The comment below was published because it was awaiting moderation. It wass listed here because of the length of time in which it has been awaiting moderation. This comment has now been published.
Aug 11
To David Robertson and his blogpost podcast covering a number of issues such as Turkey, prostitution, and immigration. This appeared in Theweeflea blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 17
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote lamenting how court decisions requiring businesses to provide goods and services to bi-sexual party is the end of religious liberty. This appeared in Heidelblog.
How is it that preventing discrimination proves that the sky of religious liberties is falling? The same court principles that dismantled Jim Crow, which some used religious beliefs and the Bible to defend, are being applied to protect the those from the LGBT community from being discriminated against and marginalized.
For those who see these court decisions as a blow to religious liberties, let me ask the following question: Are you still free to attend the church of your choice and to use your religion to publicly protest these court decisions? If so, why complain that those from the LGBT community are now free to pay for goods and services from any business they choose to patronize?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 18
To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of a podcast interview of Samuel Gregg on economic liberty. This appeared on the Acton blog.
The logic used to so pair economic and religious liberties is rather manipulative. To cite China first tries to prove the association by example and fails to consider what other variables could be involved, besides economic freedom, in the increase in religious interest there. One might consider another example where the market is much freer than that in China and see where religious interest is decreasing. This is occurring in America. And the reduction in religious interest also has been waning more in other free market societies such as in European countries. So if the correlation between economic freedom and religious interest seems to be inconsistent, how can a follow up to correlation, that is a cause and effect relationship, be established?
Describing the conversation as being manipulative can also be said of the distinction made between self-interest and selfishness, the relationship between work/risk and rewards, and envy. For example, selfishness was defined as being irrational in overemphasizing the importance of a desired object while self interest is rational. But isn't the importance of an object relative according to the person desiring it? More importantly, though, isn't selfishness related to self-interest so that rather than associating selfishness with an object, we should measure in terms of the degree self interest plays in determining our priorities and making decisions?
Likewise, note the association made between those who work the hardest or take the biggest risk with who deserves the most wealth. Currently in our economy, wages have either stagnated or decreased per the skill level of many jobs. In addition, wages can be, and have been, reduced simply by increasing the supply of labor and those who control that are those with wealth. But note how work and risk are put on the same level. Those making the most money are not necessarily those who have risked it all by starting up their own business, but it is made by those who risk what they have by playing stock market. And one of the ways to increase the reward shareholders receive from their stock holdings in a publicly owned company is to freeze or decrease the wages that many of the workers of that company make, And please note that the only time a publicly owned company receives money from the sale of stocks is from the sale of originally issued stocks.
Finally, envy is tied with the desire to redistribute wealth. But here, the redistribution of wealth has a similar role as the revision of history. Its fairness depends on the accuracy used in the beginning. It is not wrong to revise history when the original version was slanted. Likewise, redistributing wealth is fair when the original distribution of wealth was unfair. And whether the original distribution of wealth was unfair depends on how fairly the role of each person involved is valued and on how well were the interdependencies factored into the original distribution of wealth. Interdependencies include factors outside the company that contribute to its wealth. Physical and social infrastructures contribute to the wealth of companies. So does the quality of the society in which a company exists. And the question becomes whether the original distribution of wealth is fairly paying for the support it has received from the outside.
Those who assume that the original distribution of wealth was fair seem to be the ones who claim envy is behind the call for the redistribution of wealth. Rarely to the same people admit that the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy can be fueled by envy or related vices as well. And usually it is the same group that values risk over work and believes that labor depends more on capital than capital depends on labor. And here we should note the work of Thomas Piketty who has observed that more and more wealth is being inherited than earned.
Other points could be addressed, but it is enough to stop here. We should note that the more economic liberty is paired with religious liberty, the more likely that the association is because it is mamon that is being worshiped and served rather than God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the percentage of people who would elect a socialist as President. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Aren't we being a little selective when we only accuse those who have less of being envious? Isn't it possible that some who have hoarded wealth have done so out of envy of their peers? And what is wrong with the redistribution of wealth if the original distribution was unfair? Also, are people like Sanders objecting to the lack of income equality or to the degree of income and wealth disparity?
Finally, before putting electing a Socialist in such a bad light, wouldn't it be more informative to educate readers on the different kinds of socialist approaches and on one of the basic tenets of Socialism: workers' control of production.
Showing posts with label Economic liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic liberty. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Friday, August 1, 2014
Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 6 of 12
In this episode of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism, Witt tries to rebut a proposed alternative to Capitalism called Distributism. This alternative is proposed to counter the 'hyper-utilitarianism, materialistic, and banal' qualities that mark today's age of Capitalism along with the consolidation of wealth and power that resides with elites from the business class.
What is Distributism? It includes a more equitable distribution of land and means of production in order to avoid the problematic consolidation of wealth, a more agrarian based lifestyle, and an emphasis on buying local and thus promotion of a 'society market.'
Witt has a couple of objections, everybody should have at least one, to this economic system, but we will focus on his main objection. His objection is the broken-record conservative objection to who initiates what. For one of the founders of Distributism, Hiliare Belloc, called on government to facilitate the beginning and maintenance of Distributism. So of course Witt will complain that Belloc is leaping from the frying pan of consolidated wealth and power of the private sector into the fire of even more power of the public sector--the government.
And the apparent reason why Witt does this is because his model of thought lacks nuance and the ability to make distinctions with regard to the government and power. For in stating that government is already too powerful and, quite frankly, is the problem, he doesn't distinguish between governments that are truly democratic and those that are run by elites. This is why we don't see democracy being part of the recipe in developing a sound economy.
In addition, Witt's analysis that government has more power than the elites in the private sector shows a failure to understand the meaning of power and how it is distinguished from authority. Simply put, power is the ability to get things done. And one doesn't have to have authority to have power. So there is a very real and important debate we need to have today in determining how we can fix our broken system. Who has the most power in today's society? Is the elites in the private sector who make both major political parties addicted to the Crack of both campaign contributions and perks from lobbyists or is it those they have put into government positions? Sheldon Wolin, who is the author of Democracy Incorporated, seems to argue that elites from the business class have the most power. This possibility goes unexamined by Witt and thus, as Witt criticizes another system for depending too much on government, he sets us up to be shot with a gun he never sees.
And just as Witt is blind to the power of private sector elites as he weighs the merits of another economic system, he seems very naive about how to solve the morass our current economic system. He seems to think that in addition to political and religious liberties, all we need is more economic liberty, which means more individual liberty for entrepreneurs, with that liberty to be curbed only by the passing of necessary laws based on natural laws and the belief that each person is made in the image of God. The necessary laws, according to Witt, are assumed to be obvious which is why no mention of democracy is not being made-- the absence of democracy in his series makes his extolling of political liberty seen in this article seem empty.
Here, we should remember from the very first blogpost in this series that the less we emphasize democracy, the more we support elite centered rule (click here). And Witt's support of elite centered rule implies that we need the right elites in government to pass the obvious laws necessary to ensure economic liberty. But if these laws are being passed by a government run by elites, then, even if Witt approves of these elites, he is guilty of having the same fault he cited Belloc with: empowering government.
But more than that, having the right elites in government to pass the right laws according to ideology is the path Lenin took when he hijacked the Russian Revolution and turned it toward the Right. It is simply a belief in a vanguard of elites who judge what is consistent with the ideology du jour.
Finally, as a side note, the absence of any emphasis put on the role of democracy in determining the economic system is consistent with my discussions with people from the Acton blog. In our discussions, they were adamant in declaring that there is only one kind of liberty: individual liberty. This means that the liberty a group exercises in determining how we will live with each other, which we can call group or societal liberty, which is facilitated by democracy, does not exist.
But again, as this blog has pointed out, the less democracy, the more elite centered rule. And such rule will put a higher priority on protecting, if not expanding, its position and possessions to the extent that they might market the laws that best serve them as laws which are obviously based on natural law and the idea that man is made in the image of God. After all, isn't that what we are seeing today?
What is Distributism? It includes a more equitable distribution of land and means of production in order to avoid the problematic consolidation of wealth, a more agrarian based lifestyle, and an emphasis on buying local and thus promotion of a 'society market.'
Witt has a couple of objections, everybody should have at least one, to this economic system, but we will focus on his main objection. His objection is the broken-record conservative objection to who initiates what. For one of the founders of Distributism, Hiliare Belloc, called on government to facilitate the beginning and maintenance of Distributism. So of course Witt will complain that Belloc is leaping from the frying pan of consolidated wealth and power of the private sector into the fire of even more power of the public sector--the government.
And the apparent reason why Witt does this is because his model of thought lacks nuance and the ability to make distinctions with regard to the government and power. For in stating that government is already too powerful and, quite frankly, is the problem, he doesn't distinguish between governments that are truly democratic and those that are run by elites. This is why we don't see democracy being part of the recipe in developing a sound economy.
In addition, Witt's analysis that government has more power than the elites in the private sector shows a failure to understand the meaning of power and how it is distinguished from authority. Simply put, power is the ability to get things done. And one doesn't have to have authority to have power. So there is a very real and important debate we need to have today in determining how we can fix our broken system. Who has the most power in today's society? Is the elites in the private sector who make both major political parties addicted to the Crack of both campaign contributions and perks from lobbyists or is it those they have put into government positions? Sheldon Wolin, who is the author of Democracy Incorporated, seems to argue that elites from the business class have the most power. This possibility goes unexamined by Witt and thus, as Witt criticizes another system for depending too much on government, he sets us up to be shot with a gun he never sees.
And just as Witt is blind to the power of private sector elites as he weighs the merits of another economic system, he seems very naive about how to solve the morass our current economic system. He seems to think that in addition to political and religious liberties, all we need is more economic liberty, which means more individual liberty for entrepreneurs, with that liberty to be curbed only by the passing of necessary laws based on natural laws and the belief that each person is made in the image of God. The necessary laws, according to Witt, are assumed to be obvious which is why no mention of democracy is not being made-- the absence of democracy in his series makes his extolling of political liberty seen in this article seem empty.
Here, we should remember from the very first blogpost in this series that the less we emphasize democracy, the more we support elite centered rule (click here). And Witt's support of elite centered rule implies that we need the right elites in government to pass the obvious laws necessary to ensure economic liberty. But if these laws are being passed by a government run by elites, then, even if Witt approves of these elites, he is guilty of having the same fault he cited Belloc with: empowering government.
But more than that, having the right elites in government to pass the right laws according to ideology is the path Lenin took when he hijacked the Russian Revolution and turned it toward the Right. It is simply a belief in a vanguard of elites who judge what is consistent with the ideology du jour.
Finally, as a side note, the absence of any emphasis put on the role of democracy in determining the economic system is consistent with my discussions with people from the Acton blog. In our discussions, they were adamant in declaring that there is only one kind of liberty: individual liberty. This means that the liberty a group exercises in determining how we will live with each other, which we can call group or societal liberty, which is facilitated by democracy, does not exist.
But again, as this blog has pointed out, the less democracy, the more elite centered rule. And such rule will put a higher priority on protecting, if not expanding, its position and possessions to the extent that they might market the laws that best serve them as laws which are obviously based on natural law and the idea that man is made in the image of God. After all, isn't that what we are seeing today?
Friday, July 25, 2014
Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 5 of 12
In today's episode of A Cultural Case For Capitalism (click here for part 5 of 12), Jonathan Witt attempts to solidify acceptance of Capitalism by tying it closely to Christianity. However, there is a problem, the branch of Christianity Witt wants to tie the origins of Capitalism with is that which appeared in the Dark Ages. So Witt must first dispel the monicker "Dark Ages" from this time period. Once he has done that, he hopes that the association he has built between Christianity and Capitalism makes Capitalism more than acceptable.
Witt does acknowledge that abuses took place back during this time period. He then goes to cite Rodney Stark, a historian and sociologist from Baylor, in stating that the Dark Ages weren't that dark by noting the advances that took place in technology, the arts, and literature. He then goes on to conclude that the advances that came in science and emergence of the Middle Class came from the "political, economic, and religious freedom" which in turn came from the Christian understanding that man was made in the image of God.
But there is a problem here. Should one, after studying history, associate political and religious freedom with Christianity's main institution, the Church? To answer this question, we might want to ask a series of questions. For example, what was the plight of the Jews during the Middle Ages? Weren't they expelled out of a number of Christian European countries during this time? And didn't they also serve as scapegoats for horrors like the Black Plague and thus were punished and killed in order to appease the Christian God? And didn't the Crusades occur during the Middle Ages where the knights participating in these wars sometimes showed more cruelty their Muslim counterparts? And didn't the Inquisition at times claim as its victims heretics and Jews and wasn't the mass burning of Jews part of the Inquisition?
And as we leave the 1500s, not forgetting Martin Luther's writings against the Jews, and proceed into the 1600, didn't Calvin's Geneva persecute and slaughter heretics and witches? And even here in the U.S., didn't the Puritans persecute and even martyr Quakers and, of course, that doesn't include the ethnic cleansing of America's indigenous people from the land because the Christian European settlers back then saw themselves as being a "New Israel?" And didn't some Christians also participate in the enslaving of Blacks for Biblical reasons? And let's not forget Christian Europe's colonizing of much of the world for the sake of gaining riches.
And, of course, none of this includes how the Church persecuted new thoughts and the people who produced them, such as Copernicus and heliocentricity, because it challenged the Church's interpretation of reality and thus its power?
See, these are problems that seem to be minimized by just acknowledging that there were horrors that came from the Middle Ages. And we should also note that horrors also came from places after the Middle Ages where the Church was still dominant. And as Witt tries to say that there are horrors in every age, which is true, it seems to create an irony. It is an irony because if the Church has received their message from God, why should a time period in which it is dominant so much resemble the rest of human history?
See, problems grow when one wants to go beyond minimizing the tyranny of past Christianity and then try to associate religious and political freedoms solely with that Christianity. We should also note that authoritarianism is a main ingredient both in the structure of the Church and relationships Christians have with others. And usually, one doesn't normally associate freedoms with authoritarianism.
So what about the claim that our freedoms are rooted in the belief that we are created in the image of God? We could take two approaches here. We could simply go back in time to see if that is what Christians, who were from both the Middle Ages and the time period afterwards wherever Christianity was dominant, concluded and practiced for others and not just themselves. Then we can also peek at whether those from the enlightenment contributed to the beliefs in political and religious freedoms.
But there is another approach we could take to Witt's claim. That approach seems to tie together Witt's basic concern with economic freedom with the model used by this blog to examine Witt's writings. If the idea of economic freedom came from the Medieval belief that man was made in God's image, then why is this freedom being associated with such an authoritarian institution like the Christian Church of the Dark Ages?
That question is more aptly answered by the model of thought used by this blog in examining Witt's writings on Capitalism (click here). That is because this blog has stated that democratic rule would eventually limit individual rights because such puts a growing priority on wealth over values such work and need and thus the concern for others. Thus, elite-centered rule is needed as individual rights and ownership increase over collective ownership. In fact, protecting the financial elites was James Madison's concern during the Constitutional debates when he expressed his fear that expanding the vote in England could result in agrarian reforms (click here and search for his comments on Tuesday, June 26). We should note that the Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal government in order to protect the financial elites of that time from discontent and rebellion (click here and there to see Henry Knox's letter to George Washington and Federalist Paper #10).
Is economic freedom as applied to the individual really a foundational liberty based on the idea that man is made in God's image? Or has our model, and more importantly history, shown that economic liberty is code for increasing the privileges of business owners and the financial elite at the expense of the rights and well-being all other stakeholders in the economic system? Appealing to Christianity from the Middle Ages, as Witt does, seems to forget that not only was the Church, that is the Roman Church, very authoritarian, so were many Protestants. And quite often, the Protestants of history who sought political freedoms were not seeking freedoms for all but for themselves and others in their tribe only.
In actuality, the freedoms that Witt says come from Medieval Christianity actually came from political structures. The political structure Witt noted was the city-state. But forerunner of the city-state were communes, an entity that naturally could rub the King and the Church the wrong way. The communes were walled cities and they did offer some liberties to the peasants who joined. At the same time there was a cost to belonging to a commune. That cost included mutual defense pacts so a degree of loyalty was required. So in a commune, there was a combination of both individual rights and collective ownership. Basically, these communes came into existence to provide protection for its members from lawless elites (nobles) and others in the absence of a centralized authority. If the protection could not come in time, then some sort of revenge would be exacted from the offending party as way of inhibiting future attacks.
What we have today is a system that stresses freedoms, or perhaps we should say privileges because the freedoms are but for a few, for business elites--the lawless nobles of our day. This has resulted in what Witt and others like him call "Crony Capitalism." This form of Capitalism sees those with official authority prostitute themselves by the favors and special treatment they provide for the financial elite in exchange for money. And though Witt and others like him sincerely state that this is not the kind of political-economic system they want, it is difficult to see how what they advocate, economic freedoms or privileges protected by elite centered rule, can ever possibly emerge into something different. After all, why does Witt try to so tightly bind economic liberty with Christianity except to give economic liberty the credentials to be readily accepted. Such is an authoritarian move.
Witt does acknowledge that abuses took place back during this time period. He then goes to cite Rodney Stark, a historian and sociologist from Baylor, in stating that the Dark Ages weren't that dark by noting the advances that took place in technology, the arts, and literature. He then goes on to conclude that the advances that came in science and emergence of the Middle Class came from the "political, economic, and religious freedom" which in turn came from the Christian understanding that man was made in the image of God.
But there is a problem here. Should one, after studying history, associate political and religious freedom with Christianity's main institution, the Church? To answer this question, we might want to ask a series of questions. For example, what was the plight of the Jews during the Middle Ages? Weren't they expelled out of a number of Christian European countries during this time? And didn't they also serve as scapegoats for horrors like the Black Plague and thus were punished and killed in order to appease the Christian God? And didn't the Crusades occur during the Middle Ages where the knights participating in these wars sometimes showed more cruelty their Muslim counterparts? And didn't the Inquisition at times claim as its victims heretics and Jews and wasn't the mass burning of Jews part of the Inquisition?
And as we leave the 1500s, not forgetting Martin Luther's writings against the Jews, and proceed into the 1600, didn't Calvin's Geneva persecute and slaughter heretics and witches? And even here in the U.S., didn't the Puritans persecute and even martyr Quakers and, of course, that doesn't include the ethnic cleansing of America's indigenous people from the land because the Christian European settlers back then saw themselves as being a "New Israel?" And didn't some Christians also participate in the enslaving of Blacks for Biblical reasons? And let's not forget Christian Europe's colonizing of much of the world for the sake of gaining riches.
And, of course, none of this includes how the Church persecuted new thoughts and the people who produced them, such as Copernicus and heliocentricity, because it challenged the Church's interpretation of reality and thus its power?
See, these are problems that seem to be minimized by just acknowledging that there were horrors that came from the Middle Ages. And we should also note that horrors also came from places after the Middle Ages where the Church was still dominant. And as Witt tries to say that there are horrors in every age, which is true, it seems to create an irony. It is an irony because if the Church has received their message from God, why should a time period in which it is dominant so much resemble the rest of human history?
See, problems grow when one wants to go beyond minimizing the tyranny of past Christianity and then try to associate religious and political freedoms solely with that Christianity. We should also note that authoritarianism is a main ingredient both in the structure of the Church and relationships Christians have with others. And usually, one doesn't normally associate freedoms with authoritarianism.
So what about the claim that our freedoms are rooted in the belief that we are created in the image of God? We could take two approaches here. We could simply go back in time to see if that is what Christians, who were from both the Middle Ages and the time period afterwards wherever Christianity was dominant, concluded and practiced for others and not just themselves. Then we can also peek at whether those from the enlightenment contributed to the beliefs in political and religious freedoms.
But there is another approach we could take to Witt's claim. That approach seems to tie together Witt's basic concern with economic freedom with the model used by this blog to examine Witt's writings. If the idea of economic freedom came from the Medieval belief that man was made in God's image, then why is this freedom being associated with such an authoritarian institution like the Christian Church of the Dark Ages?
That question is more aptly answered by the model of thought used by this blog in examining Witt's writings on Capitalism (click here). That is because this blog has stated that democratic rule would eventually limit individual rights because such puts a growing priority on wealth over values such work and need and thus the concern for others. Thus, elite-centered rule is needed as individual rights and ownership increase over collective ownership. In fact, protecting the financial elites was James Madison's concern during the Constitutional debates when he expressed his fear that expanding the vote in England could result in agrarian reforms (click here and search for his comments on Tuesday, June 26). We should note that the Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal government in order to protect the financial elites of that time from discontent and rebellion (click here and there to see Henry Knox's letter to George Washington and Federalist Paper #10).
Is economic freedom as applied to the individual really a foundational liberty based on the idea that man is made in God's image? Or has our model, and more importantly history, shown that economic liberty is code for increasing the privileges of business owners and the financial elite at the expense of the rights and well-being all other stakeholders in the economic system? Appealing to Christianity from the Middle Ages, as Witt does, seems to forget that not only was the Church, that is the Roman Church, very authoritarian, so were many Protestants. And quite often, the Protestants of history who sought political freedoms were not seeking freedoms for all but for themselves and others in their tribe only.
In actuality, the freedoms that Witt says come from Medieval Christianity actually came from political structures. The political structure Witt noted was the city-state. But forerunner of the city-state were communes, an entity that naturally could rub the King and the Church the wrong way. The communes were walled cities and they did offer some liberties to the peasants who joined. At the same time there was a cost to belonging to a commune. That cost included mutual defense pacts so a degree of loyalty was required. So in a commune, there was a combination of both individual rights and collective ownership. Basically, these communes came into existence to provide protection for its members from lawless elites (nobles) and others in the absence of a centralized authority. If the protection could not come in time, then some sort of revenge would be exacted from the offending party as way of inhibiting future attacks.
What we have today is a system that stresses freedoms, or perhaps we should say privileges because the freedoms are but for a few, for business elites--the lawless nobles of our day. This has resulted in what Witt and others like him call "Crony Capitalism." This form of Capitalism sees those with official authority prostitute themselves by the favors and special treatment they provide for the financial elite in exchange for money. And though Witt and others like him sincerely state that this is not the kind of political-economic system they want, it is difficult to see how what they advocate, economic freedoms or privileges protected by elite centered rule, can ever possibly emerge into something different. After all, why does Witt try to so tightly bind economic liberty with Christianity except to give economic liberty the credentials to be readily accepted. Such is an authoritarian move.
Friday, July 11, 2014
Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 3 of 12
I was going to originally combine parts 2 and 3 together, this is why the title for the last post in this series has a grammatical error, but I changed my mind at the last minute. Part 3 of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism (click here) wants to make the case that individual liberty is king while trying to disconnect it from our current cultural decay. But Witt wants to so honor individual liberty as long as we understand what individual liberty is. Individual liberty, according to Witt, does not include the freedom to steal, cheat, pollute, or practice violence. Nor is individual liberty seen when big government gets involved in aiding select business as they compete in the market. Such invites corruption. But Witt does acknowledge the legitimate role of government to enforce the 'rule of law.' So individual liberty, according to Witt, does not give one permission to be unjust to others. Rather, individual liberty occurs when government becomes minimally involved in the economy to enforce laws the occurrence of which should be an exception rather than the rule.
So Witt acknowledges that we must have laws with his "lawless road" analogy so as to control theft, cheating, and pollution; however, there is a problem. For how does government determine what is stealing, cheating, polluting, and alike? For example, is paying poverty wages a form of stealing either from employees or from public funds used in government assistance programs? Were some of the practices of or products sold by the Financial Sector during the housing bubble a form of cheating? And how much CO2 emissions can we allow before calling it pollution? Who is suppose to answer these questions?
In addition, doesn't the community in which a business is located have legitimate concerns besides basic moral issues? After all, such a business does have an impact on its surrounding community as well as consumes public services and demands a certain quality of society that helps the business succeed.
There is another problem here. The problem is that Witt seems to say that big, intrusive government almost seems to be the sole source of corruption. That without government's ability to interfere in the free market, businesses would be much less likely be involved in corruption. In fact, Witt uses the examples of Venezuela and Russia as places where a planned economies have ruined things. We should note here that the US and a few other countries from the then G7 insisted on a Neoliberal form of Capitalism for Russia after the Communist empire collapsed--we should note that Neoliberal Capitalism drastically reduces government's control of the economy. To implement this, these countries pushed for a replacement of Russia's then leader Michael Gorbachev with Boris Yeltsin all of which led to an increased amount of corruption (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine). We should also note that a significant amount of the fraud that occurred during our economic collapse in 2008 was due to unregulated financial products (see Inside Job).
Here, not only does Witt seem to suggest that without big government, most of business's temptation to practice corruption would be eliminated, Witt gives no recognition to another limiting factor to individual liberty besides basic moral principles; that is democracy. According to the model presented in part 1 of this series (click here), the less one favors democracy as a way to distribute power, the more one favors elite rule. So with no mention of democracy here, what we need to look for in the following parts of Witt's series is who he thinks will have power.
According to our model, the less democracy is employed, the more power is consolidated (see the illustration below). And the more that power is consolidated, the more we have elite rule. And we should note here that power is not the same as authority. Authority is based on the official position one has in the government. Power is the ability to get things done.
So far, we are too early in the series to verify if Witt is advocating the consolidation of power by minimizing the role of government and possibly the role of democracy. Witt's denouncement of big government should not fool us into thinking that he is against the consolidation of power. For we should note that power follows wealth so that those with wealth can either exercise control over others or practice injustice with impunity. So if Witt's model allows for the consolidation of wealth, it will also enable the consolidation of power.
Likewise, there seems to be no mention of stakeholder claims to the rights and ownership of a business. In fact, we could easily say that with Witt's emphasis on economic liberty, he recognizes little to no claim of a Collective Consciousness. For this to occur, Witt must either deny the significance of or the existence of the interdependency that exists in our economy and society. For the degree to which a Collective Consciousness should exist depends on the degree of interdependency that exists in our economy and society.
Despite Witt's denouncement of a government corrupted Capitalism and his advocating the need for the rule of law in our economy, the question will become whether Witt can present an economic model that will be free of the problems he has cited here. Will Witt's model almost all but eliminate corruption in as well as injustices and pollution that currently come from our many of our businesses? If the model presented on this blog significantly represents the real world, then the increased wealth disparity, which is suppose to follow an overemphasis on individual rights at the expense of a Collective Consciousness, and the increased tyranny, which will more like result when Elite Centered rule is favored over Democracy, will make it unlikely that Witt's economic model can escape the corruption and other problems that we see in today's flawed Capitalism. Please stay tuned to see who is right here.
So Witt acknowledges that we must have laws with his "lawless road" analogy so as to control theft, cheating, and pollution; however, there is a problem. For how does government determine what is stealing, cheating, polluting, and alike? For example, is paying poverty wages a form of stealing either from employees or from public funds used in government assistance programs? Were some of the practices of or products sold by the Financial Sector during the housing bubble a form of cheating? And how much CO2 emissions can we allow before calling it pollution? Who is suppose to answer these questions?
In addition, doesn't the community in which a business is located have legitimate concerns besides basic moral issues? After all, such a business does have an impact on its surrounding community as well as consumes public services and demands a certain quality of society that helps the business succeed.
There is another problem here. The problem is that Witt seems to say that big, intrusive government almost seems to be the sole source of corruption. That without government's ability to interfere in the free market, businesses would be much less likely be involved in corruption. In fact, Witt uses the examples of Venezuela and Russia as places where a planned economies have ruined things. We should note here that the US and a few other countries from the then G7 insisted on a Neoliberal form of Capitalism for Russia after the Communist empire collapsed--we should note that Neoliberal Capitalism drastically reduces government's control of the economy. To implement this, these countries pushed for a replacement of Russia's then leader Michael Gorbachev with Boris Yeltsin all of which led to an increased amount of corruption (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine). We should also note that a significant amount of the fraud that occurred during our economic collapse in 2008 was due to unregulated financial products (see Inside Job).
Here, not only does Witt seem to suggest that without big government, most of business's temptation to practice corruption would be eliminated, Witt gives no recognition to another limiting factor to individual liberty besides basic moral principles; that is democracy. According to the model presented in part 1 of this series (click here), the less one favors democracy as a way to distribute power, the more one favors elite rule. So with no mention of democracy here, what we need to look for in the following parts of Witt's series is who he thinks will have power.
According to our model, the less democracy is employed, the more power is consolidated (see the illustration below). And the more that power is consolidated, the more we have elite rule. And we should note here that power is not the same as authority. Authority is based on the official position one has in the government. Power is the ability to get things done.
 |
| American Capitalism Today |
So far, we are too early in the series to verify if Witt is advocating the consolidation of power by minimizing the role of government and possibly the role of democracy. Witt's denouncement of big government should not fool us into thinking that he is against the consolidation of power. For we should note that power follows wealth so that those with wealth can either exercise control over others or practice injustice with impunity. So if Witt's model allows for the consolidation of wealth, it will also enable the consolidation of power.
Likewise, there seems to be no mention of stakeholder claims to the rights and ownership of a business. In fact, we could easily say that with Witt's emphasis on economic liberty, he recognizes little to no claim of a Collective Consciousness. For this to occur, Witt must either deny the significance of or the existence of the interdependency that exists in our economy and society. For the degree to which a Collective Consciousness should exist depends on the degree of interdependency that exists in our economy and society.
Despite Witt's denouncement of a government corrupted Capitalism and his advocating the need for the rule of law in our economy, the question will become whether Witt can present an economic model that will be free of the problems he has cited here. Will Witt's model almost all but eliminate corruption in as well as injustices and pollution that currently come from our many of our businesses? If the model presented on this blog significantly represents the real world, then the increased wealth disparity, which is suppose to follow an overemphasis on individual rights at the expense of a Collective Consciousness, and the increased tyranny, which will more like result when Elite Centered rule is favored over Democracy, will make it unlikely that Witt's economic model can escape the corruption and other problems that we see in today's flawed Capitalism. Please stay tuned to see who is right here.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 25, 2014
June 18
To Bethany Jenkins and her blogpost on equipping the Church for cultural leadership. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I think it is time that we Christians stop feeling compelled to be leaders. Such, of course, implies a hierarchical relationship with others and, because others have less sanctified reasons for being recognized as leaders, there is competition for the role of being a leader. But more than that, being the leader pushes others to the margins and it does so based on a perceived lack of merit.
At Occupy, though we certainly did this imperfectly, we tried at some levels to establish a leaderless/all-are-leaders community. Yes, we were definitely imperfect in doing this. But such called and included those from the margins into the decision making process--something a hierarchical based community cannot do.
In the end, we must decide whether we want Christianity to control the different spheres in our society as leaders or do we want Christians to work with, in give-take relationships, all others in society. So perhaps teaching Christians to be leaders in their spheres of influence is giving us a mindset and putting us into positions that causes us to overreach in our interactions with the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21
To Denny Burk and his blogpost on the PCUSA decision on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog
For a people who believe that all are sinners and that those who believe that being saved comes from confessing one's sin, we seem to be very accusatory especially when it comes to sexual issues.
Conservative Christians are as much to blame for the Presbyterian Church's recent decision as anyone else. Conservative Christians have, for the most part, worked to marginalize gays in society--that is because they were not content enough with relying on Church discipline. Thus, those who are sensitive to oppression and inequality were implicitly told that the only way to protect gays in society was to determine that homosexuality is biblical.
Certainly the Presbyterian Church USA is wrong in its decision here. But how much more wrong have many of us Conservative Christians been when, in order to control the behavior of others, we have caused so much pain?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Dr. Michael Brown and his post urging people to leave the Presbyterian Church USA because of recent General Assembly decisions. This appeared in the blog OneNewsNow.com.
When one looks at all of the positions being objected to in this article, it becomes unclear as to whether the author is opposes the PCUSA because it is unbiblical or because it is liberal.
For example, there are Christians who oppose Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and Modern Zionism. Such opposition has be clearly stated in an article linked to here (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/wdoor.html). One may not agree with their position but their position is backed by Scriptures rather than by "liberal" reasoning. And this is the problem with this article. Certainly the PCUSA was wrong in its decision on same-sex relationships. But divestment from Israel cannot be blamed on liberalism when the Scriptures so clearly against how the Palestinians are treated. And though their violence is wrong, it is just as wrong to condemn it without noting its context. But such is not the conservative view of the Middle East.
Our first allegiance must be to God and His Word, not to some nation or ideology. For a greater allegiance to a nation or ideology is just an example tribalism, an ism that calls for relative morality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22
To John Couretas and his blogpost on unity liberties. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The defeat of USSR Communism is often sanitized the West. For one thing, Communism and Socialism is stereotyped by using the USSR and Red China as their representatives. The Iron Curtain has been wrongly portrayed as evidence for the Communist desire for empire and rightfully condemned because of the totalitarianism. And we are portrayed as defenders of freedom whose global bases served as our commitment to that freedom.
First, many socialists and communists strongly disagreed with the totalitarian nature of both the USSR and Red China and that goes back to the beginning of Lenin's paid hijacking of the Russian Revolution. That main reason for the Iron Curtain was to provide a buffer between the Soviet Union and the West because of past devastating invasions is quite a reasonable, alternative explanation, but not an excuse, for the Iron Curtain. And that the US exercised its own control over nations around the world from Asia to Europe to Central and South America and that control took away the freedoms of many countries--see works by former CIA consultant and historian Chalmers Johnson and historian William Blum. That Iran, Guatemala, and Chile served as examples where the US replaced democracies with dictatorships for business interests. Okinawa and the Philippines serve as examples of the US exercising control and Asia. And there were a number of actions taken in Europe such as in Greece and Italy where the US stealthly flexed its muscles.
So when we get down to the liberties being celebrated by this post, there seems to be something missing. That missing ingredient is balance and that particularly applies to economic liberty. The more economic liberty given to the individual, the less say the community has in how that liberty is exercised. Here, I am not primarily referring to the government because a government can take on different forms and represent different people. Rather, I am talking about a liberty that defenders of Conservative Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalists want to deny: group or social liberty as implemented by democracies. Here, if we recognize economic liberty for the individual as the only liberty, then not only do we allow financial elites to accumulate power because power always follows wealth, we make democracy impotent which destroys any protection that communities would enjoy from financial elites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Elise Hilton and her blogpost claiming that a new Obama proposal designed to protect the rights of those in the LGBT community is a deliberate attack on the Church and religious liberty.
Articles like this have one purpose, that is to stoke the fires of fear and anger. How is it that an effort, regardless of how incorrect, to try to protect the rights of those from the LGBT community can be portrayed as a targeted attack on the liberties of any individual or church is beyond me. That is not to say that Obama's proposal does not need revision, but to view such as a deliberate attack on any church is to pit the liberties of those in the LGBT community vs the religious rights of churches. And thus two fall guys are being edged as enemies of the Church: the LGBT community and the Obama Administration. This is not right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This might not seem true especially regarding the piece on Amnesty International and prostitution because many on the Left see the sex industry as a matter of freedom. But there are voices on the Left that have condemned that position and who favor the solution suggested in this program that we criminalize the purchase of sex rather than the selling of it.