Blogs For Victory

This will certainly spark a great deal of debate:

Vatican City, Jun 14, 2009 / 07:28 am (CNA).- On Saturday Pope Benedict XVI explained that his upcoming encyclical will not be a massive criticism deeming the market economy to be responsible for the current global financial crisis. Rather, it will be a presentation of the values that have to be “promoted and defended tirelessly” to achieve “human coexistence in freedom and solidarity.”

Pope Benedict made his comments while receiving participants in the international congress “Values and news for a new model of development,” organized by the Vatican Foundation “Centesimus Annus.”

The foundation was named after the last social encyclical of Pope John Paul II.

In his brief message, Pope Benedict revealed that his upcoming encyclical “Veritas in Caritate,” expected for June 29, will be dedicated to “the extensive issue of the economy and labor.”

“The financial crisis that has hit the most developed countries and the emerging economies as well as the underdeveloped countries shows in a very evident manner how much it is needed to rethink some of the economic-financial paradigms that have been predominant in the last years,” the Pope said.

Attentive readers will realize that capitalism, as a thing, has been on the skids with me of late – actually, for about four or five years. Its not that there’s anything better than the free market but that there is something wrong with people making billions of dollars without producing any goods for the free market. If what we’re doing is just moving money around in a game of economic roulette, then I want no part of it. Always keep in mind, however, that given a choice between Big Government and Big Corporation, I’ll side with Big Corporation…better a dozen idiotically run corporate behemoths than one hideously bad government run behemoth. Freedom is the key for me – if it allows for freedom in the market, it is good; if it doesn’t, it is bad. A “general store” is a good thing; a “general motors”, is a bad thing.

Our liberal friends get it wrong because, of course, they are using 19th century solutions (warmed-over Marxism, that is) designed to fix 18th century problems (most notably the transition from a feudal to a free market) – coupled with this is an insensate desire to have everything come out just-so and, viola!, we’ve got people thinking that a few bureaucrats in DC should manage our health care. What is needed is not the substitution of dimwitted empire-building bureaucrats for venal corporate apparatchiks – what is needed is for people to be allowed to make their own living as far as possible without let or hindrance from any one else, or at least from any large institution. To nutshell it – as Chesterton said, the problem with Capitalism isn’t isn’t too many Capitalists, but too few. We need to have economic power descend down to the lowest level possible. I work for a corporation ultimately headquartered 6,000 miles away from my office…how in heck is that person 6,000 miles away to have even the faintest notion what I’m doing, or what is best for me to do? I’d do better – and the world would do better – if the decisions effecting me were made by me, or at most by a person one or two steps above me. So, too, with all else in the world.

I think what got me working towards this view was the social security debate – the realization came that the government was taking from me the wherewithal I needed in order to be, at least at some point, financially independent of both corporate and government America. I didn’t like working for a corporation (still don’t) and I sure as heck don’t want to wait until I’m 67 for permission from the government to retire. Suppose I were to work hard, save my money, invest it wisely and build up a sufficient nest egg by 55 that I could tell both corporation and government to go jump in a lake? I’ll do what I wish at that point, thanks very much – heck, I might even decide to work until I’m 90…but it will be because I want to, not because I need to…and I won’t quick working because its time for me to get a monthly check from my government masters.

The true test of an economic activity is if it increases the wealth of society – if it doesn’t increase the amount of wealth, then it should be discouraged; if it does, then even if you have to subsidize it out of the public coffers, that is better than leaving it left undone. Quick examples: suing people over car accidents doesn’t increase societal wealth; starting up a landscaping service does – more important, then, to society, is landscapers while less important, lawyers. We should be encouraging people to get into landscaping, discouraging people from getting into law. Plumber, good. CPA, bad. Steel manufacturer, good. Community organizer, bad. Farmer, good. DMV employee, bad (yeah, I know that, as individuals, they are fine people – but, come on, do we really need that many people to register cars even when the ownership doesn’t change in a particular year?).

The reason that increasing wealth is good, and should be encouraged, is because it means there will be, year by year, fewer people in poverty and for those who remain in poverty, more resources to assist them. In point of fact, anything which tends to be a dead weight on wealth creation tends towards the immoral because it keeps more people in poverty and lessens the resources available to help them. Every time someone gets in to a car accident and believes he’s won the lottery and deserves a large insurance settlement, that person (and his lawyer) are stealing food out of the mouths of the poor, in a sense.

I don’t know what the Pope’s encyclical will exactly say, but I’ll bet it will be along the lines of the necessity of economic activity having a positive moral benefit to society. It should provide wealth, health, contentment – if it doesn’t, then not only should it not be done, but it should be positively discouraged. In light of such a desired outcome, I can’t think of any argument against devolution of power down to the lowest level possible – political power and economic power. If we allow people to do, they will do – hem them in with a thousand restrictions and they’ll do that much less, and demand that much more, because they can’t get it on their own. Down with Big Government, down with Big Corporation – up with people, the dignity of work, the honor of independence, the responsibility of liberty.