To Defend "Aristocracy" in Society:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though it was noted in yesterday's posting on distributivism that I would be writing on this subject soon{1}, the truth is, what you are about to read was already substantially completed when that statement was made.
The idea for this posting was brought to your host's attention last month when he was sent an article on some utopian approach to economics. Reviewing the idea got me thinking a bit more about the subject of aristocracy and how I have long viewed it at least in some form or another. Indeed much as your host will soon be writing on a third approach to politics which is badly needed in the current political climate{2}, the purpose of this post is to do something that would appear to be anathema to an American view of society. Yes my friends, I am going to make a defense of aristocracy here.
Now it is true that to some extent we have always defended aristocracy at this humble weblog but not in what might be called a traditional sense and certainly not in any kind of overt or explicit systematical fashion. But I will get to that in the process of interacting with some of the aforementioned article in question which can be read here:
Home of the Brave? (John Steinsvold)
Material for the above article will be in darkgreen font from here on out.
Economists concede that economics is an inexact science. What does that mean? Perhaps it means their economic forecast is better than yours or mine.
As I have said many times, find for me a rich economist and I will take his advice.
Recently, economic indicators have been rising and people have their fingers crossed.
If one knows what to look at with economic indicators, they can have a good idea of where the economy is going.
Economists have given us reason to hope that the job market will improve and that the stock market will continue on a steady climb.
Well, this article from Steinsvold was written prior to early 2006 and the economy has been quite good overall since mid to late 2003. A strong reason for this was the tax cuts President Bush had implemented back in 2001 which took the predictable two years{3} to have a measurable effect across the board.
Yet, the newspapers continue to report more layoffs and more jobs going overseas.
Actually, the economy has been at better than full employment{4} for a while now in the lions share of most states in the union.
Meanwhile, our economy is getting more and more complex.
The biggest problem in society is that we do not teach people about money and how to use it. Financial literacy is not taught in schools and frankly it should be. How the market works is also not taught in schools and frankly it should be. Most of the information the MSM distributes on how the economy works is erroneous but that is merely in keeping with the McElhinney Media Dictum{5} and therefore should not be too much of a surprise to readers of this humble weblog.
We associate complexity with progress for some ungodly reason.
Well, an increase in knowledge, understanding, and the like will generally result in a greater refinement over time. This is the natural order of things. However, that does not mean that complexity necessarily means progress -some truths can indeed be very simple to comprehend even if they are smaller components oftentimes of larger concepts.
The following problems, however, have become inherent in our economy. What does that mean? It means they will be around for a while:
Needless poverty, unemployment, inflation, the threat of depression, taxes, crimes related to profit (sale of illicit drugs, stolen ID's, muggings, bribery, con artists, etc.), conflict of interest, endless red tape, a staggering national debt, plus a widening budget deficit, 48 out of 50 states in debt, cities in debt, counties in debt, skyrocketing personal debts, 50% of Americans unhappy at their work, saving for retirement and our children's education, health being a matter of wealth, competing in the "rat race", the need for insurance, being a nation of litigation, being subject to the tremors on Wall Street, fear of downsizing and automation, fear of more Enrons, outsourcing, bankruptcies, crippling strikes, materialism, corruption, welfare, social security, sacrificing quality and safety in our products for the sake of profit, the social problem, of the "haves" vs. the "havenots" and the inevitable family quarrels over money.
I should note if I have not already that this article is quite intriguing. There are even some subsidiary ideas in the piece that I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with. The problem is, the assumption that is made in the article that the problems it seeks to outline have to do with the use of money. We have a seriously ignorant populace when it comes to financial education of this there is no doubt. But what is being recommended in the above article (henceforth referred to as "Mr. Steinsvold's economic schemata") is really not all that new in concept.
Can we learn to distribute our goods and services according to need (on an ongoing basis) rather than by the ability to pay? Why not? Poverty and materialism will be eliminated! Our sense of value will change. Wealth will no longer be a status symbol. A man will be judged by what he is; not by what he has. He will be judged by his achievements, leadership, ideas, artistic endeavours or athletic prowess; not by the size of his wallet.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: when incentive is removed for people to better themselves, the result is logically and historically a systematic collapse. What is described above is no different than what the Pilgrims went through at Plymouth Rock initially. They had this grand idea that everyone would share everything and there was no private property, no division of labour, everything was to be done in common and in "cooperation" as the writer noted in his piece. In less than three years, that community was on the verge of dying out. The reason for this is because there was no incentive to do anything by those with the greater gifts and abilities.
Why should those with greater gifts and abilities be motivated to when they would get out of it no more than those of the least gifts and abilities??? In Mr. Steinsvold's economic schemata, those with the least gifts and abilities would be given priority in distribution and that would make matters even worse. He even admits to it in these words:
Yes, everything will be free according to need. All the necessities and common luxuries will be available on a help yourself basis at the local store. Surely, this country is capable of supplying the necessities and common luxuries for everyone in this country many times over.
The more "expensive" items, such as housing, cars, boats, etc. would be provided for on a priority basis. For example, the homeless would provided housing ahead of those living in crowded quarters. How will this priority be established? Perhaps a local board elected by the people in the neighborhood such as a school board. Or perhaps the school boards could absorb this responsibility in addition to their present duties.
As I noted already, this is what they did at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and they were on the verge of being destitute in a mere three years with crop failure being but one of the many hardships they faced. The Pilgrims eventually realized by necessity the importance of private property and giving people incentives to produce and they survived and thrived as a result. In later centuries, Mr. Steinsvold's economic schemata would be promoted under various forms of communialism and given titles such as "communism" and "socialism." And every place it has been tried, it has failed miserably and always will.
The truth is that all men are created equal in dignity but not in gifts, talents, or abilities. This is why if things are left to their natural state, there will always be an aristocracy in society whether we like it or not. John Adams once noted that there are five indicators of sorts which will determine how one will proceed in life as far as what advantages they would have over others. Let us consider these ideas under the umbrella of what could be called John Adams' theory of natural aristocracy.
--The first indicator is accident of birth. Whether we like it or not, some people will always be born to advantages over and above others and start out for that reason ahead of others.
--The second indicator is good looks. Whether we like it or not, those who are more attractive are going to have an advantage over those who are unattractive and they will have more doors open to them on that basis alone.
--The third is talent. Whether we like it or not, those with more talent have an advantage over those with less talent.
--The fourth is merit or achievement and it speaks for itself.
--The fifth is persistence or determination. This one is capable of being cultivated by anyone and is capable of compensating to some extent for lacking in the other areas so noted.
Those are the five indicators outlined by John Adams and taken from a rational standpoint, they make excellent sense. So some will always have advantages over others in the natural order of things. However, that does not mean that they will per se come out better in the end for having the aforesaid greater advantages. To consider this point for a moment, let us return to the first of the indicators and go through each one again briefly.
We noted the first indication as "position of birth" and indeed this can be quite an asset. However, one should consider the ancient Chinese proverb "from rich to poor in three generations" and how often this has happened over time. Obviously positions of birth are not enough and they can be wasted through complacency. The same is the case with the third indicator of "talent" and how often have we heard of someone with God-given talents to an extraordinary degree that never fulfilled their potential for one reason or another??? Of the second indicator, often those of the beautiful people who have that as an advantage starting out can end up losing by not being motivated to develop themselves further and thus should their looks fade, they will be in deep kim chee.
Now then, from each of these first three indicators you have a natural aristocracy of sorts in the human condition. It is unavoidable and every attempt in history to not acknowledge this in social or economic planning has resulted in failure. This is why socialism and communism cannot work, never have worked, and never will work. So if we recognize that there is an aristocracy intrinsic to humanity and always will be whenever the variables so noted above are dispersed so unevenly, what do we do about it is the question.
Do we rob from those who are lucky enough to be born into more privileged circumstances and thus violate the fundamental right of property which like life and faculties is God-given and which is a right which precedes all human legislation??? Those who advocate policies such as distributivism would say we should and that is all we need to say at this time with regards to what they advocate.{6} Shall we take a stick and bludgeon all the pretty people to make them equally hideously ugly so that there is no advantage there???{7} It is one possibility after all.
Do we fine people for utilizing their special talents or otherwise discourage them with economic or social restrictions so that they will not outshine others to thus keep the playing field "equal" in outcome??? Certainly if we do that, no one needs to worry about the persistence and determination part of it because if the first three are dealt with as noted above, they will not be of any value. So unless the intention is to bring everyone down to the least common denominator, the focus should be on traits or characteristics which are not built in but indeed can be learned or otherwise acquired.
As I have said (and I was not the first), there is always an aristocracy in society. The question is, should such an aristocracy be shaped by blood or by merit??? In other words, should a society be focused on someone becoming an aristocrat in society by an accident of birth, the accident of having exceptional appearance, etc. Or rather still, should things be focused more on the utilization of God-given gifts coupled with learning how to efficaciously use them???
In America, there are opportunities for people to advance in the financial aristocracy over time even if some have more advantages than others. However, in Mr. Steinsvold's economic schemata, these do not exist. Like it or not, people require some kind of motivation or else they will not do anything. And Mr. Steinsvold's economic schemata taken as a system inexorably strips this from them.
Any system, be it religious or secular requires some form of motivation for progress and some chart to measure whether or not progress has been made. Inevitably such a system (whatever it is) will show that some achieve more than others do. As long as we recognize that such a societal aristocracy will always exist as long as people exist, the questions that remains are (i) how that aristocracy is shaped, (ii) what factors are emphasized over others, and (iii) what motivation is given for people to strive to excel. I would claim that the fourth and fifth indicators should be what should be emphasized, namely merit/achievement and persistence/determination. For those are the areas of greatest variable and the least built in advantages.
Again, all are created equal in dignity but not in gifts, talents, or abilities. But I do not see why we cannot place the focus of aristocracy in areas which admit of the greatest possible members. Mr. Steinsvold undoubtedly is of good will in presenting his idea for a society without money. But money is merely a unit of measurement and like all commodities it is worth what people believe it is worth.
Truthfully, the lions share of the problems Mr. Steinsvold noted in his article are hardly going to go away if money is done away with. However, many of them could be reduced or eliminated by the application of some basic common sense and a proper approach to law in a just society. That happens to be why this weblog has focused so much on that subject seeing it as getting at the root and matrix of so many of the problems that plague society.
Mr Steinsvold can be contacted here for those who are interested in doing so:
steinsvold2@verizon.net
Notes:
{1} The subject of aristocracy will be written on soon at this weblog and it is an important yet often misunderstood or overlooked component to any society. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2007)]
{2} With the election on the horizon for 2008 and wanting to avoid for the sake of his own sanity too much focus on those issues beyond what is necessary to do, it seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.[...] Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]
{3} Five percent was the standard unemployment figure we used in our college economics classes when dealing with employment models and the like. But in actuality, the rate can be higher or lower depending on various factors. Or as Wikipedia notes in an article on the subject matter...
As readers can see, by recent OECD standards, our 5% figure is in the middle of the range. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 28, 2006)]
{4} It takes about two years for any policies to affect a noticeable change in the economy. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 28, 2006)]
{5} Defining the McElhinney Media Dictum (circa August 2, 2004)
{6} I had in mind a rather sardonic example for this footnote which on second thought, I will dispense with at this time.
{7} After all, as Brad Pitt is probably light years better looking than I am, should I therefore advocate violence against him to compensate for this "unfair advantage"??? Should those less attractive than me advocate the same to compensate for whatever "unfair advantage" I may have over them??? Etc. etc. etc.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Revisiting "Distributivism":
I received an email the other day from someone who was promoting some new book they had written on economics where they sought to (it would appear) make the pitch for distributivism. I should note at the outset for those wondering if this is the same thing as distributism, the answer is they are one and the same thing.
As I noted earlier, audioblogger is not working and I am not able to access recordings I made previously on this subject. That means I need to reinvent the wheel on this which does not please me but nonetheless here goes a rehashing of the matter in essentials and perhaps a slightly different restatement of the principles in a more syllogistic format.
To start with, the Catholic Church, whose teaching office (Lat. magisterium) is often appealed to as an "endorser of distributivism"{1} is on record historically as affirming the value of not only faith but also reason. Faith and reason cannot really contradict one another -something that the present pope has gone on record as affirming along with many of his predecessors. Pope Leo XIII's writing Rerum Novarum is often a source of prooftexts by advocates of distributivism. However, before noting why this is a ludicrous notion, let us consider some of what Pope Leo XIII said in his encyclical Aeterni Patris on the importance of reason:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I received an email the other day from someone who was promoting some new book they had written on economics where they sought to (it would appear) make the pitch for distributivism. I should note at the outset for those wondering if this is the same thing as distributism, the answer is they are one and the same thing.
As I noted earlier, audioblogger is not working and I am not able to access recordings I made previously on this subject. That means I need to reinvent the wheel on this which does not please me but nonetheless here goes a rehashing of the matter in essentials and perhaps a slightly different restatement of the principles in a more syllogistic format.
To start with, the Catholic Church, whose teaching office (Lat. magisterium) is often appealed to as an "endorser of distributivism"{1} is on record historically as affirming the value of not only faith but also reason. Faith and reason cannot really contradict one another -something that the present pope has gone on record as affirming along with many of his predecessors. Pope Leo XIII's writing Rerum Novarum is often a source of prooftexts by advocates of distributivism. However, before noting why this is a ludicrous notion, let us consider some of what Pope Leo XIII said in his encyclical Aeterni Patris on the importance of reason:
[T]he natural helps with which the grace of the divine wisdom, strongly and sweetly disposing all things, has supplied the human race are neither to be despised nor neglected, chief among which is evidently the right use of philosophy. For, not in vain did God set the light of reason in the human mind; and so far is the super-added light of faith from extinguishing or lessening the power of the intelligence that it completes it rather, and by adding to its strength renders it capable of greater things. [Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter Aeterni Patris (circa August 4, 1879)]
Now then, if reason is an important help -a "natural light" as given to us by God, than it requires that we respect its strictures. One of those strictures is the law of non-contradiction and I will get to this in a moment. However, I want to start this from a philosophical/religious approach first by noting something that Jesus of Nazareth once said. In speaking of the Sabbath and certain Mosaic regulations, he noted that "[t]he Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark ii,27). Another way of saying this is that law is made for man, not man for law. So if the law is made for man and not vice versa, then there have to be certain rights intrinsic to man which do not derive from law. This brings us to the theory of Claude Frederic Bastiat which was constructed to combat perverse perceptions by various "social planners" of what law was intended for in society. I intend to revisit it here briefly for the benefit of those who are not familiar with it before using it to address the problems with "distributivism."
To start with, Bastiat asserted that there were three fundamental interrelated rights of man. These rights do not derive from law but instead from God. Or to quote{2} from his magnum opus The Law for a moment:
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
The above formulation as the reader can hopefully see is grounded on the principle noted by Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospel of Matthew: man is made for law and not vice versa. Bastiat goes further though and defines what man is by crystallizing specific rights which taken together embody the totality of man: his physical, intellectual, and moral existence. These are noted under the three headings of "life, faculties, and production." Once this is established, we can appreciate what law is and what it is intended to do. Naturally, this is where Bastiat goes next in his examination:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Law therefore is to give an organization to society as a whole what individuals have intrinsic to them. To the extent that law achieves this, it is just. However, to the extent it fails, it is unjust. Furthermore, as Bastiat noted, these rights are not able to be separated but instead stand or fall together:
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
If we recognize this right as individuals, then there is a logical extension that we must likewise note and that is the rights of people in groups to defend their rights as individuals. Or as Bastiat said it:
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
In other words, all valid and just law is based on the rights of individuals and the common force that protects society as a collective logically is limited by that which it substitutes for: the right to protect the life, faculties, and production of individuals which can also be stated as "person, liberty, and property." And as the rights so enumerated above precede law and are not delegated by law, then the common force cannot be used to destroy the right of individuals or groups anymore than an individual can. For if it could, then we would be entertaining contradiction. Bastiat noted the problems with such legal perversion in the following words:
Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Now that we have outlined the fundamental rights of man and pointed out the logic that must accompany any valid usage of law, let us consider the "three ways" of economics starting with socialism.
Of course those familiar with Claude Frederic Bastiat know that he formulated his theory in the face of the encroaching socialism of nineteenth century France. His theory in other words does not harmonize whatsoever with socialism because the latter demeans man at all three levels: it denies him the right to his life and how he wants to live it, it seeks to hinder his faculties by imposing artificial boundaries on him, and it seeks to deny the right to property. For that reason, no more needs to be said about the "value" of socialism than that. Let us therefore consider capitalism.
Is there anything intrinsic to capitalism that hinders any of these fundamental rights??? The answer is "no" which is not the same as saying that all forms of capitalism are just. Indeed, it is possible to violate fundamental rights in a capitalist context also; however, these violations are not intrinsic to the system itself. Having noted that, let us consider "distributivism" and whether or not the same can be said about this supposed "catholic third way" of approaching economics.
To start with, the "distributivist" apologist applies a false and deceiving definition to "capitalism." While undoubtedly there are other definitions which have minor differences, the following definition (taken from an essay promoting the concept) will be used as representative of the standard view of those with that outlook. To wit:
Capitalism [is] understood as a system where a minority controls the means of production, and the majority of the dispossessed must sell their labor, because that is all that they have left. [LINK]
Notice if you will the presuppositions in the above definition which are by no means self-evident. First of all, the idea that capitalism is by necessity a system "where a minority controls the means of production" is absurd because it is by no means intrinsic to the system. There is nothing stopping people in a capitalistic society from coming together to agree to work together for the betterment of them all -getting a group together comprising of people with different degrees of knowledge, different skills, different resources, and the like. Furthermore, the notion of "means of production" as some kind of finite pie is also an assumption that is by no means proven.
The essence of capitalism is that of a system where the means of production are privately owned, operated for profit, and where various accumulation of assets are determined through a market which is called "free" meaning that buyers and sellers determine the value of an item not government. There is no requirement for the "means of production" to be limited -this presumption shows an ignorance on the part of those making the assertion of aristocracy.{3} But rather than construct a defense for capitalism, it suffices to see if distributivism can withstand the same scrutiny that capitalism can and socialism cannot. In short: is it harmonious with safeguarding the fundamental rights of man.
Now to the credit of distributivism, it does place a premium on all three rights in the abstract -it is grounded on property and this is certainly an improvement over socialism. It also endeavours to give a great impetus to cultivating the life, faculties, and production of people but the same can be said for capitalism properly understood. So let us move from the abstract and take this to reality for a moment: let us presume that we were going to implement distributivism tomorrow.
If we were to implement distributivism tomorrow, to start with, where would the property come from which we would give to others??? Land I remind you is not infinite but instead is finite. So unless we were going to put everyone on a farm,{4} that means any city dweller would have to get property that belongs to someone else. That is the problem because the moment you take away property from its owner and give it to another, there is theft and a violation of the very fundamental right to property that distributivists claim to want to promote. And as undermining one of the fundamental rights means undermining all three, distributivism is an economic approach which is intrinsically immoral.
Now I realize that distributivists would claim that they base their economic approach on the social encyclicals of various popes but unless they are going to claim that those popes advocated the amputation of reason and the forced degradation of man,{5} they would be wise to recognize the distributivist approach for what it is: an approach that however noble-sounding in theory is not capable of being implemented in reality without involving the undermining of the fundamental rights of man via a perversion of law.
Like socialism, distributivism sounds really nice in theory but would be a dehumanizing beast in application. Whatever the problems in application of capitalism are (and there are many) at the very least such problems are not intrinsic to the economic model itself.
Notes:
{1} The grounds for this are (to out it nicely) tenuous at best.
{2} All quotations from Claude Frederic Bastiat's 1850 magnum opus The Law were taken from a Rerum Novarum posting circa October 3, 2002 where they were first referenced on this humble weblog.
{3} The subject of aristocracy will be written on soon at this weblog and it is an important yet often misunderstood or overlooked component to any society.
{4} This seems to be another thing popular with the distributivist crowd: the idea of being a person of the land. What if someone does not want to be a "person of the land"??? Such advocates would seem to claim that they should be forced to in the interest of promoting their agenda and thus they would violate the right to a person's faculties or (to phrase it slightly differently) their liberty.
{5} See the quotation above from Pope Leo XIII on the subject of reason as evidence that he did not view things this way. And as he did not view reason this way; ergo his social encyclical cannot legitimately be misconstrued to do so either without again engaging in formal contradiction.
To start with, Bastiat asserted that there were three fundamental interrelated rights of man. These rights do not derive from law but instead from God. Or to quote{2} from his magnum opus The Law for a moment:
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
The above formulation as the reader can hopefully see is grounded on the principle noted by Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospel of Matthew: man is made for law and not vice versa. Bastiat goes further though and defines what man is by crystallizing specific rights which taken together embody the totality of man: his physical, intellectual, and moral existence. These are noted under the three headings of "life, faculties, and production." Once this is established, we can appreciate what law is and what it is intended to do. Naturally, this is where Bastiat goes next in his examination:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Law therefore is to give an organization to society as a whole what individuals have intrinsic to them. To the extent that law achieves this, it is just. However, to the extent it fails, it is unjust. Furthermore, as Bastiat noted, these rights are not able to be separated but instead stand or fall together:
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
If we recognize this right as individuals, then there is a logical extension that we must likewise note and that is the rights of people in groups to defend their rights as individuals. Or as Bastiat said it:
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
In other words, all valid and just law is based on the rights of individuals and the common force that protects society as a collective logically is limited by that which it substitutes for: the right to protect the life, faculties, and production of individuals which can also be stated as "person, liberty, and property." And as the rights so enumerated above precede law and are not delegated by law, then the common force cannot be used to destroy the right of individuals or groups anymore than an individual can. For if it could, then we would be entertaining contradiction. Bastiat noted the problems with such legal perversion in the following words:
Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Now that we have outlined the fundamental rights of man and pointed out the logic that must accompany any valid usage of law, let us consider the "three ways" of economics starting with socialism.
Of course those familiar with Claude Frederic Bastiat know that he formulated his theory in the face of the encroaching socialism of nineteenth century France. His theory in other words does not harmonize whatsoever with socialism because the latter demeans man at all three levels: it denies him the right to his life and how he wants to live it, it seeks to hinder his faculties by imposing artificial boundaries on him, and it seeks to deny the right to property. For that reason, no more needs to be said about the "value" of socialism than that. Let us therefore consider capitalism.
Is there anything intrinsic to capitalism that hinders any of these fundamental rights??? The answer is "no" which is not the same as saying that all forms of capitalism are just. Indeed, it is possible to violate fundamental rights in a capitalist context also; however, these violations are not intrinsic to the system itself. Having noted that, let us consider "distributivism" and whether or not the same can be said about this supposed "catholic third way" of approaching economics.
To start with, the "distributivist" apologist applies a false and deceiving definition to "capitalism." While undoubtedly there are other definitions which have minor differences, the following definition (taken from an essay promoting the concept) will be used as representative of the standard view of those with that outlook. To wit:
Capitalism [is] understood as a system where a minority controls the means of production, and the majority of the dispossessed must sell their labor, because that is all that they have left. [LINK]
Notice if you will the presuppositions in the above definition which are by no means self-evident. First of all, the idea that capitalism is by necessity a system "where a minority controls the means of production" is absurd because it is by no means intrinsic to the system. There is nothing stopping people in a capitalistic society from coming together to agree to work together for the betterment of them all -getting a group together comprising of people with different degrees of knowledge, different skills, different resources, and the like. Furthermore, the notion of "means of production" as some kind of finite pie is also an assumption that is by no means proven.
The essence of capitalism is that of a system where the means of production are privately owned, operated for profit, and where various accumulation of assets are determined through a market which is called "free" meaning that buyers and sellers determine the value of an item not government. There is no requirement for the "means of production" to be limited -this presumption shows an ignorance on the part of those making the assertion of aristocracy.{3} But rather than construct a defense for capitalism, it suffices to see if distributivism can withstand the same scrutiny that capitalism can and socialism cannot. In short: is it harmonious with safeguarding the fundamental rights of man.
Now to the credit of distributivism, it does place a premium on all three rights in the abstract -it is grounded on property and this is certainly an improvement over socialism. It also endeavours to give a great impetus to cultivating the life, faculties, and production of people but the same can be said for capitalism properly understood. So let us move from the abstract and take this to reality for a moment: let us presume that we were going to implement distributivism tomorrow.
If we were to implement distributivism tomorrow, to start with, where would the property come from which we would give to others??? Land I remind you is not infinite but instead is finite. So unless we were going to put everyone on a farm,{4} that means any city dweller would have to get property that belongs to someone else. That is the problem because the moment you take away property from its owner and give it to another, there is theft and a violation of the very fundamental right to property that distributivists claim to want to promote. And as undermining one of the fundamental rights means undermining all three, distributivism is an economic approach which is intrinsically immoral.
Now I realize that distributivists would claim that they base their economic approach on the social encyclicals of various popes but unless they are going to claim that those popes advocated the amputation of reason and the forced degradation of man,{5} they would be wise to recognize the distributivist approach for what it is: an approach that however noble-sounding in theory is not capable of being implemented in reality without involving the undermining of the fundamental rights of man via a perversion of law.
Like socialism, distributivism sounds really nice in theory but would be a dehumanizing beast in application. Whatever the problems in application of capitalism are (and there are many) at the very least such problems are not intrinsic to the economic model itself.
Notes:
{1} The grounds for this are (to out it nicely) tenuous at best.
{2} All quotations from Claude Frederic Bastiat's 1850 magnum opus The Law were taken from a Rerum Novarum posting circa October 3, 2002 where they were first referenced on this humble weblog.
{3} The subject of aristocracy will be written on soon at this weblog and it is an important yet often misunderstood or overlooked component to any society.
{4} This seems to be another thing popular with the distributivist crowd: the idea of being a person of the land. What if someone does not want to be a "person of the land"??? Such advocates would seem to claim that they should be forced to in the interest of promoting their agenda and thus they would violate the right to a person's faculties or (to phrase it slightly differently) their liberty.
{5} See the quotation above from Pope Leo XIII on the subject of reason as evidence that he did not view things this way. And as he did not view reason this way; ergo his social encyclical cannot legitimately be misconstrued to do so either without again engaging in formal contradiction.
I recorded some audios last year which I tried to access for the next weblog posting but they are not available. This is despite Audioblogger's promise last year after they closed that feature to host the audios recorded "indefinitely", apparently "indefinitely" as a measure of time is less than a year now.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Musings on Chris DiSomma's Birthday:
For those who do not know who Chris is/was, I recommend reviewing this thread before continuing with the post you are currently reading.
Remembering Chris (circa November 26, 2005)
I also reflected a small bit on his passing in December of last year when I found myself thinking of him again. As today would have been his birthday, I have for a week now wondered how to commemorate this occasion if at all. And frankly, I am not at my usual capacity for that so what I will do instead is post the lyrics to a song played at his memorial. But first some background on it.
This is a song I did not know was his favourite and perhaps it is a coincidence that it has been among my favourites for many years. (Chris and I never discussed this but it now seems like more than a coincidence.) Interestingly enough, while the chords of the song are not that hard, the solo is deceptive in that it sounds easier to play than it really is. And I spent no small amount of time trying to nail the guitar solo in years past but I never succeeded at it.
Maybe at some point I will figure it out if I ever take to playing the electric guitar again. But without further ado, a song that definitely described Chris' heart and to some extent, every time I hear it now I will always think of him. The song is called Simple Man:
Mama told me when I was young
Come sit beside me, my only son
And listen closely to what I say.
And if you do this
It will help you some sunny day.
Take your time... dont live too fast,
Troubles will come and they will pass.
Go find a woman and youll find love,
And dont forget son,
There is someone up above.
And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Wont you do this for me son,
If you can?
Forget your lust for the rich mans gold
All that you need is in your soul,
And you can do this if you try.
All that I want for you my son,
Is to be satisfied.
And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Wont you do this for me son,
If you can?
Boy, dont you worry... youll find yourself.
ollow you heart and nothing else.
And you can do this if you try.
All I want for you my son,
Is to be satisfied.
And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Wont you do this for me son,
If you can? [Ronnie Van Zant (d. 10/20/77)]
I know he can hear me and therefore I reiterate what I noted back in December:
Chris despite everything that happened between us you will always be close to my heart my friend: always. May God rest your soul until (hopefully) we meet again in a much better place.
For those who do not know who Chris is/was, I recommend reviewing this thread before continuing with the post you are currently reading.
Remembering Chris (circa November 26, 2005)
I also reflected a small bit on his passing in December of last year when I found myself thinking of him again. As today would have been his birthday, I have for a week now wondered how to commemorate this occasion if at all. And frankly, I am not at my usual capacity for that so what I will do instead is post the lyrics to a song played at his memorial. But first some background on it.
This is a song I did not know was his favourite and perhaps it is a coincidence that it has been among my favourites for many years. (Chris and I never discussed this but it now seems like more than a coincidence.) Interestingly enough, while the chords of the song are not that hard, the solo is deceptive in that it sounds easier to play than it really is. And I spent no small amount of time trying to nail the guitar solo in years past but I never succeeded at it.
Maybe at some point I will figure it out if I ever take to playing the electric guitar again. But without further ado, a song that definitely described Chris' heart and to some extent, every time I hear it now I will always think of him. The song is called Simple Man:
Mama told me when I was young
Come sit beside me, my only son
And listen closely to what I say.
And if you do this
It will help you some sunny day.
Take your time... dont live too fast,
Troubles will come and they will pass.
Go find a woman and youll find love,
And dont forget son,
There is someone up above.
And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Wont you do this for me son,
If you can?
Forget your lust for the rich mans gold
All that you need is in your soul,
And you can do this if you try.
All that I want for you my son,
Is to be satisfied.
And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Wont you do this for me son,
If you can?
Boy, dont you worry... youll find yourself.
ollow you heart and nothing else.
And you can do this if you try.
All I want for you my son,
Is to be satisfied.
And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Wont you do this for me son,
If you can? [Ronnie Van Zant (d. 10/20/77)]
I know he can hear me and therefore I reiterate what I noted back in December:
Chris despite everything that happened between us you will always be close to my heart my friend: always. May God rest your soul until (hopefully) we meet again in a much better place.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Congressman Duncan Hunter, author of last year's border fence bill, reacts to this year's Senate compromise (Hugh Hewitt)
I fail to see how anyone can seriously those who talk about national security who are too obtuse to recognize that building a fence that cuts down on illegal immigration makes it harder for undesirables to get into the country via the southern border. I am at the point now where I am toying with the idea revoking the citizenship of anyone born in this country whose parents did not come into the country legally. The citizenship for such people could be restored upon their parents becoming legal citizens.
I am moving towards this position by my own admission because frankly, something needs to be done to discourage illegal immigration and amnesty will not achieve that. It did not work in 1986 when the "one time" attempt resulted in an increase of illegal immigrants and it is not going to work this time. If anything it will be significantly worse this time because rather than roughly 2.5 million illegals it will be about 12 million or more this time.
I have often referred to Santayana's dictum that "he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it" and it applies on this issue as much as any other. And that is the bottom line really.
I fail to see how anyone can seriously those who talk about national security who are too obtuse to recognize that building a fence that cuts down on illegal immigration makes it harder for undesirables to get into the country via the southern border. I am at the point now where I am toying with the idea revoking the citizenship of anyone born in this country whose parents did not come into the country legally. The citizenship for such people could be restored upon their parents becoming legal citizens.
I am moving towards this position by my own admission because frankly, something needs to be done to discourage illegal immigration and amnesty will not achieve that. It did not work in 1986 when the "one time" attempt resulted in an increase of illegal immigrants and it is not going to work this time. If anything it will be significantly worse this time because rather than roughly 2.5 million illegals it will be about 12 million or more this time.
I have often referred to Santayana's dictum that "he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it" and it applies on this issue as much as any other. And that is the bottom line really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)