 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Politics and Economics: A Comparison | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 3/30/2010 11:24 AM (GMT -6) |   |
I was trying to find this New York Times article that Tom had linked to sometime ago about the inner workings of government. I couldn’t find it, but you could tell that Tommay was slightly frustrated and cynical about politics in Washington as the whole article was about how complex and frustrating the whole process is.
Now, for some this is a huge reason to not get involved in the messy affairs of daily politics and I really got the feeling that Tommay was feeling pretty depressed and hopeless about it all. But that’s the thing. Why is it that many Christians feel this way about politics but don’t think twice about the inner workings and complexity of say the economic process?
If you don’t think that economics is on the par with politics then tell me what you think of this article: Jesus and Competition
Politics, in my opinion, is as economics is--an inescapable feature of human life. Yet we don’t hear the same level of cynicism or complaints about corruption or calls for withdrawal from the economic process. In the end, as Paul Marshall says, in a book I’m presently reading on politics,
“...politics is more like raising children than raising hell. It’s more like gardening than grandstanding and more like work than warfare. It requires that realizing that politics will not bring in a utopia or even anything remotely like it. It will neither conquer sin nor change human nature. Nor will it create a society which will not need reform the instant after it is reformed. But politics can make a difference in whether our schools are better or worse, whether it’s safer or not to walk home on a dark night, whether people are healthy or hungry, whether or not we will live more at war or more at peace. While such struggles and policies are full of victories and defeats, they have no final victory or final defeat wherein we could properly and finally say, “we have won” or “we have lost.” Politics is a part of ongoing life in the world to be pursued patiently and faithfully."
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 | | |
 |  Asher Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 477 | Posted 3/30/2010 4:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | "Why is it that many Christians feel this way about politics but don’t think twice about the inner workings and complexity of say the economic process?"
Although there are many similarities between politics and economics...that can make both fields frustrating...the BIG difference that cannot be overlooked is that in the economic field you are FREE to engage in commerce or to limit your exposure to the economic process to the essentials. In politics you are not free, we are all slaves to some certain extent, and there is no adequate way to limit your exposure (unless you take radical steps to "go off the grid" and such...but really, that is not a very attractive option for your typical citizen).
And while any given instance of economic SOFA may be more or less corrupt, that is not what we find to be typical when we are dealing with business in our neighborhoods. We can always point to the big corporations and how corrupt they are, but where the rubber meets the road in our daily lives (pharmacy, grocery, auto repair, etc) we find a business we trust and stick with them. And the local businesses that are shady don't last very long. Yes, business can be corrupt, but largely we can avoid the corruption by taking our business elsewhere.
Government is a force-supported monopoly. They are the only game in town in politics. You can't escape dealing with it. And it matters little which party is in control. They are both corrupt, but about different things.
That is why people are frustrated with politics. And to compare politics and economics without noting this major difference is to be wearing a set of blinders. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 4/1/2010 8:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | I would agree with you that there are differences between these two enterprises. And I'm not really talking about things like our dealings with pharmacy, grocery, auto repair, etc, although these may be important questions in and of themselves for how to respond Christianly. The question I'm getting at is the level of complexity in which possible injustices have to be weighed out assuming that one is involved in the business of the economy at that level. As you can see from the article, one could take a very cynical and frustrating view of Christian involvement in that area of endeavor. Because of this, I'm wondering why the outcry is not as forthcoming against the "nasty business of economics" as it would be for politics.
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 | | |
 |  Similitude Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2004 Total Posts : 4968 | Posted 4/1/2010 6:15 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Brandon: The question I'm getting at is the level of complexity in which possible injustices have to be weighed out assuming that one is involved in the business of the economy at that level. As you can see from the article, one could take a very cynical and frustrating view of Christian involvement in that area of endeavor.
Jeff: I see crucial differences between the two (politics and economics). We are commanded to work for our bread. So we have no choice but to do economic activity. We are not commanded to do anything in particular with politics because politics doesn't necessarily entail a right of citizens to effect political policy--that would depend on the form of government to a large degree. But given that Americans can engage in the political process, it's still true that the extent to which I can be effectual is dependent upon the TRUSTWORTHINESS and POWER the particular politicians I can help attain that power actually end up implementing/wielding.
The power itself can be miniscule to the extent that one holds minority views on policy. And the availability of trustworthy politicians can be low to non-existent in certain political races. We don't have such limited effectiveness with respect to our duty to work for our bread. God will ASSURE we can work for our bread in most cases (allowing for those who simply can't work because of health issues, etc) simply because it is HIS WILL. But we don't KNOW that it is God's will that I vote for or campaign for some particular politician unless we know that he/she is ethically COMMITTED to attaining the PROPER social objectives--"proper" being defined by God's delegated role for the State and oaths taken by said politician. Both of these kinds of knowledge are less easy to attain than is the knowledge that you are to do honest work for your bread.
There may degrees of uncertainty in how you go about figuring how to make money and how much. But there is a virtual guaranteed bottom-line degree of certainty about working for your bread that is not guaranteed in a great deal of political involvement. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Asher Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 477 | Posted 4/1/2010 9:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | Another very important factor to take into consideration...
To an overwhelming extent the corruption and injustice found in economics is injected into economics BY POLITICS!
The government first draws a line around some things and says "No one besides government is to mess with these things...or else!" And many of those things are proper fields for private business, that are now excluded from the business domain. And because the government does not have to "turn a profit"...indeed they can run at a monetary loss...because a monetary loss to the government just means more taxes for the populace...and so inefficiency is wedded to the very process. And decisions then become primarily dominated by political concerns instead of economic concerns. So...corruption, injustice, bureaucratic relation to individuals, waste and loss become the order of the day.
Then also the government enters fields without declaring monopoly status for themselves. (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are good examples of this) And they then metastasize...dominating the field and setting business practice either by regulation or by shear economy of scale that the other participants in that field must comport with or go out of business. The government declares to private business..."You must do this!" "You mustn't do this!" and largely these things are political objectives, not economic ones...or at the very least the economic objectives take a back seat to the political objectives.
The practices of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the extent to which they dominated the housing market WAS the cause of the housing market crash. It was very easy for the political bosses to throw out red herrings when the disaster hit...because the private firms WERE complicit in improper practices...improper practices that they took up because of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's influence. The private firms attuned themselves to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae...not realizing that when the inevitable fall happened they would take ALL the blame because they did not have the political pull that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did.
Proper government action in the housing market would have been to leave it primarily private, and to police such improper practices. Instead...the government enters the field (to control over 50% of the market) sets the standards for improper practice...and when the inevitable fall comes from setting political concerns over economic ones in an economic field...then, all government fingers point to the less than half of the market in the hands of private firms...and says "Bad! Bad!" And they escape out the back door...with their bonuses intact.
Government is the problem. In the field of politics...government is the problem! In the field of economics...government IS the problem! | | Back to Top | | |
 |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 4/2/2010 8:43 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I've no doubt that government affects the economy for good or bad. But none of this really responds to the question. WITHIN the realm of economics itself, even where there is freedom to advertise and compete, as the paper is showing, there are possibilities for injustices. If such adverse affects were to occur one has to wonder whether a Christian should participate in such activity or that arena of life.
Jeff says that we are commanded to work for our bread but nowhere are we commanded to be involved in politics. But that is something of a hermeneutical question Jeff. One could avoid the "messy business of daily economics" if they were to position themselves in a way of life in which they don't have to participate in the modern economy ie, Amish. For most of us, that is not an option. I mean, its NOT an OPTION. On the other hand the normative use of the Bible for in Christian living may see politics as with economics as an essential aspect of life that humans are called to.
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 | | |
   |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 4/6/2010 10:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | I’m not talking about particular races or parties. I’m speaking about government in general. Government is something we are called to participate in the same economics or all areas of life. What I’m saying is that one can read scripture and stories of say the beginnings of government or politics and deduct from that that government is a part of the cultural mandate in which humans are called to be responsible in and for the world.
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 | | |
 |  Asher Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 477 | Posted 4/6/2010 5:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | If everyone self-governed...why would there be any need for anyone to rule over another?
To me anyways...self-government is the mandate...it is primary. Ruling over others is only necessary inasmuch as people do not self-govern...making it a second-best alternative. And part of the mandate of the second-best alternative government is to instill SELF-GOVERNMENT in the governed. And inasmuch as the second-best government is not doing that function...they are a failure at their mandate...and relinquish legitimacy. If people are not any better governed via second-best methods than via self-government...then why have the apparatus of second-best alternatives foisted upon us at all.
Look...there are some functions that must be carried out to maintain order in society. No murder, use of force, coercion, fraud, etc. Things that everyone clearly knows are wrong. They either know it within themselves, having it written on their hearts...or if they have no internal feeling for it themselves...they are cognizant that society heavily frowns on such behavior...and that makes them responsible to society to not commit such actions, or face the consequences.
There is a whole other set of governmental rules that have no legitimacy. They may even be the smart thing to do (i.e. wearing a seat belt, etc.) But if someone chooses not to follow those set of rules, they should not be penalized.
There is a whole other set of governmental rules that someone or some group in society thinks is right to do, and wrong not to do. The problem is that there are other people and groups in society who do not share their opinion about the matter...for example, welfare programs. Some of the people who disagree with welfare as a governmental mandate...do fulfill welfare functions privately by serving their society charitably or by charitable giving.
Because everyone does not agree about those kinds of things...and because government sticks it's nose into just such matters...government relinquishes legitimacy.
If a government can behave ITSELF...I might be more on board with your ideas Brandon...but, they do not behave themselves, they do not restrict themselves to legitimate functions.
And because it is VERY difficult to police government...many people just grant their legitimacy over anything government declares authority over. And they aim their justice guns at more easy targets...business for example...
I'm not saying that business is a shining light of morality, nor that legitimate moral strictures should not be enforced on business. I'm just saying...there is a five-hundred pound gorilla in the room wreaking havoc...and to focus our attentions on the 80 pound chimp mucking it up...or to even say that the problems caused by both are of an equal scale...is to engage in moral cowardice, servile sycophancy...or at a minimum to be a useful idiot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot | | Back to Top | | |
  |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 4/7/2010 11:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
I’ve repeatedly said that government should not intervene in areas that are not in its jurisdiction. I’ve said that government tends to act omni-competently--something only God can do. Government may or may not be involved in say charitable works. Regardless, government should not say, restrict private charitable organizations from receiving government funding simply on the basis that these organizations may be religious in nature. Now you may say that government should not be involved in that business, but that question gets at the fundamental differences between you and I. This gets down to the issue of pluralism (in its different stages) and religious worldviews in the public square. Essentially, it comes from this Enlightenment view that insists on a religion free-public square. But in my view, one cannot speak about a “religious” or “secular.” Its not as if the First Amendment calls for a public secularity and a privatization of religion. Translating this into charitable organizations, this does not mean that we grant to a religious majority which is described and DISGUISED as a non-sectarian guardian of the public square the right to define certain confessional view points as sectarian and thus making them ineligible for equal treatment by government.
It also gets to the fundamental difference between whether government can actually do good. Holiness and evil permeate every dimension of life. Thus, I don’t make that kind of distinction between the church and politics. Yes, politics can be dirty and corrupt, but so can anything else which means there is no reason to steer clear of either. There can be lying, greediness, bribery in Church just as there is in the New Testament Church. But this is why we need good people who have the vision to know the proper role and limits of government. To bring about change.
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 | | |
  | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:58 AM (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 |
|
|