Quote:

---

In no other transaction do we set someone's livelihood. It's just being a person. We are homo sapien, not homo economicus. And I'm only arguing here for not deliberately taking advantage of the ignorance of information to drive them down in negotiations lower than where they likely would arrive with full information.

---

this is the crux of the argument, and this is where you are 100% wrong. in every other transaction we set someone's livelihood.

and in every negotiation there is inevitable ignorance of information, and in every negotiation we actually use information to our advantage. i would even go as far as to say that the use of information is what drives the entire premise of indirect trade (e.g., trade involving more than one transaction between producer and consumer)

Quote:

---

You are telling me that's what Jesus would have you do?

---

I'm telling you that it has nothing to do with it. Compensation is compensation, charity is charity. You don't magically inherit obligation when you employ someone that you don't otherwise already have. If someone needs help, you should help them regardless of whether or not they are your employee, or the grocer down the street.

That's my problem with Dies Irae's premise, which I was going to address in a different post (but already have, earlier, though perhaps not clearly).

////////

Quote:

---

What do you mean their "true value". This is nakedly contradicting what your fundamental premise is. That the true value is nothing more than what people are willing to pay when the government isn't in the way. Capitalism is freedom covered freedom with freedom fries right? So why doesn't that allow free association, freedom for employers to collude? Freedom to have a monopoly or cartel?

---

No, collusion doesn't fit the definition of free exchange. A third party or third parties become involved in the transaction, with the intent to defraud, and that action changes the price or otherwise bring harm to someone else. Like, for example, making them pay more for something than they otherwise would. I don't think there's any shock value to saying fraud or theft aren't part of the model I'm describing. I think collusion is market distorting by inspection regardless of whether it is done by employees, employers, or anyone else.

Quote:

---

Isn't willfully holding back information that you have that your prospective employee does not have and would help their negotiating position fundamentally deceptive?

---

no

Quote:

---

People should be allowed to be paid differently for the same job because people can perform the same job at different levels. And if employees knew they were being paid less for the same job than could bring it up to their employer and the employer could say, joe has 8% better numbers than you and that's why he gets more. Or the emplyee could say I've got 10% better numbers than joe, I want you to correct the imbalance.

---

of course i agree with this. Dies Irae says the employee should say "joe has the same numbers than me but I have two more kids, you are obligated to pay me more." which is absurd, and inequitable.

and as an employer you know that there are intangibles as well. people get paid differently because people are different, because labor isn't a commodity. if it was, it would be traded on the open market and the price of labor would be transparent, like the price of oil.

Quote:

---

No one here has advocated that.

---

the asserted right to a living wage, on the edge case, requires either paying above the value of the work product or eliminating the job.

Quote:

---

Right, and many examples have been given where a third party prevents a mutually beneficial transaction. These are all governed by law whether it is overtly criminal like selling murder for hire, socially destructive like child labor, treasonous like violating embargos, or just plain old labor laws like overtime rules. There is more to the world than mutual individual benefit. The effect of that transaction on other individuals matters (especially in the murder for hire situation) as does the effect on society at large. Economic transactions don't take place in a vacuum.

---

We can propose, from the image of God and the Christian tradition, why people should be free, and equal before God and the law. Mutual benefit of course has to be balanced by hurting a third party.

You're precluding something that by definition derives mutual benefit and does not harm a third party. If you point to child labor law, it's pretty easy to say that children are not capable of being economic free agents; they are incapable of understanding, asserting, and negotiating for what is in their best interest.

If that's your argument - that unskilled laborers are incapable of acting in their own best interest, then you're arguing that they are incapable of being free, and should be wards. This is the danger of your line of thinking.

Quote:

---

I don't care about minimum wage laws, I care about people having their social, economic and spiritual needs met. If the minimum wage was $1,000,000 an hour, but $60k a year was a living wage for a family of 4, $60k a year would be a living wage.

---

I think there needs to be a pause to consolidate and clarify. What kicked off this whole kerfluffle was me saying that there is no such thing as a right to a just wage, because there is not a right to employment. I maintain that for these reasons:

• you are not obligated to employ anyone (even if you are capable)
• you are not obligated to take a loss to provide a just wage
• you are not obligated to provide a living wage if the business can't handle it

So what does this add up to? In the scenario where are person's labor value is less than the cost of living (which perhaps someone else introduced), all of this means absolutely nothing to him. You won't employ him. These requirements do nothing to help him. I conclude that without a corresponding right to employment the right to a just wage is ultimately meaningless in this case. It does nothing to help that person.

I also think we have agreed that setting an arbitrary floor for wages for legal employment actually goes a step further in this scenario and not only doesn't help him, but hurts him.

You seem to zero in on a different scenario

• a person is willing to work for less than the cost of living
• the economics of the business can support paying the cost of living

Here, you say that the employer is obliged to gross up above the person's willing pay to at least the cost of living. I think this is a hypothetical scenario that fails to be useful under inspection. If a person is being paid less than the cost of living, there is literally only one way that scenario can possibly continue: the person must supplement their income from another source. Otherwise by definition they will starve to death, become homeless, be unable to clothe themselves. That source is either another job, or charity in some form or another. And, again by necessity, if that person has any opportunity to make more money they will take it (assuming they don't become happy to live off of charity, which is probably a bad assumption). Which means that even for a nonbeliever, this is a stupid and shortsighted way to run a business. If it is an actual market condition (i.e., demand for labor is so low that cost of living exceeds prevailing wages so they have no other alternative, or their best alternative to a negotiated agreement is the same or worse) there's so much going on that this is a different kind of problem altogether.

We seem to agree, in general, that Christians must engage in charity. If you say, by virtue of being an employer, you are obligated to engage in this specific act of charity by virtue of your relationship with the employer, I can accept that.

What I don't accept is that the employee has any assertive claim against you for that charity, any more than any other person can assert a right to charity from anyone else. So I don't consider this a right to a just wage.

I also don't accept that your obligation to engage in charity to this person is fundamentally different than your obligation to engage in charity with another person whom you don't employ. I consider this a particular example of the general duty that a Christian has to pursue justice.

I also think it is inequitable to pay two different people for the same wage. I have no issue whatever if you (correctly) identify that, in fact, they are both getting the same wage, but you are engaging in charity to help the second person out.

What a weird nitpick that ignores my entire point. Replace child labor in the post above with selling opium. It's socially destructive. The addicts are happy and the opium dealers are happy. However, society in general is harmed. Society is the harmed 3rd party in this case, and therefore society has a prerogative to outlaw opium sales to improve social stability.

Basically my whole point on this thread has been that paying unskilled workers below a living wage is socially destructive, and therefore society has a prerogative to pass laws to fix this and improve social stablity. You apparently agree that two people can't make a mutually beneficial decision to harm a 3rd party. So why should we allow two people to make a mutually beneficial decision that harms society?

Quote:

---

If it is an actual market condition (i.e., demand for labor is so low that cost of living exceeds prevailing wages so they have no other alternative, or their best alternative to a negotiated agreement is the same or worse) there's so much going on that this is a different kind of problem altogether.

---

This is the very situation that most of us have been discussing. So what are your thoughts on that particular situation?

the opium addict isn't harmed? doesn't an addict by definition lack the ability to walk away from the transaction?

there's three different people arguing against me at this point and i'm pretty sure they wouldn't agree with each other, so forgive me if i'm not answering all objections.

the last time you brought this scenario up, my response was pretty clear -

Quote:

---

It seems like you're saying that forcing people to pay others disproportionately to the value of the work they are buying is a pro-social behavior, because something something stability. That's a very different argument than what you said before, which is that our society is undervaluing unskilled labor, and that philosophically a living wage should be the floor for unskilled labor.

If you want to say, there is a secondary value over and above the overt value of the labor not to the employer but to society writ large, and that value is found in poor people not becoming a violent and destablizing force...ok. But again, there's no question of morals, or virtue, or rights in this. And this isn't really relevant to the question of capitalism.

---

you responded by saying capitalism should be modified. i replied that wrapping forced charity under the auspices of employment doesn't magically make it not welfare, and suddenly change what is actually being priced, and that a permanent underclass isn't a particular feature of capitalism.

so I'm not sure exactly what thoughts youre looking for. i can agree with the statement that "society should collectively take care of the poor". i don't think that is a pro or anti capitalist argument.

I'm having a panic attack just looking at the last few post's formatting and wondering how in the world I ever reply to those with my iPhone

Quote:

---

so I'm not sure exactly what thoughts youre looking for. i can agree with the statement that "society should collectively take care of the poor". i don't think that is a pro or anti capitalist argument.

---

Ok. So what does taking care of the poor look like to you in a capitalist society? Again assuming the market value of unskilled labor is below the amount needed to buy necessities

Ideally? People would provide charity for those who need it. Doesn't matter what economic system exists, the answer is the same.

Zobel said:

---

Ideally? People would provide charity for those who need it. Doesn't matter what economic system exists, the answer is the same.

---

I agree 100%. But we know capitalism concentrates the vast majority of all wealth into the hands of a small group of people. What happens in the same scenario if that small group of people has no desire to be charitable?

Socialism does the same, with the side effect of reducing the amount of total wealth. I don't understand how this is a critique of capitalism.

Zobel said:

---

Socialism does the same, with the side effect of reducing the amount of total wealth. I don't understand how this is a critique of capitalism.

---

Agreed. Perhaps its better thought of as a critique on humanity?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Socialism does the same, with the side effect of reducing the amount of total wealth. I don't understand how this is a critique of capitalism.

---

Agreed. Perhaps its better thought of as a critique on humanity?

---

The entire reason free market economics works and socialism doesn't is because of fallen human nature. Humans will work hard when it benefits them. Humans will not work hard when it doesn't benefit them.

Dies Irae said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Socialism does the same, with the side effect of reducing the amount of total wealth. I don't understand how this is a critique of capitalism.

---

Agreed. Perhaps its better thought of as a critique on humanity?

---

The entire reason free market economics works and socialism doesn't is because of fallen human nature. Humans will work hard when it benefits them. Humans will not work hard when it doesn't benefit them.

---

No disagreement here. I'm not advocating for socialism or anything like a flat distribution of wealth curve. I think that a primary concern here is an overly-skewed curve where a small group hoards all the power and wealth which, as Z points out, can happen in any system. That human being have that tendency toward greed of wealth and power is the critique of humanity, I think.

The catechism screenshot is a good example of the perils of an overly legalistic approach to morality, not that other approaches are flawless by any means, but you get people using it as a basis for arguing for $30/hour to make coffee because rent is high west of the 405.

I don't know how you both "guarantee man the opportunity..." and take "...into account the role and productivity of each, the state of the business and the common good." That word "guarantee" is mutually exclusive with "taking into account".

The longer quote is full of loaded words that mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, but to give the RCC some credit, depend on the broader framework of the rest of the book. If you're a profligate layabout with children out of wedlock and hooked on drugs, you've got work to do on your end before any job or employer can influence your dignity equation.

The RCC's view of capitalism and markets seems to be heavily influenced by the economics of migrant labor, which is a tough nut to crack for sure. But closer to the moral question here, is a farm or factory owner a more moral person for replacing an employee with a machine because someone, somewhere sees what he can pay people to produce the same output for the same money as insufficiently socially dignified? I'm of the opinion that people choose to take what is freely offered if doing so improves his "opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood..." in his own personal estimation.

If the best you can personally manage is unskilled labor, you are going to need people around you that genuinely care about you to help get you set up in a stable situation. Other parts of the catechism talk about how to nurture a culture where that sort of thing is foundational, paramount, and threats to it are taken extremely seriously. Alas, they are more seldom promoted these days than the parts that talk hit closer to leftist political dogma.

Zobel said:

---

Socialism does the same, with the side effect of reducing the amount of total wealth. I don't understand how this is a critique of capitalism.

---

No argument here except with one exception. All the other economic systems are really economic plus social systems. Ostensibly the social aspects of these systems imposes obligations on those in charge to assure the well being of worst off. Of course we know it doesn't usually happen that way, but at least there is a lip service. Capitalism is purely economic.

So in regards to socialism or feudalism, the answer to my question above is "do socialism better" or "do feudalism better". However, the answer to my question in capitalism is not "do capitalism better". You've mentioned charity, and I think that's the best option. But it's entirely optional. It's not a responsibility like in those other systems. That's why I'm asking your thoughts about how to handle that issue in a capitalist system when the wealthy are not charitable

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You've mentioned charity, and I think that's the best option. But it's entirely optional. It's not a responsibility like in those other systems. That's why I'm asking your thoughts about how to handle that issue in a capitalist system when the wealthy are not charitable

---

A capitalist system requires someone, somewhere to have sufficient resources to buy the products and services that create the economic value that maintains individual wealth. To the extent "the rich get richer" in a free market system, people's lives are improved by the purchases they made on the way to getting a yacht built for someone somewhere. Until the ultra rich have their own AI robots eliminating any and all need for the services of others, there are opportunities for people to improve their lot in life in a free market system. I get that's the dystopian ethos that's lurking in the collective imagination, but I hope that we've got a little runway yet before we get there.

Charity, in the Christian context is not optional. The word "charity" has become synonymous with giving to the needy, but that is at least in part a euphemism. "Charity" and "love" have been translationally interchanged with the Greek "agape" that I can't do justice to theologically. Suffice it to say, the love of your neighbor is intertwined with this notion of charity and is the second most important commandment per our Lord. If we all lose the plot, see no need to help our neighbors, well, we're going to have a bad time.

But currently, the social shame only pays heed to one side of the equation. The new civic religion, based heavily on critical theory, absolves some people of their personal decisions and no acknowledgement is given to the case that our society could easily cover the needs of even the poorest and least talented if we would just stop sinning so much. Or it may be a more precise to say that it is politically correct to attribute our inability to provide for the needy to a subset of sins committed by a subset people, which I disagree with wholeheartedly. People (all of us) are not going to stop sinning, so the poor, we will always have, but that doesn't remove our obligation to help them.

Non-optional charity is a racketeering factory for the people with power.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Socialism does the same, with the side effect of reducing the amount of total wealth. I don't understand how this is a critique of capitalism.

---

Agreed. Perhaps its better thought of as a critique on humanity?

---

The entire reason free market economics works and socialism doesn't is because of fallen human nature. Humans will work hard when it benefits them. Humans will not work hard when it doesn't benefit them.

---

No disagreement here. I'm not advocating for socialism or anything like a flat distribution of wealth curve. I think that a primary concern here is an overly-skewed curve where a small group hoards all the power and wealth which, as Z points out, can happen in any system. That human being have that tendency toward greed of wealth and power is the critique of humanity, I think.

---

I'm a huge fan of socialism philosophically but understand that it doesn't work; I think you need a very gerrymandered population with a huge sense of "glue" to motivate the hyper productive to continue their hyperproductivity without seeing the majority of the benefit of their labor.

A few examples coming to mind are Nazi Germany, the Mondragon Corporation of Basque Spain, and Solidarity in Poland. Looking at it just economically (since as we've been told economics is agnostic about morality) what Hitler was able to do to the German populace after being crushed by the treaty of Versailles was incredible. He did it by galvanizing the population and creating boogeymen of the Western powers and of course, the jews.

Similarly the Mondragon Cooperative became the defacto corporatist government of Basque Spain in the mid 20th century. It was founded by a Catholic Priest in the mid 1950's and the company charter was based upon Catholic Social Teaching; free education and healthcare for the worker families, ownership for every employee, guaranteed profit sharing based on tenure, and a maximum 9:1 ratio of pay between the highest and lowest paid employee. They've been wildly successful with 80,000+ employees at present and annual turnover of around $20 billion usd.

chimpanzee said:

---

The catechism screenshot is a good example of the perils of an overly legalistic approach to morality, not that other approaches are flawless by any means, but you get people using it as a basis for arguing for $30/hour to make coffee because rent is high west of the 405.

I don't know how you both "guarantee man the opportunity..." and take "...into account the role and productivity of each, the state of the business and the common good." That word "guarantee" is mutually exclusive with "taking into account".

The longer quote is full of loaded words that mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, but to give the RCC some credit, depend on the broader framework of the rest of the book. If you're a profligate layabout with children out of wedlock and hooked on drugs, you've got work to do on your end before any job or employer can influence your dignity equation.

The RCC's view of capitalism and markets seems to be heavily influenced by the economics of migrant labor, which is a tough nut to crack for sure. But closer to the moral question here, is a farm or factory owner a more moral person for replacing an employee with a machine because someone, somewhere sees what he can pay people to produce the same output for the same money as insufficiently socially dignified? I'm of the opinion that people choose to take what is freely offered if doing so improves his "opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood..." in his own personal estimation.

If the best you can personally manage is unskilled labor, you are going to need people around you that genuinely care about you to help get you set up in a stable situation. Other parts of the catechism talk about how to nurture a culture where that sort of thing is foundational, paramount, and threats to it are taken extremely seriously. Alas, they are more seldom promoted these days than the parts that talk hit closer to leftist political dogma.

---

Don't look at "guarantee" look at "guarantee the opportunity"; which obviously sounds a little like "60% of the time it works every time", but makes sense in the context given the ability of the business.

The RCC"s view of capitalism and markets pre-date the explosion of capitalism and the ideas of the free-market. When these things became the dominant economic philosophies and practices of the west, the Church examined them through the lens of their millennia of social teaching; and not the other way around. It would be a grave error to re-evaluate our teachings on the imago dei, the corporal works of mercy, subsidiarity etc etc through the lens of capitalism; instead the goal is "given that capitalism exists how do we make it work for all of God's creation".

We have a left leaning Pope that is currently sitting in the throne of Peter; Pope.St John Paul II however, was probably the most economically oriented Pope that we've had in a while. He helped break the back of Communism while he was Pope; ending the evil empire. He did so with the help of Catholic Labor Unions; especially Lech Walesa's Solidarity.

I'm not sure that you can support capitalism as completely agnostic to a social system. I said you can wrap it around any number of social structures, but you can't wrap it around anything.

Even as I type that I suppose you could. The real thing is agency. You could have a capitalist economy combined with a feudal structure, but only those who were free in the system participate as economic agents. That's probably not too far off from what actual feudalism was anyway. You could do the same with an oligarchic structure that has a slave caste as well - that seems to describes ancient Rome pretty well.

What keeps popping up to me is the strong implication in what you're saying that there should be some kind of requirement to take care of those who are at the bottom. I can't see any way at all around that conclusion requiring that those at the bottom should not be free agents.

I'm not sure I'm looking at the teaching of the Church through the premise of capitalism or any other economic system. I'm looking at it from the premise that because of the teaching of the Church, men should be free. There will always be a relationship between freedom and responsibility - one requires the other. I don't think you can impose actual obligation without diminishing freedom. In Christ we have a paradoxical freedom which is found in slavery to the Master of all. We subordinate our will to His, and in that we find perfect freedom - but that is an act of pure voluntary submission to the highest authority, which solves the whole problem of hierarchy, identity, and consumption in one fell swoop. This radical freedom comes with radical responsibility - that of our own salvation.

As far as that goes, there is no need for either socialism or capitalism in the House of God. If people were operating with virtue, we wouldn't need to worry about these things. I've always said "rules are for people who don't like each other" which kind of sums it all up.

The question is how do we maximize the Good in a world where people are not operating with virtue. To me this question is already answered in the first chapters of the scriptures. We need to give people the opportunity to choose the good, and when they fail at that we need to give them the opportunity to repent. That's not limited to any aspect of their life, so I don't see why economics should be precluded from that.

I promise I'm not fishing for a particular answer. My fear is that desperate people will readily abandon their freedom and/or sovereignty in order to guarantee survival for themselves and their families. Basically the wealthy becoming a real aristocracy again. Either that or full on social turmoil. I don't think either situation is ideal, and I'm interested in thoughts on preventing that. To me the tipping point for this dystopia is when wage levels fall below that "living wage" value. But as you said, the "solutions" come with their own issues

Dies Irae said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

The catechism screenshot is a good example of the perils of an overly legalistic approach to morality, not that other approaches are flawless by any means, but you get people using it as a basis for arguing for $30/hour to make coffee because rent is high west of the 405.

I don't know how you both "guarantee man the opportunity..." and take "...into account the role and productivity of each, the state of the business and the common good." That word "guarantee" is mutually exclusive with "taking into account".

The longer quote is full of loaded words that mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, but to give the RCC some credit, depend on the broader framework of the rest of the book. If you're a profligate layabout with children out of wedlock and hooked on drugs, you've got work to do on your end before any job or employer can influence your dignity equation.

The RCC's view of capitalism and markets seems to be heavily influenced by the economics of migrant labor, which is a tough nut to crack for sure. But closer to the moral question here, is a farm or factory owner a more moral person for replacing an employee with a machine because someone, somewhere sees what he can pay people to produce the same output for the same money as insufficiently socially dignified? I'm of the opinion that people choose to take what is freely offered if doing so improves his "opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood..." in his own personal estimation.

If the best you can personally manage is unskilled labor, you are going to need people around you that genuinely care about you to help get you set up in a stable situation. Other parts of the catechism talk about how to nurture a culture where that sort of thing is foundational, paramount, and threats to it are taken extremely seriously. Alas, they are more seldom promoted these days than the parts that talk hit closer to leftist political dogma.

---

Don't look at "guarantee" look at "guarantee the opportunity"; which obviously sounds a little like "60% of the time it works every time", but makes sense in the context given the ability of the business.

The RCC"s view of capitalism and markets pre-date the explosion of capitalism and the ideas of the free-market. When these things became the dominant economic philosophies and practices of the west, the Church examined them through the lens of their millennia of social teaching; and not the other way around. It would be a grave error to re-evaluate our teachings on the imago dei, the corporal works of mercy, subsidiarity etc etc through the lens of capitalism; instead the goal is "given that capitalism exists how do we make it work for all of God's creation".

We have a left leaning Pope that is currently sitting in the throne of Peter; Pope.St John Paul II however, was probably the most economically oriented Pope that we've had in a while. He helped break the back of Communism while he was Pope; ending the evil empire. He did so with the help of Catholic Labor Unions; especially Lech Walesa's Solidarity.

---

Fair.

It would be more precise to say, "current discussion of the RCC's view of capitalism and markets seems...". catholic social teaching/thought predates the idea of migrant labor at all, though I don't know when that particular passage was written or by whom. What preaching I have heard and church sanctioned publishing I've read on the topic tends to zero in on modern labor market phenomena and the people that end up in the worst employment situations on the margins and then pivot to broad socio-political "solutions" that screw things up even more. Like raising the minimum wage.

Heck, chattel slavery was permissible for a long time under the RCC's purview, so there's a lot of history and evolution of thought through the centuries.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure I'm looking at the teaching of the Church through the premise of capitalism or any other economic system. I'm looking at it from the premise that because of the teaching of the Church, men should be free. There will always be a relationship between freedom and responsibility - one requires the other. I don't think you can impose actual obligation without diminishing freedom. In Christ we have a paradoxical freedom which is found in slavery to the Master of all. We subordinate our will to His, and in that we find perfect freedom - but that is an act of pure voluntary submission to the highest authority, which solves the whole problem of hierarchy, identity, and consumption in one fell swoop. This radical freedom comes with radical responsibility - that of our own salvation.

As far as that goes, there is no need for either socialism or capitalism in the House of God. If people were operating with virtue, we wouldn't need to worry about these things. I've always said "rules are for people who don't like each other" which kind of sums it all up.

The question is how do we maximize the Good in a world where people are not operating with virtue. To me this question is already answered in the first chapters of the scriptures. We need to give people the opportunity to choose the good, and when they fail at that we need to give them the opportunity to repent. That's not limited to any aspect of their life, so I don't see why economics should be precluded from that.

---

I was speaking to the poster who said that Catholic teaching on economics seemed to be flavored by immigration.

fair enough sorry

Zobel said:

---

fair enough sorry

---

"sitting in the throne of Peter"

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I promise I'm not fishing for a particular answer. My fear is that desperate people will readily abandon their freedom and/or sovereignty in order to guarantee survival for themselves and their families. Basically the wealthy becoming a real aristocracy again. Either that or full on social turmoil. I don't think either situation is ideal, and I'm interested in thoughts on preventing that. To me the tipping point for this dystopia is when wage levels fall below that "living wage" value. But as you said, the "solutions" come with their own issues

---

Read more about the Jubilee that Jesus proclaimed when he began his ministry (LK 4:18-19)

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

(from the Holy See on the meaning of Holy Year)

The origin of the Christian Jubilee goes back to Bible times. The Law of Moses prescribed a special year for the Jewish people: "You shall hallow the fiftieth year and proclaim the liberty throughout the land, to all its inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family. This fiftieth year is to be a jubilee year for you: you will not sow, you will not harvest the un-gathered corn, you will not gather the untrimmed vine. The jubilee is to be a holy thing to you, you will eat what comes from the fields."(The Book of Leviticus 25, 10-14)

+++

Basically every 50 years everything was reset. If you had sold yourself into slavery, you were set free. Imagine if we were to cancel the debts of all the countries that owe us money! What that would do for them and their people. Might ease folks fleeing their homelands for a better life?

I completely agree that Christianity plus capitalism has been a historically good combination. The morality, duty, and community inherent to Christianity is a good check on some of the possible bad outcomes of capitalism that I've brought up. To be fair, I'm sure Judaism, Islam, and maybe other religions with which I am less familiar could have a similar effect. Maybe humanism could provide a similar stabilizing influence. But this is also still saying that the solution is imposed on capitalism from outside of capitalism itself.

if capitalism has an identity relationship with freedom, literally any system of economics or social governance could be seen an imposition on capitalism.

Zobel said:

---

if capitalism has an identity relationship with freedom, literally any system of economics or social governance could be seen an imposition on capitalism.

---

I'd say that capitalism is the freedom to accumulate an unlimited amount of wealth coupled with economic free association. I wouldn't go so far as to say capitalism equals freedom. I think many tribal nomads had a level of freedom that is hard for us to imagine, back when that lifestyle was still possible.

I think you need to show your work. In what way were nomads free and non capitalist?

Zobel said:

---

I think you need to show your work. In what way were nomads free and non capitalist?

---

Let's take the example of the plains Indians as I know more about them than the Steppe tribes. However, people that have studied both say they are very similar.

Imagine living in a very mobile tribe that can cover hundreds of miles per week. You are a voluntary member of your tribe and you can leave anytime you want. People in the tribe share hunts, gathered food and crafted goods. Leadership is by reputation, where disputing parties voluntarily choose a neutral mediator. It reminds me of an anecdote where American soldiers tried to sell "freedom" to nomadic shepherds in the mountains of Afghanistan. These people have no lords, no taxes, no government, no laws. They have a shared culture and free association. They would consider our "freedom" as akin to slavery.

Not to say their life is better. It's full of violence, brutality, disease, hunger and the raw elements. But it is undeniably more free than our lives and has nothing resembling capitalism in either case

In what way does any of that preclude capitalism? If it's voluntary?