Nostr Web Client

"Capitalism" as meant by its proponents is simply a market economy in which people are free to trade. However, as meant by its opponents it is a system set up to profit those already rich and powerful. These, being obviously opposed to one another, one system that is free and the other rigged, ought not be called by the same name.

The system that may be endorsed by the Faith is one of virtue. As most virtues, the bracketing vices are slightly skewed closer to one than the other. For courage looks more like recklessness than cowardice, so too does the virtuous system of business and commerce look more like "croney capitalism" than communism and socialism.

Where cowardice shrinks in face of danger and recklessness is heedless of it, courage takes danger into account and proceeds with right action regardless of potential or sure personal loss, injury, and death. Likewise, where socialism/communism shrinks from unequal outcomes for unequal economic participants, and corporatist/croney/anarcho- capitalism heeds not the hungry, the virtuous economic system will suffer the the poor to need the wealthy and respect the freedom of all. The virtuous system rewards the generosity of the wealthy, not punishing the wealthy for being greater contributors than the poor, nor punishing the poor for their need.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Omekau 1y ago

Any thoughts on distributism? Not sure if it would be considered an “alternative” to capitalism necessarily.

James A Lewis 1y ago

Yes, in fact! I think he name "Distributism" is a misnomer, really. Sounds too much like "wealth redistribution." I believe people are trying to rebrand it as "Localism," which I can fully get behind.

Until somewhat recently, I viewed Distributism as an ideal state of a free economy, not a system to itself. I now see it has more to it than that, subsidiarity especially, but it does require a freedom of trade that is very compatible with the way I think most proponents of so called "Capitalism" actually desire and endorse.

Omekau 1y ago

I’ve heard about the recent push for “Localism” as well which I think is certainly more appealing.

To make sure I understood then, you do think it’s a system to itself, separate from today’s definition of market capitalism? And when you say “freedom of trade” you don’t mean freedom in the sense that there’s no regulations, correct? More so that regulation is structured such that the incentives favor the local?

James A Lewis 1y ago

Yes, not unregulated, but free in the proper sense of the word. Christians are free, not that we are free to sin but from it.

In the same sense, a truly free economy fully supports the freedom of its participants, not that they are free to take advantage of each other but that they are free to mutually benefit one another in their trade and labor. This requires a lack of compulsion (which is socialism), acknowledges ownership (which communism does not), does not systematically favor the already rich and powerful (which is crony capitalism), does not artificially favor larger organizations over the individual (which is corporatist capitalism), and rather endorses a subsidiarity in power, both economic and political (which all forms of totalitarianism rejects).

Our current system in the US is dangerously close to the latter three, unfortunately. The three-letter-agencies have created such a regulatory system that the individual is at an artificial disadvantage to compete with the larger organizations. In this way, I say our system is not free enough, not that we do away with regulation altogether but make it favor a subsidiary and decentralized system rather than a large and centralized one.

Omekau 1y ago

Totally agreed.

Wow excellently condensed form of presenting the differences of localism through a positivistic lens. Sometimes movements are defined by what they are not but I like that you described it in a way that it can be worked towards instead of haphazardly working away from something else.

Regarding your last point, how does momentum build to overturn or eliminate wide sweeping regulations, especially federal ones? It seems like for those there’s a ton of inertia/precedence already in place that making a push to eliminate bureaucracy can feel “revolutionary” or “forcing redistribution” which people are very much turned off of (and rightly so). In other words, how does localism really gain influence in the political sphere when it hinges on short term losses by not playing the game as the crony capitalists and corporatists want it and played?

MichaelJ 1y ago

We have to recognize in what real power consists. The written regulations of the federal bureaucracy only have power insofar as they are enforced.

Power is the ability to cause someone else to do something you wish. The weaker version of this is coercion, but true power is based on love. If my wife asks me to massage her shoulders, and I do so because I love her, then she has power over my time and effort, but it is driven by love rather than by coercion.

In a society striving for virtue, the leaders, especially on a local level, will have influence because of the good will of their fellow citizens, rather than because of the coercive power of the state. This power based on good will is stronger than coercive power. As we become more subsidiary, the bureaucracy will simply lose its ability to enforce arbitrary regulations, because the enforcement depends to some degree on the cooperation of the governed.

James A Lewis 1y ago

I really do like the difference between the two forms of power. It is true: a tyrant's power over a man is great, because he will capitulate with the tyrant to preserve his life; but a patriot freely gives yet more power to the country he loves, for he will give his life to protect her. "Greater love has no man than this," etc.

The ancap types mistake deregulation per se as a means to freedom, but it only appears so now because current regulation hinders freedom. It is conceivable, however, that some regulation will increase freedom.

Take for example the vows of marriage: when two form a family, but no protections are made for abandonment, do we believe the union is as free as it can be? If instead we vow to remain, and others are welcome to enforce it, the woman in particular due to that safety the vows provide can more freely make them.

So too, when we have some economic mechanism that protects people from the wiles of cunning bad actors, we can yet more freely engage in commerce with one another. In this sense, a well regulated, that is to say optimally and not entirely, economy is more free than anarchocapitalists' dreams could conjure.

Omekau 1y ago

A lot to chew on here but it seems like the essence is that power is not an imposition of the will but rather a calling of voluntary self giving, to the point of death as of course Christ does. The Man with no “political” (in the secular definition) is the one that has kings and emperors kneel before across all time and space to the point that even our reference of time is predicated on His life. Reminds me of Braveheart where Robert the Bruce tells his father he wants what William Wallace has, true power. Power to the point that people willing give their lives for him, fight for him, die for him.

Circling back then, if I understand correctly it seems like any engagement with community, anything that lessens dependence on the impersonal (Amazon delivery, federal welfare, big grocery store chains, etc.) will shift power down (subsidiarity) and that this will gain momentum not through imposition or force (which is a sign weakness not power) but through a sense of awareness that this is actually the natural order of things (like a farmers market).

James A Lewis 1y ago

Yes, and that power shift can't come from the top, reasonably, because the top has no motivation to divest. This is why Bitcoin and Nostr are such important tools, because they don't require permission, and that permission is effectively what a higher power would grant a lower by divesting. Freedom tech, not licensed tech, because a license can be revoked.