This will be the concluding post in resolving the question raised by Individual retirement account last week: Is it intrinsic in the nature of free enterprise capitalism for the most rich people and/or corporations to catch
In the second of the 2 earlier posts, I dealt with the historic context and the existing issue. In this post, I will comment on future instructions– the escape of our existing dilemma and the method to a practical society, that– oh, by the method– will also appreciate private property, free markets, and libertarianism … at least better than any other system offered to humans. The only escape of this predicament of devolution– whether concerning free market capitalism, libertarianism, or any other worth that is placed as the greatest typicalvalue in a neighborhood– is to identify and point toward a value that, when those who excel at it are viewed as the top of the hierarchy, inherently can not so degenerate due to the nature of the value. Let me try this another way. Possibly an easy way is in sports competitions– sports with unbiased steps. It will not be a perfect analogy, as analogies can never ever be ideal, however here goes. In basketball, those who finest exemplify the qualities related to a good player– scoring, rebounding, protecting, helping with a colleague– will rise to the top of the basketball hierarchy. The system does not corrupt, as it is in the interests of those connected with the game to continue to win.
However such a system does not represent the life people live. Excelling in basketball is a desired intermediate end for some; in any case, such an unbiased system can not translate into the subjective lives we live every day. But ideally the example serves to clarify the point: what is the worth that, when positioned as the greatest commonly-held value in society, inherently can not be damaged? At the danger of losing a lot of you, I provide
the response first and some description after. For those in doubt, maybe simply try to swallow your method through this. Matthew 22: 36 Master, which is the excellent commandment in the law? 37 Jesus stated unto him, Thou shalt like the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the very first and fantastic commandment. 39 And the 2nd resembles unto it
, Thou shalt like thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. What is the worth of loving God? There are numerous things that can be discussed on this point, however I will adhere to those pertinent to this particular discussion. Caring God puts us in a position to recognize that there is something(an entity, being, idea, whatever– we do not really have a word for this … besides”God “)above and outside of the control of guy– something that guy’s laws can not touch, something that man can not veto. Lots of will recommend that this
may be a fickle God, dangerous for us to enjoy. Possibly. However is He any more unsafe to you today than those who live and legislate as if He does not exist, or as if His law can be freely violated, or as if love is irrelevant to an operating society? What has your faith in males brought you? What of caring your next-door neighbor? It is intriguing that Jesus a)provided 2 commandments when just one was requested for, and b) that the 2nd is” like unto” the first. In other words, the second is simply as the very first, or in equivalent standing, or maybe it is the way through which we show the first in our lives.
really few are wanting to the whole. We demand love, however ignore reality; we require respect, yet neglect humbleness; we require liberty, yet ignore duty; we require repentance, yet disregard forgiveness. The Christian story demanded each of these. Today’s turmoil is driven by a society that selects only one side without being delegated the other. Love needs charity, regard, liberty and repentance toward and from another. It likewise requires reality, humbleness, responsibility,
and forgiveness toward and from another. We reside in a society that focusses on just one side of this while ignoring the other: charity without fact, regard without humility, liberty without obligation, repentance without forgiveness. Love needs action. It is not a feeling, as if we are all teens simply coming into puberty. Love is a verb, it is something we do, not something we feel. What does all this have to do with personal property, free market commercialism and libertarianism? I am getting to that, provide me time … The very best ethical philosophy that I have actually discovered that a) positions God at the top of the hierarchy and for that reason gets man out of the law-invention service, b )recognizes love as the greatest value from which a hierarchy will then be figured out, and c )is helpful of personal property, is natural
law. I can just sum up here, but will afterwards provide lots of links for those thinking about understanding this further. Natural law accepts that man is made with a purpose, an end, a telos. This end is not something that man can
freely choose, no greater than a lion is complimentary to so select its proper end. Male does not have flexibility in selecting the supreme end, although he has flexibility in choosing intermediate ends and the means to attain these ends(as long as these do not conflict with natural law). The greatest end for human beings is beatitudo, commonly translated as joy, however not the superficial happiness that the majority of people think about today. It is better equated as satisfaction through other-regarding action. Simply put
, love. Back to the best rule. Natural law need not result in formal law as we understand the term– natural law is an ethic, determining proper behavior. I am ethically bound to act in specific methods; this does not indicate that another is warranted in demanding that I treat him in these methods. There is a difference between law and principles in natural law– definitely in the Thomistic understanding. Natural rights outline that which I can demand from others– fundamentally this is limited to the demand that others appreciate my life and my residential or commercial property
. It is here where disobediences requiring official, physical penalty( jail, fines, self-defense, whatever )are justified
. This is the non-aggression principle and libertarianism writ large– the NAP is not a total ethical system; it is simply a statement about when official, physical punishment (or violence )is warranted. Love, when identified as the common worth, can not be corrupted. To excel at love– to arrive of the hierarchy– only produces more love. Before getting to the links, let’s get some rubbish out of the way:”What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, child sacrifice, and so on, and so on, etc.? Christians got involved and even advocated for all sorts of atrocities.”Firstly … Christians are human, like the rest of us. Fallen; not best. Second, read some history. Wars in the Holy Land between Christians and Muslims didn’t start with the Crusades; the Spanish Inquisition led to not more than a couple of thousand deaths, possibly as couple of as a handful annually; slavery was commonly practiced throughout the world (and still is in many places). It was Christianity that ended it in the West. As to kid sacrifice, God ended it with Abraham, He didn’t begin it. Christianity compared to what? Don’t compare the history of Christians to some ideal made up in your head; compare it to other traditions,
compare it to what came previously in the Roman world. One other possible concern: no, I am not speaking of a theocracy. How looney do you think I am? Even if I wanted such a thing (I am not ), I do understand the realities of this world; such an idea would never fly in the West (thank God). I am speaking of Christians appropriately speaking reality to power, holding authority accountable, and demonstrating love in action. Now, the links. · I have actually written a substantial series on The Search for Liberty. The search ended with natural law. The links to the lots of posts can be discovered here. · A further assessment of the concept that natural law is not about law, however about principles, can be discovered here. · The distinction in between natural law and natural rights is even more taken a look at here and here. · For those Christians who believe that the Bible states absolutely nothing about natural law, this is resolved here. · What happens when only one side is let loose– when love is divorced from fact, for instance? This is evaluated here. I know. It sounds crazy to put such hope in Christian churches and Christian ethics when we see the state of numerous Christian churches today. However where else will this required management originated from? This battle will not be won by atomized individuals; it will require an institution. It will not be won by demonstrations at the capital
; it will require an organization. It will not be won by the ways of politics– whether through a third party or co-opting one of the two existing celebrations; it definitely will not be won in the organization referred to as the university– universities are much more far gone than Christian churches. Do I need to recommend that it will not be won by the heroes of Rand’s novels, the titans of market? Christianity has one thing going for it that no other institution has in its favor: its foundation is in the best commandment and the second just like
it. This the church can not avoid, regardless of the truth that numerous churches range from it or even preach against it. Christian churches are, sadly, as much of the issue as they are
the solution. I take a look at actions that may be taken by Christians churches, no matter denomination or tradition, if society is to move toward a much healthier location, where home, markets, and libertarianism are respected. By the concept of a Christian organization, I don’t indicate a universal church as was comprehended in medieval times with a central structure. Such a thing is beyond the reach of
male, and certainly too easily co-opted by the opponents of liberty. I do suggest that Christian churches of all denominations and customs do have some thingson which they can concur( albeit numerous do not ). It will depend on the leaders of these churches( and their congregants )to choose which course they will take. Christian churches and their leaders deal with a choice: to serve God or to serve male. Pick to serve God, and be prepared to diminish in size, cut all ties to federal government financing and support, become pariahs to the wider society. However there will also be many who flock to your message, as soon as the baggage of hypocrisy is gotten rid of. Select to serve male, and this world will accept you.
Select to serve God, and liberty (together with free markets )stands a possibility; choose to serve male … well , we see where this is leading.
Conclusion If we want free market industrialism and liberty– to state nothing of living the best of human possibilities — there should be something of
a value held in common, something higher than free enterprise commercialism or the non-aggression principle( or equality, or variety, or inclusion); something outside of human reach, and something that only ends up being less polluted the much better we climb up the hierarchy. I have presented one possibility. I have not found another that can top it.