia, the government is necessarily small. Which implies that economics and politics are inseparable."
Proven in that...capitalism produces wealth, socialism does not. What mercantilism is...is a combining of capitalism with the state...capitalism does what it does - produce wealth...the state does what it does - use force, coercion, and fraud to gain more power. Yes mercantilism is successful at what it does...but it is unjust...that's where we AGREE if you could only wrap your head around the fact that mercantilism is not capitalism 
...mercantilism is capitalism PLUS the state, with the state controlling the capitalism...NO, economics and the state do not have to be intertwined and YES they are separable. The fact that they often are not, does not falsify the fact that they can be...and in some instances in history HAVE BEEN separated. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/17/2010 12:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: "The comprehension that all ideologies are inescapably religious AND IDOLATROUS in character."
This from wikipedia:
David W. Minar describes six different ways in which the word "ideology" has been used:
1. As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative;
2. As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set;
3. By the role in which ideas play in human-social interaction;
4. By the role that ideas play in the structure of an organization;
5. As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
6. As the locus of social interaction, possibly.
For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:
1. it must have power over cognition
2. it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;
3. it must provide guidance towards action;
4. and, as stated above, must be logically coherent.
Question, Brandon? Given the above as the criteria to decide what is and is not an ideology...is Christianity an ideology? Absolutely! So, right from the get go I deny your basic assumption...that ALL ideologies are inescapably religious AND IDOLATROUS in character. Inescapably religious? Sure. Idolatrous? No. Can they be idolatrous? Sure. Are they necessarily idolatrous? No.
When God designed human beings the way He did, it entailed that human beings were going to have to have an economic system, especially as society gets more complex. Here is what we know about economic systems (at least no one has shown anything different than this, another option):
There is a spectrum...economic decisions entirely in the hands of individuals at one end of the spectrum...economic decisions entirely in the hands of a collective state apparatus at the other end of the spectrum. There are multitudes of mixture options in between.
At the pure capitalist end, individuals decide what to do with their own property...and that includes giving it away to the less fortunate if that is what they want to do or think is right for them to do.
At the pure socialist end, the individuals who are the leaders of the collective decide the majority of economic matters, leaving individuals within society with little economic freedom.
All mixtures in between combine those two elements...but there is a big difference between both ALL the mixtures and pure socialism and between pure capitalism. ALL mixtures and pure socialism use FORCE against individuals within society to make them give their property to some cause they would not freely give it to...and even when there are causes they would have freely contributed to, they are now FORCED to do that...and many people think that that besmirches the very idea of charity.
So, I am strongly against your stance! There is only one fully just economic system, and it is pure capitalism. If you choose ANY other option you have allied yourself with the use of FORCE, even if you aren't holding the gun yourself.
Force is not love. Love would beckon by example and speech to those who...being free to give or not to give...are choosing not to give. If I give all I possess to the poor, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love loves the poor and love loves those who aren't loving the poor. Speak to them, persuade them. But forcing them is not loving them!
Love would patiently, kindly seek to morally educate those who are not currently loving. Love would hope that the unloving would see the light, even when it appears that only darkness resides in their hearts. But even with that, love would not give up...either it's method...or it's goals.
And force is the opposite!
Pure capitalism is the option most compatible with love! | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/17/2010 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | I only have time enough to respond to this before I have to go back to work. But in the ensuing conersation, I forgot to respond to JET.
JET said:
I will confess to a little hyperbole, but I do think politics is different.
Some prostitutes are liars and some are not. However, there is nothing inherent about being a successful prostitute that prevents one from being honest. However, show me someone who is trying to win an election and I’ll show you a liar. Show me an honest politician and I’ll show you someone who is not trying to win an election. It’s not cynicism, just reality.
It is the system that makes politics different, not the particular individuals involved. There is something about people groups that are even more sinful, collectively, than individuals. People groups tend to identify the ‘good’ in purely selfish terms.... The ‘good’ is whatever is good for my group. ‘Bad’ is whatever favors other people groups. In politics, the ‘good’ has very little to do with universal reality or truth. To get elected, a politician must decide what various people groups want to hear. It has almost nothing to do with truth.
I’m not talking about living on a deserted island either. As I said, the problem is not with Christian "efforts to promote justice in an open public square", but rather with the Christian aspiration to "statecraft". If you’re not going to lie, your choices are more limited. Winning elections is not a viable option if you’re committed to the truth. Thus, it becomes a matter of choosing between wasting a lot of energy and resources in a futile effort to get elected honestly vs. looking for other creative ways to promote justice in the public square.
Brandon: JET you're talking about the ethics of individual persons. When I referred to prostitution I was talking about the “Institution.” No matter whether a prostitute is honest about her prostitution and her fees, etc., my argument is that she is practicing a “profession” that is by its very nature a violation of sexual normativity. I do not believe that someone who holds governmental office, whether elected or appointed, is participating in an anti-normative institution. Anyone who believes that must accuse God of setting up that institution.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/17/2010 2:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
I want to respond to your Iceland example. Because I'm failing to see how it's an example of capitalism working. I've been trying to find some resources on the economic structure, and I'm not finding anything that isn't distinctly viking. And the vikings had no problem what-so-ever with killing and simply taking goods from people they didn't consider part of their society.
Asher: Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity.
Daniel: Neither of these are examples of capitalism, they are examples of a society creating political norms. In other words, it's a political system. From what I can gather, the parliament basically consisted of the wealthiest and strongest (because only they could afford to buy it or retain it). I fail to see how this is dramatically different from a aristocracy.
I'm not sure how you define capitalism. The specific text you quoted doesn't really give us any indication as to how goods were produced, how labor was reimbursed, who owned the means of production of goods and whether or not people had any freedom over their labor. The political system sounds slightly better then some of the things going on in continental Europe (although Charlemagne ran a pretty good operation, relatively). But that's all your text discusses, politics. With some economic implications (that wealthy people could buy their way into political power).
In your response to Brandon you said: "One common objection to private property is that it is an immoral system because it relies on selfishness"
I don't think this understands the objection. The objection to private property is that it is an immoral system because it relies on the accumulation of private (individual) wealth rather than the creation of community. It's an utterly individualist project. There's nothing wrong with individual identification per se, but capitalism exalts the individual beyond the community he is a part of. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/17/2010 10:05 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Ha! Thanks Tom. Love ya too…but I don’t love being in the basement. LOL! But let’s remember something here. If ideologies are religious and idolatrous (as I believe they are) then we obviously need something else. The place to start for that is to begin with creation order (which doesn’t go over well on these boards for various reasons). What the ideologies do is deny this creation order and connect their transformative agendas to their own SUBJECTIVE dreams and aspirations in which they can’t seem to see beyond their own horizons and ironically because they see something in creation as both evil and something as salvific then they tend to flee creation while at the same deifying it. Because ideologies have creational underpinnings by necessity, those underpinnings condition and limit the ways in which ideologies basic ideas are actually lived out. That is, they provide an anchor in reality and keep them from going too far astray.
Some of this will respond to Asher’s stuff. But essentially I think that in order to transcend these ideologies it starts by recognizing creation order and out of that affirming societal pluriformity. Pluralism. By that, I’m not limiting it to what is called spiritual or directional diversity (other sects or religions) or contextual diversity/cultural diversity ie, other languages or ethnicities. These, though, will overlap with societal pluriformity but they should not be completely identified with it as such. For example, we could ask the question, “Should political authorities protect cultural diversity as it does religious freedom?” The answer is, “Yes.” Because a crucial element in the state’s calling is to do PUBLIC justice. Think about it. There are some forms of nationalism (in particular, the ethnic variety. You see this especially in eastern bloc countries as well as Africa) where it is believed that the state must either embody the aspirations of a single national community or impose a common culture on a diverse citizenry. Everyone must follow the same cultural patterns or risk being marginalized, if only implicitly from the body politic. Now, more specifically, you see this with language in which a universal language is mandated to facilitate shared deliberation within a common political institutions. In Africa, where European colonies settled, the post-independent governments have often chose the language of the mother country rather than one of the local vernaculars. The reason in part was that it might minimize the inconvenience of learning it as opposed to picking one ethnic community’s language and appearing to privilege that one community over the others.
However, the idea that a government should stamp out ALL local customs, traditions and particular ways of life owes more to an ideological attempt to impose uniformity on a citizenry than to the divine calling to do justice to ALL. This flies in the face of nationalism, and the popular creed of democratic sovereignty as well as to some extent liberalism, socialism and some types of conservativism. The thing is, if contextual diversity is based on CREATED HUMAN FINITUDE, then the attempt to eliminate it is rooted in an overweening effort to DENY such finitude and to claim the right to mold people in accordance with a single monistic vision of the world which is nothing less than idolatrous.
So, more specifically, in response to Asher’s attempt to say that it is the state that is a “force modifier” over each of these diverse relationships, institutions, traditions, associations, etc, this seems rather Hobbesian in nature. If, I’m understanding him correctly.
Listen. God is sovereign. And if God is sovereign then any attempt to locate an earthly sovereign whether it is a person or community with final authority in all walks of life is rooted in nothing less than a false religion. We need to do justice to the diversity of God’s creation not in a final justice sort of way but in penultimate justice sort of way. We may not agree with others on ultimate issues, but we are obligated to protect their freedom to believe and to a large extent live out their beliefs in their daily lives. This is out of the belief that in the present age, God wills to provide space and time for people to freely give their allegiance to his Kingdom.
So. We have to understand that first there is God. God who transcends creation. This means that “sovereign” individuals, state, race, nation, people or class don’t. In the history of Christian approaches to politics there is Catholic Social teaching where God is first THEN the Church and THEN the state and then intermediary structures or “civil society.” This is hierarchal in nature. The other approach is more Calvinistic and Kuyperian in which there is God and then the non-hierarchal affirmation of civil society. In other words, the Church and the state, are on the same playing field as the rest of civil society. I hold to this approach. Without getting into all the details of that, the bottom line as I understand it is that the state has it’s own sphere of responsibility and authority under God as each of these other sphere’s of civil society have theirs. It means that the state is a creational good (along with the other sphere’s of society) but as a creational good, it has it’s own unique task in the world. And that task is to do justice to the diversity of individuals and communities in HIS world. Which is to say that the task of government is jural in nature. Essentially, justice is what one author called, “giving something its right, its created place in the world.” That is, justice is tied to God’s order of creation. What is just is what conforms to God’s creative intention. This created place is a limited place. But what happens is that many times in human sinfulness we make claim something that we have no right to or we claim more than we ought to. We attempt to transgress our limits and take over the limited areas of all of God’s creation. In other words, we attempt to take over the responsibilities that are the God given right of the other spheres of creation. We act in an omnicompetent fashion. The job or task of the state is to justly inter-relate the different spheres or authorities or areas of responsibilities of others. It properly adjudicates the claims of these authorities and acts so as to ensure that they are granted the opportunity to develop in accordance with their respective callings before God. More poignantly Asher, the state cannot ENFORCE these callings as such. Nor can it determine their substantive content. That is the responsibility of the spheres. What the state can do is SERVE (to use Skillen’s term in his article) to protect the sphere’s from the legitimate spheres of competence from the encroachment by the other spheres thus making for a more healthy society.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 2/17/2010 9:12:43 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/18/2010 8:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "The commodification of persons cannot be laid at the feet of anything but capitalism."
Well, yeah, if you ASSUME socialist theory then it cannot be laid at the feet of anything but capitalism. But not everyone assumes socialist theory. I look at it more this way...
Any object can become a commodity. Human beings as embodied, material beings can be objectified. Since they can be objectified they can be commodified. I am not assuming the rightness of so doing, I'm just saying how it can be done...and done by ANY person or ANY economic system, not just capitalism. More or less, the objectification and commodification of human beings is done by OTHER human beings. Again, I am not justifying commodification, I am just saying it is a HUMAN problem not a capitalist one.
Now, one might say, that capitalism is an efficiency engine...and that it therefore makes the commodification of human beings by other human beings more efficiently done and that therefore capitalism increases the human problem of commodification...but not as an agent, simply as a force modifier. Fire increases the destructive capability of human beings as well...but it also keeps your toes warm on a cold night and makes the production of steel possible. Incidentally, using the same explanatory tool, we might say that socialism is an inefficiency engine and that therefore it decreases the problem of human commodification of other human beings...unfortunately it also decreases the commodification of ALL commodities, and hence the commodity waiting lines and lack of choice in Soviet Russia...or anywhere that socialism is tried to too great of an extent.
(A quick word on behalf of objectification. First, objectification is not commodification...even if it is an intermediate step that makes commodification possible. Secondly, when I look upon a woman and see her material body and think it is beautiful...I have objectified her body. I do not think this is problematic. What is problematic is if that is ALL I see when I look at the woman. If I cannot also take into account that she has feelings, values, goals, etc. then I have COMPLETELY objectified her. As an embodied material being there is part of her that can be objectified and seen as an object...because it is...but there is more to her than that and I have denied the essential part that makes her a human being if ALL she is is an object to me.)
Daniel: "I want to respond to your Iceland example. Because I'm failing to see how it's an example of capitalism working. I've been trying to find some resources on the economic structure, and I'm not finding anything that isn't distinctly viking. And the vikings had no problem what-so-ever with killing and simply taking goods from people they didn't consider part of their society."
"they are examples of a society creating political norms. In other words, it's a political system."
Maybe you think I am saying more than what I intend to say. I am not making Iceland an example of perfection, as if it is the standard that we should be aspiring to. I am ONLY saying that looking at medieval Icelandic society we see a place were the principles of capitalism (capital goods are privately owned and traded on a market) and of anarchic organization (there is no government that controls any portion of your property nor that has coercive powers over you) are functioning and functioned for over three hundred years...all the while maintaining a more just and less violent society than anything else going on in Europe...and less violent even than what we currently have going on in the U.S. (You would have to either extensively read from the Icelandic Saga stories...or have an expert point out the pertinent passages to see these things functioning in Icelandic history)
Viking is ambiguous and can be overplayed too far in one direction. A viking is all of the following: explorers, pirates, and merchants. Yes, undoubtedly their piracy was not emblematic of capitalism...well, you probably think it is
The fact that they did not extend their internal societal principles to other societies, though we would both agree is wrong, does not undermine the fact that the principles did function within their own society. If it can function within their own society for three hundred years then the only problem is to then cognitively externalize their values upon neighboring societies. This is the usual way progress happens.
Also, what may be a conceptual problem for you that is obscuring the things I am pointing out is the use of the word anarchy differently than is typically seen. More often than not anarchy is used synonymously with chaos. I am not pointing to a chaotic social structure nor am I pointing to political functionality within Icelandic society...but I am pointing to a certain way that the society structured itself. If you confuse a structured society with government politics then you are assuming that anarchy and chaos are the same thing. When I say that the society was structured, and if you assume that structure entails politics then you will then point out that I am not showing a lack of politics, but under that condition it would be impossible for me to show lack of normative politics since you have defined anarchy as chaos instead of as (an arch - no leader, every man directing his own action)
Also, another thing that may be confusing you is the fact that part of the societal structure is laws. Most people assume that "laws" are handed down from government, and that laws and government are necessarily related. A society can have laws without having a government. There can be a common law arbitrated privately without a government. These are the things I am pointing out in Icelandic society.
------------------
Daniel: "In your response to Brandon you said: "One common objection to private property is that it is an immoral system because it relies on selfishness"
I don't think this understands the objection. The objection to private property is that it is an immoral system because it relies on the accumulation of private (individual) wealth rather than the creation of community. It's an utterly individualist project. There's nothing wrong with individual identification per se, but capitalism exalts the individual beyond the community he is a part of."
Brandon: "What the ideologies do is deny this creation order and connect their transformative agendas to their own SUBJECTIVE dreams and aspirations in which they can’t seem to see beyond their own horizons
"I think that in order to transcend these ideologies it starts by recognizing creation order and out of that affirming societal pluriformity. Pluralism."
"However, the idea that a government should stamp out ALL local customs, traditions and particular ways of life owes more to an ideological attempt to impose uniformity on a citizenry than to the divine calling to do justice to ALL."
"if contextual diversity is based on CREATED HUMAN FINITUDE, then the attempt to eliminate it is rooted in an overweening effort to DENY such finitude and to claim the right to mold people in accordance with a single monistic vision of the world which is nothing less than idolatrous."
"So, more specifically, in response to Asher’s attempt to say that it is the state that is a “force modifier” over each of these diverse relationships, institutions, traditions, associations, etc, this seems rather Hobbesian in nature. If, I’m understanding him correctly."
"We may not agree with others on ultimate issues, but we are obligated to protect their freedom to believe and to a large extent live out their beliefs in their daily lives. This is out of the belief that in the present age, God wills to provide space and time for people to freely give their allegiance to his Kingdom."
"God who transcends creation. This means that “sovereign” individuals, state, race, nation, people or class don’t"
"the state has it’s own sphere of responsibility and authority under God as each of these other sphere’s of civil society have theirs. It means that the state is a creational good (along with the other sphere’s of society) but as a creational good, it has it’s own unique task in the world. And that task is to do justice to the diversity of individuals and communities in HIS world. Which is to say that the task of government is jural in nature. Essentially, justice is what one author called, “giving something its right, its created place in the world.” That is, justice is tied to God’s order of creation. What is just is what conforms to God’s creative intention. This created place is a limited place. But what happens is that many times in human sinfulness we make claim something that we have no right to or we claim more than we ought to."
"The job or task of the state is to justly inter-relate the different spheres or authorities or areas of responsibilities of others. It properly adjudicates the claims of these authorities and acts so as to ensure that they are granted the opportunity to develop in accordance with their respective callings before God."
-----------------
My response to all these parts of Daniel's and Brandon's writings:
There are two things going on here in our interchange. First, to a very large extent, Brandon, you are NOT understanding me. I have put the necessary ideas out there, but maybe I haven't connected the dots...or maybe I have to point out where I am connecting the dots since it may be a connecting that you haven't seen before and so there might be some cognitive blindness, I don't know. At a later point I'll try to make my ideas more clear.
Secondly, both Daniel and Brandon are sometimes falling into the fallacy of hypostatization by taking the abstract concept of society (or any collective for that matter) and treating it as if it is a concrete object.
When positing that an individual and a society may have conflicting goals and that capitalism, individualism and related concepts exalt the goals of the individual over the goals of the society...1) there is a misunderstanding of how capitalism is functioning here and 2)if I just granted the objection (which I do not)...my response is yeah, so what!
Society is just other people. Here's a short story to help us out:
I have a group of three friends that get together with me to talk and play chess. We are a society. One day when they show up at my house there has been a tree branch fall across my drive and lawn that probably weighs upwards of 600 lbs. I, as an individual with all the capacities of my individuality, cannot lift 600 lbs. But my three friends help me lift the branch and remove it. Now, I can't lift 600 lbs, none of my friends alone can lift 600 lbs, but the society can lift 600 lbs. But there is no concrete entity out there called "society" that is lifting 600 lbs. The ability to lift 600 lbs is the combined individual abilities of all 4 individuals.
Now, to keep our story going, let's imagine that after that cooperative work, we decide to go get some ice cream. We get to the ice cream shop and they are selling scoops of all flavors for $1.00 each scoop, or a gallon of any flavor for $4.00. I like chocolate. Who am I kidding! I LOVE chocolate! But let's suppose my three friends love vanilla. Now, I don't like vanilla. I would rather have no ice cream than to have vanilla ice cream. My friends, however, see the value of buying ice cream by the gallon instead of by the scoop. No doubt, it is a better value. But the gallon must be of a particular flavor. My friends want it to be of vanilla. I want the gallon to be of chocolate, otherwise I'll just spend my $1.00 to buy a scoop of chocolate. My friends say I am being unfair, I am placing my goals and values above the values of the society. And I say, "Darn right I am! I don't like vanilla!" and I also say, "There is no such thing as society. There is only you Mike, you Jake, and you Scott. And none of your individual goals or values trump my goals or values."
The ethical realm is complex and fraught with difficulty. Here is my tentative approach to the ethical:
I think that ethics are composed of some objective values and many subjective values. Many ethicists say there is no such thing as an objective ethics...and I admit that it is a snaggly affair...but I have not given up on there being some objective ethics, just on the idea that the WHOLE field of ethics is objective.
Here is my candidate for an objective, universalizable ethical statement:
NOBODY wants to be forced to perform an act they do not want to perform.
We may all differ on which flavor of ice cream we want. We may all differ on how much of our property we want to voluntarily give away to the needy. We may all differ on when we want to perform an act. You may think that the act should be performed RIGHT NOW. You see it as essential that the act happen now. I may even agree with you that the act should be performed, but I might disagree that it MUST happen right now. I may think that if we do it after some other action has already been accomplished that it would be better then.
But, none of us wants to be forced to perform an act we don't want to perform.
Force is something none of us like for ourselves.
I have already shown that socialism and all the partially socialized systems use force against the individual. Pure libertarian capitalism does not use force on the individual. Libertarian capitalism may or may not (given all the specifics of any given instantiation of affairs) allow for the transgressing of individual people's ethics...but with regard to force, it does not. Socialism and all the mixed systems may or may not (given all the specifics of any given instantiation of affairs) allow for the transgressing of individual people's ethics...but they damn sure transgress the ethics of not using force on individuals.
I have more to say about this and some other things, but once again I have a visitor, so I have to cut this short here.
Quickly though: I believe in methodological individualism. It is an economic term used by the Austrian school economists. I think it also applies more broadly as well. In short, the nexus of free will, morally responsible human action is in the individual. Only the individual thinks, has intentions, values, goals, wills action, and acts. Society does not. Society has no will that is not some individual human will vaunting itself as the Great and Powerful OZ while hiding behind the veil and obscuring device of the concept of "society".
Libertarian thought decries the use of force (no one wants force inflicted upon them) but save that, it leaves every individual free to pursue his values, whatever they are. It allows them to freely trade amongst each other with the hope of both parties increasing the actualization of their individual values. No one's values are placed above anyone else's values. This does not happen in any of the socialized options...everyone at some time or other has someone else's values placed above their own.
Libertarian capitalistic individualism is compatible with God's intentions for creation. God created first an individual, Adam. He was created with free will and so was a causal agent, a morally causal agent. He commits acts of thought, word , and deed. Some of them are wholly praiseworthy. Some of them are not, but God allows it. The man is free, and God does not force him to perform acts he does not want to perform, even when those acts would be good ones. Both good and bad is done by Adam and his descendants...and God does not use force against them. When individual human free will agents start using force, more and more, on each other...God does step in, in various ways, some more mild(Cain was cast out from society), some more severe(flood, destruction of Sodom, etc).
I gotta go. Later guys.Post Edited (Asher) : 2/18/2010 9:11:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 2/18/2010 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I've got a couple of minutes...
When I say "Libertarian capitalistic individualism is compatible with God's intentions for creation." I do not mean that it necessarily in all instantiations is, or that it is coextensive with God's intentions for creation. I only mean that there is nothing about libertarian capitalistic individualism AS A FORM that crosses God's intentions. Any given individual within a society organized as such CAN cross God's intention about any given aspect of creational intent.
Socialism AS A FORM does not share this feature since it always uses force to achieve it's goals. Now, that said, you MAY find an individual person within a socialist model of societal organization who individually matches God's intent to a greater extent than any other given individual within a capitalistically organized society.
Again, it's humans who act. Not society, not a state, not a corporation, not a church. None of those collectives have concrete existence. Individual human beings have concrete existence...a free will...moral responsibility...causal agency.
There is only individuals. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/19/2010 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Asher: My response to all these parts of Daniel's and Brandon's writings:
There are two things going on here in our interchange. First, to a very large extent, Brandon, you are NOT understanding me. I have put the necessary ideas out there, but maybe I haven't connected the dots...or maybe I have to point out where I am connecting the dots since it may be a connecting that you haven't seen before and so there might be some cognitive blindness, I don't know. At a later point I'll try to make my ideas more clear.
Secondly, both Daniel and Brandon are sometimes falling into the fallacy of hypostatization by taking the abstract concept of society (or any collective for that matter) and treating it as if it is a concrete object.
When positing that an individual and a society may have conflicting goals and that capitalism, individualism and related concepts exalt the goals of the individual over the goals of the society...1) there is a misunderstanding of how capitalism is functioning here and 2)if I just granted the objection (which I do not)...my response is yeah, so what!
Society is just other people. Here's a short story to help us out:
I have a group of three friends that get together with me to talk and play chess. We are a society. One day when they show up at my house there has been a tree branch fall across my drive and lawn that probably weighs upwards of 600 lbs. I, as an individual with all the capacities of my individuality, cannot lift 600 lbs. But my three friends help me lift the branch and remove it. Now, I can't lift 600 lbs, none of my friends alone can lift 600 lbs, but the society can lift 600 lbs. But there is no concrete entity out there called "society" that is lifting 600 lbs. The ability to lift 600 lbs is the combined individual abilities of all 4 individuals.
Now, to keep our story going, let's imagine that after that cooperative work, we decide to go get some ice cream. We get to the ice cream shop and they are selling scoops of all flavors for $1.00 each scoop, or a gallon of any flavor for $4.00. I like chocolate. Who am I kidding! I LOVE chocolate! But let's suppose my three friends love vanilla. Now, I don't like vanilla. I would rather have no ice cream than to have vanilla ice cream. My friends, however, see the value of buying ice cream by the gallon instead of by the scoop. No doubt, it is a better value. But the gallon must be of a particular flavor. My friends want it to be of vanilla. I want the gallon to be of chocolate, otherwise I'll just spend my $1.00 to buy a scoop of chocolate. My friends say I am being unfair, I am placing my goals and values above the values of the society. And I say, "Darn right I am! I don't like vanilla!" and I also say, "There is no such thing as society. There is only you Mike, you Jake, and you Scott. And none of your individual goals or values trump my goals or values."
The ethical realm is complex and fraught with difficulty. Here is my tentative approach to the ethical:
I think that ethics are composed of some objective values and many subjective values. Many ethicists say there is no such thing as an objective ethics...and I admit that it is a snaggly affair...but I have not given up on there being some objective ethics, just on the idea that the WHOLE field of ethics is objective.
Here is my candidate for an objective, universalizable ethical statement:
NOBODY wants to be forced to perform an act they do not want to perform.
We may all differ on which flavor of ice cream we want. We may all differ on how much of our property we want to voluntarily give away to the needy. We may all differ on when we want to perform an act. You may think that the act should be performed RIGHT NOW. You see it as essential that the act happen now. I may even agree with you that the act should be performed, but I might disagree that it MUST happen right now. I may think that if we do it after some other action has already been accomplished that it would be better then.
But, none of us wants to be forced to perform an act we don't want to perform.
Force is something none of us like for ourselves.
I have already shown that socialism and all the partially socialized systems use force against the individual. Pure libertarian capitalism does not use force on the individual. Libertarian capitalism may or may not (given all the specifics of any given instantiation of affairs) allow for the transgressing of individual people's ethics...but with regard to force, it does not. Socialism and all the mixed systems may or may not (given all the specifics of any given instantiation of affairs) allow for the transgressing of individual people's ethics...but they damn sure transgress the ethics of not using force on individuals.
I have more to say about this and some other things, but once again I have a visitor, so I have to cut this short here.
Quickly though: I believe in methodological individualism. It is an economic term used by the Austrian school economists. I think it also applies more broadly as well. In short, the nexus of free will, morally responsible human action is in the individual. Only the individual thinks, has intentions, values, goals, wills action, and acts. Society does not. Society has no will that is not some individual human will vaunting itself as the Great and Powerful OZ while hiding behind the veil and obscuring device of the concept of "society".
Libertarian thought decries the use of force (no one wants force inflicted upon them) but save that, it leaves every individual free to pursue his values, whatever they are. It allows them to freely trade amongst each other with the hope of both parties increasing the actualization of their individual values. No one's values are placed above anyone else's values. This does not happen in any of the socialized options...everyone at some time or other has someone else's values placed above their own.
Libertarian capitalistic individualism is compatible with God's intentions for creation. God created first an individual, Adam. He was created with free will and so was a causal agent, a morally causal agent. He commits acts of thought, word , and deed. Some of them are wholly praiseworthy. Some of them are not, but God allows it. The man is free, and God does not force him to perform acts he does not want to perform, even when those acts would be good ones. Both good and bad is done by Adam and his descendants...and God does not use force against them. When individual human free will agents start using force, more and more, on each other...God does step in, in various ways, some more mild(Cain was cast out from society), some more severe(flood, destruction of Sodom, etc).
I've got a couple of minutes...
When I say "Libertarian capitalistic individualism is compatible with God's intentions for creation." I do not mean that it necessarily in all instantiations is, or that it is coextensive with God's intentions for creation. I only mean that there is nothing about libertarian capitalistic individualism AS A FORM that crosses God's intentions. Any given individual within a society organized as such CAN cross God's intention about any given aspect of creational intent.
Socialism AS A FORM does not share this feature since it always uses force to achieve it's goals. Now, that said, you MAY find an individual person within a socialist model of societal organization who individually matches God's intent to a greater extent than any other given individual within a capitalistically organized society.
Again, it's humans who act. Not society, not a state, not a corporation, not a church. None of those collectives have concrete existence. Individual human beings have concrete existence...a free will...moral responsibility...causal agency.
There is only individuals.
Brandon: Asher, I’m pretty sure I've connected the dots. Your views are steeped in classical liberalism. The state exists but only AFTER the individual and is there or exists to serve the individual. When you say that “society is an abstract concept” again, this is liberalism pure and simple. In liberalism, society is reduced to it’s component parts, the autonomous individual or individuals. The autonomous individual is one who pursues rational self-interest as he or she thinks best. Yes, the community is more important for the more thoughtful and nuanced liberal. Why? Because that liberal recognizes that healthy communities are important for the well being of individuals. However, even here, the community’s claim are subsidiary to the rights of the individual. Essentially, it is the autonomous individual who claims to make the world and society at large in his own vision.
This, by the way, is a conundrum for the liberalism. Why? Let me explain.
Autonomy means to be self-directed, to govern oneself in accordance with a law one has chosen for oneself. This is more than simple freedom per se. Each of the ideologies attach this autonomy to some manifestation of humanity whether it is the individual or the community such as the state or nation. Liberalism? Well, it assigns autonomy to the individual. This doesn’t mean that one can simply do as one pleases, since such a self-chosen law must be capable of being compatible with the choices of other autonomous persons. However, the first and most basic principle of liberalism is this: Everyone possesses property in their own person and must be free to govern themselves in accordance with their own choices provided the choices do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. So. If my proposed actions effectively violate the property another enjoys in their own person, then I have transgressed this most essential and basic of principles. As a result, I will have to be held accountable for that.
The conundrum is this: Without political authority there is no effective way of enforce this accountability. Thus, the central dilemma of individual autonomy that the liberal project is called to resolve.
Your analogies above are a pure example of this. I would think that’s pretty obvious. But why would there be no political authority? Because, A) the individual is first before the state. And B) Because the state is a voluntary community as it flows out of the cherished belief in freedom and choice. And how is this voluntary community suppose to come together (originally to transcend what guys like Locke and Hobbes assumed as a “state of nature”? Again, by mutual promise and/or contract often referred to as “social contract theory.” That is, the state is the product of contract among sovereign individuals. And the notion of contract places a premium on the consent of individuals without which the body politic loses its legitimacy. And guess what? If the state is merely a product of contract? Then the contracting autonomous sovereign individuals are within their rights to alter the state’s task as they see fit. You can have both a liberal “night watchman state” with its focus on the individual right to self-preservation which is expanded to property in the recognition of the connection between preserving one’s life and earning a livelihood or a liberal bureaucratic state but the bottomline and the name of the game is both of those liberal forms of governing are reducible to the aggregative wills of their constituent members.
The problem with this is that to the extent that this is the case liberals are unable to recognize the state to be essentially different from the church, the school, the business enterprise, the labour union, etc. In such a vision, government exists not so much to adjudicate properly the multitude diverse interests in society as to fulfill the aspirations of individuals whatever form they may take at a given historical moment. The state is a distinct institution with its own appointed task in God’s world which is primarily jural in nature. Jural between the differentiated relationships, associations and organizations that distinctly exist in society. Distinctly God-given and God-responsible.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
| 89 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:30 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|