Here is an article written by Rev.Robert A. Sirico which far better explains what I tried to say on last comments posting. My purpose is not to back my opinion with scripture but to highlight key points made by the writer. Here are some examples from the article, sorry if some is a repeat to what Karl already stated.
"In addition to condemning profit, religious leaders often favor varieties of social leveling and redistribution of income. ... The ultimate goal of such constructs is equality, as if the inequalities that exist among people are somehow inherently unjust. "
"This parable also tells us something about macroeconomics. The master went on his journey leaving behind a total of eight talents; upon his return it has become fifteen. The parable is not the story of a zero-sum gain. One person’s gain is not another’s expense. The successful trading of the first servant does not hinder the prospects for the third servant. So it is true in the economy of today. Unlike what is so often preached from the pulpit, the success of the rich does not come at the expense of the poor. "
"If by becoming rich the most successful servant had hurt others, the master would not have praised him. A wise use of resources in investment and saving at interest is not only right from the individual point of view; it helps others in the economy as well. "
" The socialist dream is not a moral one. It simply institutionalizes the condemned behavior of the lesser servant. Where God commands creative action, socialism encourages laziness. Where He demands faith and hope in the future, socialism promises a base form of security. Where the Parable of the Talents implies the morality of freedom to trade, invest, and profit, socialism denies it."
Caroline, are you trying to seduce me? C S Lewis has been very formative in my spiritual thinking, much more so in the past than now. Nevertheless, I am a part of all that I have been.
ReplyDeleteI think mostly I agree with Sirico. I think he is correct suggesting that entrepreneurship is wholesome. I think he is totally correct that many of our welfare policies encourage laziness.
He may be accurately describing the dream of some socialists, but not of all. The dream "from each according to his ability, to each according to this need" is not a bad dream. The dream is there in George Orwell's novel "1984", even as his satire of communism in "Animal Farm" is one of the most cutting criticisms of communism.
in no way do I claim to be able to articulate the socialist dream, but I do not think Sirico has it right.
Sirico also is not saying that ALL wealthy people have attained their wealth through entrepreneurship. There are wealthy people who are wealthy because they oppress poor people.
I think there are two dangers we agree on, yet in our back and forth about liberalism and conservatism, we forget it. We agree that totalitarianism is oppressive, and that a culture of entitlement is numbing, kills creativity, encourages laziness, and . . .
ReplyDeleteI think history would tell us that it is possible to move toward either of those from anarchy at the one extreme, and communism at the other, and all points in between. To argue that one political persuasion is more conducive toward a move in that direction than another persuasion, can be dangerous because it diverts us from where the true danger may be.
I too used to read a lot more C.S. Lewis perhaps I should refresh and read again.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your last sentence of looking more at political persuasion and the true dangers.
Of course some wealthy unfortunately oppress the poor there is no denying that. The point Sirico was making is that the theory of social distribution simply is not true that if you make the rich less rich it will somehow benefit the poor, since in general they did not get rich off the expense of the poor.
This conversation reminds me of a sentiment I have when we are reminded of a case of justice gone awry, such as when David Milgaard spends how many years in jail, or when this Sihk guy connected with the Air India bombing goes off scott free. I'm not sure which offends my sense of justice more: when and innocent person goes to jail, or when a guilt person gets off. Both are offensive.
ReplyDeleteIn the matter we are discussing, government policy can inhibit free enterprise, on the one hand, but it can also give the powerful too much freedom to exploit the poor. I think we can agree that both are wrong (bad, undesirable . . . ). I think there are policies which do neither, but those are rare. On the whole, any particular policy will tend towards one or the other.
In other words, a policy is intended to encourage free enterprise, but as an unintended side effect, it gives too much power to the powerful, and a significant number exploit the poor. Another policy intends to curtail the exploitation of the poor by the powerful, and ends up limiting free enterprise.
Perhaps we disagree on which we are more prepared to tolerate.