RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Markets, Morality, and the Common Good

by John Gehring 03-20-2009

Not long ago, those who demonized government and preached the gospel of free-market fundamentalism with evangelical zeal had few worries. The titans of corporate America were glorified on the cover of Fortune, “trickle-down” economics justified obscene wealth disparities, and a bullish Wall Street even gave working stiffs a piece of the action.

But things fall apart. Decades of deregulation, crass decisions at the highest levels of business and government, and a consumer culture that celebrates materialism are catching up with reality. One in 10 Americans –  nearly 28 million — now depend on food stamps. Catholic Charities USA reports that 62 percent of its agencies have seen an increase in middle-class clients seeking help. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities predicts that the ranks of the poor, now at 36 million, could soon increase by as many as 10 million if the unemployment rate hits nine percent.

The financial crisis is also a moral crisis that requires a profound shift in values. Our nation’s diverse religious communities have a proud tradition of speaking prophetically about economic justice, and the need to temper the cruel vagaries of the market with collective responsibility to care for our neighbors. Catholic social teaching, in particular, has a long history that warns against putting profit before human dignity. Amid another global economic collapse in 1931, Pope Pius XI affirmed a positive role for government and the obligation to pay workers a living wage. At a recent meeting of the Confederation of Italian Labor Unions, Pope Benedict XVI stressed that finding solutions for the global financial crisis requires “a new synthesis between the common good and the market, between capital and labor.” Franklin D. Roosevelt drew heavily from Catholic social thought in shaping the New Deal. This social justice heritage can help us think anew about applying these values to current economic challenges.

Disgraced Wall Street baron Bernard Madoff and the banking executives dragged before Congress recently would not want to meet the Hebrew prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, who thundered against the greed of powerful kings enjoying lavish lifestyles while so many suffered around them. Those who trumpet a holy trinity of tax cuts, unfettered markets, and a savage brand of corporate capitalism serve narrow ideologies hard to square with the teachings of Jesus, who preached “good news to the poor” and kicked the money-changers out of the Temple. While the American ethos of “rugged individualism” and self-reliance often chafes against Judeo-Christian notions of solidarity with the poor, the scope of the economic crisis offers an historic opportunity to rebuild our economy to serve all Americans, not simply the privileged few.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that the next frontier of the civil rights movement required bearing witness to the scourge of poverty plaguing the richest nation in the world. His “Poor People’s Campaign” brought together whites, blacks, and Latinos united in the belief that the moral measure of any society is found in how we treat the least among us. A culminating march on Washington calling for an economic “bill of rights” fizzled after King’s assassination in 1968. People of faith will revive this unfinished legacy in April with the Mobilization to End Poverty, an event organized by Sojourners that will bring together Christians, Jews, and Muslims for lobbying days on Capitol Hill. President Obama, who pledged to help cut poverty in half within a decade, has been invited to speak at the event.

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that we can have democracy or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but not both. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans now own 20 percent of total national income. Nearly 40 percent of U.S children grow up in poverty. These are moral and political failures unworthy of a great nation. Our country has always been strongest when we are united by a sense of common purpose and a commitment to shared prosperity. If the American dream is more than an empty slogan, it’s long past time to make economic justice for all a reality.

John Gehring is a senior writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. This article was originally published by Religion News Service. Reprinted with permission by the author.

Categories: Economics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • hammerud
    I guess the question is, what vehicle can be used to bring in economic justice? The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. Regardless of what system is implemented, human beings find ways to abuse the system. Maybe that is why Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us. I don't think socialism is the answer. Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible. I was looking thru some notes in one of my old Bibles and I noticed that I had written statistics that showed that most people killed during the last century were killed by their own governments. I also recall a recent book that showed people who identified themselves as liberals and progressives, those who yell the most about social justice, were far less generous in charitable contributions than those who identified themselves as conservative, and particularly Christian. My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor. If we kept God and the Bible in our educational system, and taught people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor, we would have encouraged a society where individuals would take much more responsibility for helping others. When the government takes from its citizens and then redistributes income, it undermines, if not kills, this positive dynamic. In a socialist system, you probably still would have 1 percent holding 20 percent of all the wealth. The difference is that everyone else would be poor.
  • Ngchen
    I agree with you to a large extent. Generally, free markets are more (sometimes way more) efficient than government-run or mandated systems. That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore.

    For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself. A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example.

    With regard to keeping God in our educational system, I do hope that Sunday school is part of the education we're receiving. As for public schools and how "religious" they should be or are, I'd say that there is a thin line there that's fraught with peril, and picking a fight there is not wise. It's great, and IMO necessary, to educate our young about the various religions of the world, as well as the leading philosophies on life and civics, but going beyond gets dangerously close to state-sponsored indoctrination.

    I am a big fan of hand-ups rather than hand-outs with regard to economic issues. Hand-ups tend to preserve the person's dignity, which hand-outs do not.
  • hammerud
    Thanks for your thoughts. I totally agree with the hand-up rather than
    the hand-out thing. Unfortunately, going back to the issue of human
    nature, I tend to be cynical about the motives of those in power. I
    do not believe they are truly interested in the well-being of people.
    They are interested in social stability and retaining their power; and
    to retain power they promote hand-out legislation, in my opinion, to
    buy votes. They have to know that "hand out" policies foster
    dependency and will not result in real help for people. Huge sums
    have been spent on social programs in the last 50 years in our
    country, and we still have poverty. Also, I realize that my idea
    about God and the Bible in the education system obviously couldn't fly
    today, but there was a time when it could have flown. We missed that
    opportunity. And it could have been done without forming a theocracy.
    A Judeo-Christian frame of reference would have been good for social
    order. As Reagan sort of said, our freedom of religion, has become
    freedom from religion. Right now secularism and godlessness have
    become the religion of our educational system, and we wonder why our
    society is becoming increasingly fractured.
  • I think you make a good point about distinguishing between "theocracy" and "a Judeo-Christian frame of reference". Theocracy is truly anathema to the essential character of this country. However, I think a "humanist" frame of reference would be identical to the one you are thinking of when you say "Judeo-Christian". I assume, for example, that you are not saying that any theological doctrines particular to either Judaism or Christianity should be officially promulgated. What I think you are saying is that the basic ethical code normally associated with Judeo-Christian teaching should be promulgated: essentially, love God (however your theology conceives of him), and love your neighbor,no? In this regard, it is important to remember that this nation never was intended to be an exclusively "Judeo-Christian" nation, not even in "frame of reference". The most influential founding fathers were mostly Deist, and were well aware of the existence of other non-Judeo-Christian teachings and ethical systems, and were, really, the "secular humanists" of their day. Our country was designed to be an ethical one, yes, but not in any sense specifically "Judeo-Christian". I'm pretty sure the historical record is clear in this respect.

    Arthur
    http://wordsandtheword.wordpress.com/
  • hammerud
    I agree with what you are saying, but I have heard from reputable
    researchers (and I don't have the references in front of me) that it
    is not true that the most influential founding fathers were Deist.
    I'm not a historian, but George Washington was clearly a Christian. I
    think Jefferson was Deist. Maybe Franklin, not sure; but the majority
    of those involved, from what I have heard, were Christian. I think we
    made a huge mistake when we allowed the Bible to be removed from our
    classrooms. Every culture to function has to have some frame of
    reference, some sense of right and wrong, and we greatly erred when we
    removed the influence of Scripture from our public schools. The
    foundations of this country were based on the Bible. Freedom of
    religion has become freedom from religion, and I think you and I both
    agree that religious freedom in the market place of ideas does not
    cause a theocracy. This country from the start has rejected
    theocracy, and lately seems to be rejecting religious freedom in the
    name of the falsely applied meaning of "separation of church and
    state." I appreciated your thoughts. Thanks.
  • This is a bit lengthy, I'm afraid...(wish I could have written this to you
    privately)

    You speak of the Bible being "removed" from our schools. What do you mean by
    that? When, and in what sense, was the Bible "in" our public schools? I
    haven't researched this myself. So, really, I want to know what you mean.
    You may have information I am not privy to.

    If we DO "teach the Bible" in schools, though, then I hope we teach the WHOLE
    thing--not a Sunday-school whitewashed version (you know, the version that
    leaves out God telling the Israelites to wipe out their neighbors and kill
    "every last man, woman, and child"...that sort of thing). And, since this IS
    a religiously diverse country, we should also expose children to the Quran,
    the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. I'm all for it. (I may sound sarcastic, but I'm not:
    I really am all for teaching about the Bible, and about comparative religions
    in school. That would be the very best way to defeat the rightwing Christian
    agenda.)

    And, you say "the foundations of this country were based on the Bible". That
    is a very bold statement. First, what do you MEAN by that statement, and
    then, what evidence is there for it being correct?

    I think we're on the same page as far as "theocracy" goes. Separation of
    Church and State, rightly understood, is both a protection FROM religion and a
    protection OF religion. A protection FROM religion in the sense that no one
    religion is allowed to impose its beliefs on the general population nor to
    turn the country into a theocracy. And it is protection OF religion because
    it allows people to worship and believe as they choose.

    I do think that certain people have taken things too far in their attempt to
    keep religion from infringing upon the secular sphere. And it is good to
    protest that sort of thing.

    It depends on the issue, though. For example, after school prayer meetings in
    school classrooms...why not? Just so long as there can be atheist meetings
    there too. Pledging allegiance to "one nation under God"...well, I'm against
    the whole concept of the pledge of allegiance for all sorts of reasons.
    Having the 10 commandments in Court Houses? Why not? I think verses from the
    Bhaghavad-Gita or the Quran could go there as well (but also NEEDN'T go there
    just for the sake "political correctness" either). Swearing on the Bible in
    court? No, absolutely not. It is wrong to make a secular citizen swear on
    one religion's holy book. Intelligent Design alongside the theory of
    evolution, in SCIENCE class? Well, probably not. But, if so, in the
    interests of objectivity, then we should also have students carefully study
    the arguments AGAINST intelligent design. And a bit of comparative religions
    study wouldn't hurt either. But any kind of official "promotion" of
    Christianity in the schools should be scrupulously avoided...without getting
    fanatical about it. A school Christmas Pageant? Why not? Just as a school
    should be able to celebrate Hannukah, or allow for Islamic students to pray 5
    times a day. A Christmas Nativity scene in a public park? Why not? Nothing
    wrong with a statue of Buddha there either! America is a religiously
    pluralistic nation--from its very inception. Accomodation and tolerance is
    the key.

    And, yes, there are intolerant secularists as well as intolerant
    religionists.

    And I think I hear your most basic point: it is a plea for sanity and ethics
    and, yes, the freedom to practice religion. Amen to that, brother. Just so
    long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to practice THEIR OWN
    religion, or to REFRAIN from practicing any religion at all.

    As far as the founding fathers go:

    Well, I recommend you do some research. It is an important question. You
    might start online with something as simple as Wikepedia. Just google
    "wikipedia George Washington", or "wikepedia Benjamin Franklin", or "wikepedia
    Jefferson" etc.

    As far as George Wasthington goes, Wikipedia says: "Historians and
    biographers continue to debate the degree to which he can be counted as a
    Christian, and the degree to which he was a deist." To me, the evidence
    points to him as a man gradually moving away from traditional religion and
    into Deism.

    On "founding fathers of the united states", wikipedia offers this summary:

    "Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the
    Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were
    Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and
    Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention,
    28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won),
    eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans,
    two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being
    49.Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal
    about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[10][11]
    (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin[12]. However, other
    notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional
    religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists
    or held beliefs very similar to that of deists."

    So, according to Wikipedia anyway, it was something of a mixed bag.


    I'll quote in full what wikipedia says about John Adams's religious beliefs
    here:

    ------------
    "Adams was raised a Congregationalist, becoming a Unitarian at a time when
    most of the Congregational churches around Boston were turning to
    Unitarianism. Adams was educated at Harvard when the influence of deism was
    growing there, and used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed
    in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe in the divinity
    of Christ or that God intervened in the affairs of individuals. He also
    believed that regular church service was beneficial to man's moral sense.
    Everett (1966) concludes that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common
    sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and
    evolve toward perfection.[61]
    In common with many of his contemporaries, Adams criticized the claims to
    universal authority made by the Roman Catholic church.[62]
    In 1796, Adams denounced political opponent Thomas Paine's criticisms of
    Christianity, saying, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that
    ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom,
    virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."[63]
    The Unitarian Universalist Historical Society sheds some light on Adams’s
    religious beliefs.[64] They quote from his letter to Benjamin Rush, an early
    promoter of Universalist thought, “I have attended public worship in all
    countries and with all sects and believe them all much better than no
    religion, though I have not thought myself obliged to believe all I heard.”
    The Society also relates how Rush reconciled Adams to his former friend Thomas
    Jefferson in 1812, after many bitter political battles. This resulted in
    correspondence between Adams and Jefferson about many topics, including
    philosophy and religion. In one of these communications, Adams told Jefferson,
    "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion." In
    another letter, Adams reveals his sincere devotion to God, “My Adoration of
    the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God
    and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho'
    but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.” He
    continues by revealing his Universalist sympathies, rejection of orthodox
    Christian dogma, and his personal belief that he was a true Christian for not
    accepting such dogma, “Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian
    Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no
    Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest
    men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word." The Society also
    demonstrates that Adams rejected orthodox Christian doctrines of the trinity,
    predestination, yet equated human understanding and the human conscience to
    “celestial communication” or personal revelation from God. It is also
    shown that Adams held a strong conviction in life after death or otherwise, as
    he explained, “you might be ashamed of your Maker."
    ---------

    The reason I quoted this passage in its entirety is this: Do you see how easy
    it would be for conservative Christian writers to quote John Adams very
    selectively ("The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever
    prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom,
    virtue, equity and humanity!").....and make a seemingly strong case that he
    was "one of them"? Leaving out all his other views on, say, orthodox
    Christian dogma....!

    Just be careful how you read!

    Another thing I found (on Wikepedia) was this:

    -------
    "The Treaty of Tripoli.....Art. 11. 'As the Government of the United States of
    America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
    itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
    Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of
    hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
    pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of
    the harmony existing between the two countries.'

    Advocates of the separation of church and state claim[17] that this text
    constitutes evidence that the United States Government was not founded on the
    Christian religion. The Senate's ratification was only the third recorded
    unanimous vote of 339 taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia
    Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent."
    ---------

    However, I also found adverts for books like this:

    --------
    Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers
    (Description: John Eidsmoe rights the faulty historical record and correctly
    brings us back to the roots that made America great . . . clearly demonstrates
    that our constitutional liberties are a direct result of our founders' moral
    and religious convictions which were based on a belief in a God who created
    heaven and earth as well as on the fixed and unchanging absolutes of God's
    Word.)
    --------

    and this book:


    -------
    Contending For The Constitution: Recalling the Christian Influence on the
    Writing of the Constitution and the Biblical Basis of American Law and
    Liberty
    (Description: Mark Beliles and Doug Anderson present their case that the
    Constitution is based on biblical principles and Christian influence. Using
    primary source evidence, the authors give an easy-reading history of the
    Constitutional Convention and the Founder's emphasis on religion being
    necessary for its success.)
    --------

    Then, on a whim, just to see what I would find when I googled one of the
    author's names (John Eidsmoe), I found this book, written by a very orthodox
    Christian who criticizes the attempt to try to defend the constitution as a
    "Christian" document:


    ---------
    A recently released book, DISCIPLING THE NATIONS -- the Government Upon His
    Shoulders, challenges the widely held Evangelical view that the United States
    Constitution is a Christian document.....the book makes a compelling case that
    America's problems stem not primarily from her departure from the
    Constitution, but rather from seeds of humanism buried deep within the
    Constitution itself........The author believes that the naïve or simplistic
    responses typically offered by Evangelicals like John Eidsmoe, David Barton
    (WallBuilders), Peter Marshall, and D.J. Kennedy damage the credibility of the
    very cause they are trying to defend. They seem to feel the Constitution must
    be defended as a Christian document at all costs, to serve as a firebreak
    against the conflagration of moral/cultural disintegration. Ironically, they
    end up defending the root cause of the very evil they are trying to
    eradicate.
    ----------

    Amyway, good luck!

    I haven't read any of those books, and, frankly, I don't plan to. I've been
    down this road before....

    Like I said, just be careful how you read! Don't forget how easy it is to
    quote selectively.....and how easy it is to read into religious language
    something that they may not have meant at all. Deists could use very
    traditional religious language...but that didn't mean they were Christian.
    Many, like Adams, felt that "regular church service was beneficial to man's
    moral sense"--not because the doctrines were "true", but just because it was,
    well, "edifying".

    The founding fathers were--and I think this is truly beyond a shadow of a
    doubt--in favor of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. They were founding a SECULAR nation,
    not a Bible-based or Christian nation. They wanted it to be an ETHICAL
    nation, yes. But ETHICS is not even remotely limited to religion; and they
    certainly didn't think so either.

    People sometimes forget: these men were REVOLUTIONARIES. They were very much
    defying the established order, and they were laying their lives and their
    fortunes on the line to do it. Sometimes that meant defying the established
    CLERICAL order as well as the established POLITICAL order. After all,
    scripture could be, and had been, used quite often to defend the doctrine of
    the "divine right of kings"..... And that hardly fit in with their program,
    now, did it!


    The myth of America as Christian Nation is just that: a myth. "In God We
    Trust" was NOT understood by MOST of the founding fathers in the way that
    modern conservative Christians understand it. They were, most of them,
    educated men, men of science, greatly influenced by "Enlightenment" thinking,
    usually quite liberal (sometimes wholly heretical) in their theology, nearly
    ALL committed to religious pluralism (even the more tradional among them),
    open to the value of non-Christian religions, and profoundly humanist in
    sentiment and ideology. I really think it is not an exaggeration to say that
    the founding fathers, by and large, were the "secular humanists" of their day.
    Not compared to the secular humanists of today, perhaps (though Jefferson and
    Franklin would feel quite at home even in their company). But, still...OF
    THEIR DAY, yes, they were on the leading edge of liberalism and secularism.
    It was the very spirit of the Revolutionary Age they were living in. Yes,
    they used the language of religion, but they used it in their own way....


    Anyway, good luck researching this question. I would be very much interested
    in hearing what you find along the way.

    Yours, in the passion for truth,
    Arthur
    My blog: http://wordsandtheword.wordpress.com/
  • hammerud
    Arthurpena -- I read your input here. Thanks for the compliment that
    I would warrant such a response. I really do appreciate it. By the
    Bible being removed from shcools, I am speaking generally of the
    removal of any sort of reference to God or that sort of thing in the
    public schools without endangering ones position within the system.
    Basically the free market place of ideas has been restricted -- and I
    couldn't care less if things from all religions were taught -- in
    fact, they mostly are allowed, except for Christianity. Also, I am a
    Creationist and I do not believe in evolution because it always has
    struck me as nonsense, and then I came to know the Creator. I believe
    that the other side should be taught in the public schools, and it can
    be taught as intelligent design as part of a science curriculum, but
    it won't be allowed because of the intolerance of secularists. What
    in the world are they afraid of?? By the way, probability and
    statistics, when applied to the factors involved in evolution,
    demonstrates that it never could have happened; but very few people
    have been taught that interesting fact. Anyway, you quite a large
    amount. I think you may be right about all of the founding father
    stuff, but it is clear to me from just viewing our monuments and
    founding documents that God and the Bible played a prominent part in
    things, regardless of whether there were Deists involved. Thanks
    again for your response. Very nice of you. God bless.
  • I kind of "generally" agree in spirit with what you're saying about the free
    market of ideas. However, Christianity has always been the dominant religion
    here, and from the beginning there have been real Christian theocrats--the
    kind that really don't want a secular state. So, if the country as a whole
    has been more cautious when it comes to mixing Christianity in with the public
    school system than it has been with other religions, I think this may be part
    of the reason. No? But, like I said, I do think there are fanatical
    secularists too....

    Re God and the bible: Of course God and the Bible played a large part in the
    founding of the country. Almost every single person involved came from a
    Christian culture! That has nothing to do with how secular the nation was
    intended to be. It was the culture, the language. Even deists used the
    language of religion. But it is the MEANING of words that matters. It is what
    they MEANT by the religious language that matters. Remember: to John Adams,
    "Christian" meant a person who DID NOT believe in the divinity of Christ!

    Re Intelligent Design in the Classroom. I don't think many secularists are
    "afraid" of Intelligent Design. You have to respect something to be afraid of
    it. I think most simply despise it and truly see it as nonsense. Me? I see
    it as a possible hypothesis, not to be ruled out. And I think it would make a
    very good lesson in the classroom. I have trouble seeing it as "scientific"
    however, because if we are talking about God, by definition anything at all is
    possible--he could have placed the fossils there as "tricks"; he could have
    simply created the earth looking "old"; he could have done anything at all.
    For science to work, one really needs to be able to rule things out, to pin
    things down. God is rather hard to "pin down".

    A truly supernatural God is, more or less by definition, outside the purview
    of science, which is the search for NATURAL regularities, or "laws". I really
    think it gets "iffy" if you try to include God in "science".

    However, I think evidence for "intelligence" in the universe is rather clear:
    I mean, you and I are here, aren't we? And we are part of the universe,
    aren't we? Therefore the universe has within it the capacity for being
    self-aware and intelligent, doesn't it? As so often happens, when one really
    sits down and thinks about what we really mean when we say things, apparent
    irreconcilable differences sometimes dissolve. Take "mind" and "matter". If
    we say that the entire universe is matter, then we also have to say that
    matter has within it the potential to manifest as mind; that is, mind must be
    a property of matter...and the apparent contradiction disappears.

    I think something like this might be happening with the evolution debate.
    Science has, up to now, had a pretty "hard matter" view of things--matter as
    solid, mindless, etc. But science itself is coming to re-think the nature of
    matter, and more and more, something like "mind" is becoming part of the
    equation. Thus, the evolution which we do, in fact, observe in nature and
    through time, need not have wholly "mechanistic" explanations--that is,
    completely "mindless" explanations. Perhaps something like "intelligence" is
    at work, too. But it needn't be a supernatural intelligence. It could be a
    property of the universe itself. There needn't be a "creator"; there really
    could just be "the universe", intelligent, self-existent, eternal. After all,
    "God", as scientific hypothesis, if the intelligent design people want to look
    at it that way, explains nothing: it is just the box where we put what we
    cannot explain. It just means: "unexplainable". And if God explains "the
    beginning"--i.e. who or what started everything--scientifically speaking, we
    are right back where we started from: for the next obvious, scientific
    question would be: where did God come from? That's the nature of science:
    it questions. It doesn't "believe".

    God just isn't an appropriate scientific object of study. That's one reason
    it is better not to mix religion and science. They are two different
    languages, two different ways of thinking about and relating to the world. If
    one tries to use the language of science to talk about God, one starts
    sounding pretty absurd (like, "where did God come from?"); and if one tries to
    use the language of religion to talk about science, one also soon starts
    speaking gibberish (like God could have simply made all the waters from the
    flood disappear with a snap of his fingers). I think they reflect two very
    different ways our minds work: it's like poetry and discourse; or art and
    math. Better not to mix them. Both suffer when we do. Anyway, that's how I
    see it (and live it).

    Certain kinds of evolution are indisputable. Species have, in fact, changed
    over time. There is no reasonable debate possible on this. And natural
    selection, genetic drift, sexual reproduction, and genetic mutation all play a
    role in that evolution. This cannot be denied. This is certainly no mere
    "hypothesis", and it isn't really jsut a "theory", either: this is fact.
    Whether one species can become another species, or whether all biological
    complexity is explainable solely on natural grounds, may be a bit more open to
    question. I'm not sure.

    However, I hope you haven't been reading people like Josh McDowell. I
    remember reading something he wrote on evolution. It was laughable--he
    revealed an abysmal ignorance of even basic High School Biology and Physice.
    For example, he said that evolution couldn't be true because the law of
    entropy (I think that's the law--my physics is getting rusty) proved that
    complex things could not have arisen from simpler things, since the law says
    that all things tend to "run down". Well, that's the layman's way of putting
    the law anyway. But, apparently, Josh forgot about the sun. The law of
    entropy only applies to a "closed system"--that is, a system with no outside
    source of energy input. Like I said, Josh seems to have forgotten about the
    sun.... The sun's energy makes the earth an open system--and the law of
    entropy does not apply. Every time a bud breaks and a leaf starts to
    photosythesize, the power of the sun to provide the energy for "growth", and
    to overcome entropy, is demonstrated.

    Anyway, I truly hope you are not reading the likes of Josh McDowell!

    And, of course you warrant a response! You are clearly a sincere person.
  • "That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore."

    Can you point some out, please?

    (addendum: sorry, I didn't read your whole comment. My apologies!)
  • smfergus
    Isn't the current economic situation an example of market failure?
  • Not unless you believe it was an actual free market, which is wasn't/isn't. In fact, if it's anything, it's yet another failure of a mixed market, where government manipulates and intervenes in the market to suit its own agenda.

    Besides, even so, every capitalist acknowledges and supports the notion that sometimes businesses go under; it's a matter of ridding the system of waste. If you think that is a failure, then you could call a fever a body failure, because a fever is a built-in mechanism in your body to fight of viruses.
  • smfergus
    It seems to me that the 'capitalists' aren't clamouring for the government to stay out of the market - viz. tax cuts, subsidies and incentives for which industry lobbies. The only complaints I hear from business are about regulation and other restrictions - often the only checks and balances there are. I don't see that 'capitalists' really want a free market.
  • "For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself."

    I think this would fall under the libertarian rule of law concept, where whoever is polluting is harming others, and that is to be part of rule of law.

    "A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example."

    To say we need infrastructure done by government simply because we cannot fathom how else it could be done, or if private solutions have been tried in the midst of a government monopoly over competition, is not valid support. You may indeed be correct, but anything done by government (which does not produce anything, but rather takes from others—either rightfully or wrongfully—who have saved and earned capital and resources) is then put in monopoly privileges. Monopolies are not good for economies, especially when they don't even make profits (which the road systems certainly do not do).

    Also, you make the assumption (perhaps) based on what we see today. History may have been written differently if the market was the sole player in what happens with transportation. The Continental railroad, subsidized by the government, did not turn a profit. The northern railroad (can't recall the specific name) was done totally privately, was done much faster, and turned a profit in the first year (a very good record for any entrepreneur). Also keep in mind that since the govermment decided to build roads all over the whole country, every other mode of transportation, both current and future, had a monopoly—automobile transportation—to compete with. For one thing, we'd have less a problem with crowded roads (which is what happens with unlimited supply of a good or service: we get long lines); we may indeed have alternative modes of transportation, or perhaps better and more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation. When automakers saw an opportunity to put a car in every driveway because the government was building "free roads," what other result could we anticipate other than too many cars being built at the expense of creativity and entrepreneurship being the leader of what happens in an economy?

    Bottom line is, capitalism is a result of free people making mutually-beneficial exchanges with each other, respecting each other's property, and not colluding together to initiate force against somebody who doesn't fit their mould.
  • Ngchen
    Can you please elaborate on the libertarian "rule of law" concept? I'm not familiar with it.

    Now, when it comes to transportation, you're correct in that the road subsidies have been distortionary. Once something gets subsidized, it gains (perhaps unfairly) an advantage over its competitors. I bring up roads though b/c it is generally impractical to toll all roads, and be able to effectively collect the tolls (For one thing, there'd be toll booths on every block, and/or fences are needed to reduce people cutting in mid-way.) These added costs, not to mention having to stop to drop money in (another added cost), make tolling all roads impractical. Of course, when something is "subsidized," it's not really free; rather, someone else has decided to pay it or is being forced to pay it.

    Is that situation ideal? No. And you're correct that the majority of things are better off being run by the capitalist system. The exceptions are few. But I will submit that they do exist.
  • Rule of law concept has been explained in a few other of my comments on this very post. I'll let you skim my writings for it.

    Also, the road system is what it is now, but that's not to say it could have been done better in the past. We're semi-stuck with it, so to speak, so your scenario only addresses swapping from the current system to the private road system. Currently that would be unrealistic. But instead of government using eminent domain (sp?) to "buy up" (essentially force a purchase) land from its owners, a private system would have forced citizens to otherwise peacefully trade land for money. I'm not going to harp on this, too much, since it's unrealistic at this point in history.
  • Ngchen
    I did a search for "rule of law" for this entire thread, and I think I understand where you're going. Basically, in the case of pollution, you're FOR government to impose laws on it, in order to have "rule of law." I agree. Pollution needs to be regulated because it is the classic "negative externality."

    With regard to the roads, there are two issues. First, if we pretend that our current roads didn't exist and were starting from scratch, we still can't realistically have toll roads without imposing tremendous collection costs with the toll booths at every corner and fences. Second, and I guess this issue is most acute with roads, if every acquisition for road construction required the consent of the landowner, then a few uncooperative landowners would be able to effectively hinder the development of the road network by denying the sale, especially when the plots in question are geometrically stretched out. (Let's pretend I own a narrow strip of land 1 mm wide that bisects the county, and won't sell for example). It would be grossly unfair to make everyone travel through convoluted detours to go around the uncooperative people's plots. My guess as to why such a situation could exist is that land is, in some sense, NOT a commodity in that a given chunk cannot be substituted for with another. The owner then, de facto becomes a "monopolist" of the land in question (of course this is true for all owners of any property; however, for other (moveable) things like my computer, someone can buy a second computer if I'm unwilling to share).

    I will add that eminent domain should be a last resort, not a first resort and that if ways can be made to go around unwilling sellers without ruining things, then they should be pursued.
  • Think about the implications of your argument: if one person hinders the "progress" of a road system, we're out of luck. I disagree. Our creativity can only take us so far when we're not required to think about it, but be sure not to assume that roads are a necessary part of a society. They simply are a part of the society in which we now live. It could be otherwise. Perhaps the road systems wouldn't be all interconnected in the same way. Perhaps alternative means of transportation would emerge. And perhaps, the "too many cars" problem we see, which they say creates too much CO2, would not be a problem had the government not monopolized one form of transportation, just because that form was the fashionable one.
  • Ngchen
    In terms of hindering the progress of a road system, I stand by my claim that it's possible if there aren't mechanisms to dislodge such people in extraordinary cases. After all, you can't build through my hypothetical 1 mm strip! Of course, regulation can easily become excessive. You bring up "too many cars." A part of that came from excessive zoning regulations that discouraged mixed-use neighborhoods, for instance.
  • But: the free market also tends to concentrate wealth in increasingly fewer hands. Every economic crisis gives big fish the chance to swallow smaller fish, and after that crisis has passed, there are fewer big fish; and the big fish have gotten even bigger. This can all be done legally, without "colluding". It is, in fact, inevitable. Even without crisis, this is inevitable: normal competition itself leads to more succesful companies pushing out less successful companies. That may be a good thing in some ways, but it also means that--without democratic institutions that check the natural tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands--political power, too, will end up in those same hands. "Private" ownership of the means of production really must be counterbalanced by "public" checks on the accumulation and concentration of wealth and power which the free market inevitably leads to. Unless, of course, one were to argue with the idea that wealth buys power....???? Certainly, the Biblical prophetic tradition is clear on that score.....

    Arthur
    http://wordsandtheword.wordpress.com/
  • Please use examples in history to cite your generalities. Your assessment defies the reality and existence of free market history.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008