We are frequently told how, if government would simply get out of the way and stop over-regulating businesses, "the market" will automatically adjust itself in a way that is best for everyone. There was a time when the regulations on businesses were much less than now. History has documented what this prosperity looks like. DWCDistributist Review. And a point of clarification:
Mr. Purdef, You may have misunderstood my point. I am not making a statement about regulation. I am pointing out that those capitalists, particularly of the Austrian school, who claim that "real" Capitalism - that is, Capitalism unfettered ...by the government - would result in the greatest prosperity for the most people are wrong. History shows their claim to be untrue because, when it was essentially unregulated, the result was that working families were so poor that, despite the fact that it was often the case that both parents worked long hours, they couldn't afford to live unless they also sent their children out to work in these kinds of conditions. Capitalists of the time fought very hard against all attempts to bring and end to these conditions. You are correct, though, that this happened because Capitalists separated ethics and morality from economics and business. DWC
Again, the point is not about regulations, the point is that capitalists, especially of the Austrian School assert that allowing the "laws of the market" to work unfettered will result in the greatest prosperity for all. The truth is that their promise actually resulted in extreme poverty and virtual slavery for a large portion of the working class while the capitalists lived in extreme luxury.The funny thing is that Wisconsin public sector unions try to make this work in complete reverse where union members are given lavish benefits that no one but themselves enjoy in society.
In particular is capitalism problematic when the Capitalist has no ethics or morality. Of course when those politicians charged with ensuring those with the means of production act ethically have yet an even worse ethical outlook, we end up with things like public funding for corporations like Planned Parenthood. Folks might say we are so much better off now without children in coal mines(at least in this country).... but today's poor children aren't sent to mines, they are sent to their death. And if we had a picture of today's forty or so poor souls' tragic end, we'd turn away much sooner than looking at coal covered children.
10 comments:
The largest problem with 'unregulated, unfettered capitalism' is that it adopts precisely the same theology as does Progressivism: that there is no Original Sin and therefore, mankind does not make 'bad' choices.
It's my bet that in 20 years or less, Catholics will be fighting ferociously FOR regulation rather than against it. It's likely true that the country (and State) is over-regulated at this time, but that pendulum will swing.
Totally agree, funny how that works.
Capitalism is ALWAYS without ethics or morality. That is the nature of the beast. It is always about the money. If I can save money by dumping poisonous waste on my neighbor, why of course I do so. It would be robbing my shareholders to do otherwise.
An individual CAN go into business with a sense of ethics, but more often than not, "the market" will force him or her to compromise, or drive them out of business entirely.
Thus, we need regulation, to restrain those who have no ethics from taking over the entire market from those who try to practice with ethics.
.... SJ, I'm not sure you understood the post. I'm pointing out Capitalism's role in promotion of the abortion industry. Democrats who once were advocates of small business and families have jettisoned morality and now embrace capitalism whole heartedly especially the darling industry of abortion despite it's catastrophic affect on women and families. Instead of providing checks and balances between big business Pubs, they embrace capitalism for certain industries that promote an agenda opposed to traditional values, and oppose it in other industries. Abortion as a platform item has destroyed this once great party.
BC, you are confused as well as confusing. Abortion is neither capitalist nor socialist. Under Lenin it was freely allowed, under Stalin is was ruthlessly prohibited. During the time of the robber barons in the U.S., it was prohibited by law for the first time. (It had been legal, if socially frowned upon, but readily available, for at least the first eighty years of our history).
I would agree however that Planned Parenthood has compromised itself by moving from a volunteer model to the "business model" fad foisted upon voluntary and charitable organizations in the past few decades. This has, among other things, made abortion into the best revenue source available, RATHER THAN an option to be provided AS REQUESTED by individual women.
Abortion isn't much of a platform, and isn't of sufficient significance to destroy a party. I would agree that far too much sound and fury has been wasted on the subject by both parties.
But originally, you made some much broader statements about capitalism, ethics, public sector unions, and a great number of things, none of which directly pertain to abortion.
SJ, abortion is both capitalist and socailist. We here the argument from both ends. Capitalists argue that births are too expensive and nobody can be bothered by the costs of a child. Socialists say that the world is overpopulated and we must begin to remove a large number of humans from society. Either way it's wrong. The world is not overpopulated and population growth improves economic stability.
If abortion isn't much of a platform, why does the DNC state it is a platform issue?
http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform
An aside to you, who defines what is ethical and moral in business? I mean I have the teachings of the Catholic Church to go by but since you are not Catholic but believe in morality, I was wondering what set of morals you apply when viewing these kinds of issues?
If you are even on the eastern side of the state BC, we must get together for lunch. A magazine I used to write for occasionally, The Wittenburg Door (the mis=spelling is part of the joke) ran a hilarious article once about a fundamentalist Protestant of the "Rome-is-Babylon" variety, who was shocked on peeking into a Catholic bookstore to find they had BIBLES on the shelves!
Putting the shoe on the other foot, Jews read what we call the Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha), and the 66 books Protestants read are all Scriptures held in common with your church. I find that Amos, Micah, James, and of course certain references in the Gospels, not excluding chasing the money-lenders out of the Temple, are a reasonably good guide. And then there is "love your neighbor as yourself," which is not what John D. Rockefeller practiced in building Standard Oil Co., even if he was a Baptist Sunday School teacher. Baptists with millions is a dangerous combination.
Now when it comes to abortion, there isn't a lot of specific address in the Scriptures themselves. What I consider the two most important ethical boundaries are:
1) Until delivery, the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, is growing INSIDE an individual woman, where it is inevitably a part of herself.
2) Once the fetus has sentience, self-awareness, not mere reflex, not the self-awareness of a tadpole, but can do what we all love to watch babies do, explore, observe, learn, feel, have a sense of self, and particularly once it could, if removed, survive without an umbilical cord outside the womb, then removal is not an abortion, it is a delivery.
Yes, but who decides when? A baby will not be "self-aware" for years after birth. Once they can reply to the question "Do you want to live?" What is the difference between what Kermit Gosnell did and what happens in PP clinics every day other than the fact that one has become public and the second is secret?
There are many decisions a baby cannot make for itself. These are entrusted, for better or for worse, to parents. I grant you, our culture does NOT entrust life or death to parents, and should not.
I support efforts to curtail mis-use of the standard "to protect the life of the mother" during the third trimester. There should be a genuine, documented, medical diagnosis providing sound reason to fear that the mother will die, or be permanently, physically, damaged, to destroy what is darn near, if not actually, a fully formed baby within her.
There are reasonably good measurements of when sufficient nerve tissue has formed in what will become the cerebral cortex to say, this organism is receiving stimuli AND processing them. I know what it is like to hold a baby a week or so after birth, and look into eyes that are not yet mylenated, but are certainly connected to a mind that is trying to figure out this strange new environment.
It is the self-awareness, however inchoate, that concerns me. A zygote has all the genetic and epigenetic programming to develop into a unique self-aware individual, but if it naturally misses the uterine wall, or is artificially removed, either way, it has no idea what is going on.
I understand that isn't good enough for you. But I think it is a reasonable standard for when the coercive powers of THE STATE will be invoked to make a decision for the woman concerned.
I am going to get a guest columnist with expertise to explain when human life begins from a scientific standpoint, not subjugated to political rhetoric.
Post a Comment