"No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce." - Thomas Sowell
"No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce." - Thomas Sowell
I haven't seen much discussion of his work in the Gulch but have felt it fits in well. I've considers starting topics on some of his work but there is so much there it is difficult to pick one. ;)
Not a chance, there...
Big Brother was never supposed to "take care of (aka support) the poor" with the motive of progressive fat cats packing in votes.
I'm well-known here as an atheist, and I sort of disagree. The problem is not christianity. It is when one institutes these characteristic in law. If we left charity to the church and other similar institutions (e.g. Salvation Army), that would be just great. It is when it is instituted and required, and individuals no longer vote on the right place to put it, that it becomes a mess.
Several issues always come up when this is raised:
1) "Christian" denominations span the length and breadth of policy. You have some who are okay with homosexuality, some who aren't. Some who have preachers panning for money (so-called televangelists) and others who don't. Some who are old and some who reject the old as apostate. It is a fallacy of inclusion to treat "Christian" religions as a homogeneous group. Both Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz claim to be "Christians", yet there could not be a more stark difference in their beliefs and politics.
2) Our nation started from nothing and grew to become the preeminent economic and military power in the world, yet it was predominantly "Christian". It is only since WW II (and more especially the 60's) that we have begun to see a significant drop-off in that economic power and might. This can be far more attributed to socialist policies of government than those coming from any religion. Check your premises. What is significant is that the US began by many who were seeking to get away from the hegemony of the Catholic Church - which was (and still remains) as much a political entity as it is a philosophy.
3) Altruism vs charity. Altruism is government-sponsored social programs where tax money is coerced from some and given to others. Charity is privately sponsored and relies on voluntary contributions. It used to be that hospitals and orphanages were run by predominantly "Christian" entities at no taxpayer expense. Now we have a plethora of state-run or state-funded entities paid for by tax dollars that fill the same purposes.
Focus on principles. They are concrete. We can see what happens when people do not own themselves and take responsibility for their own lives. These are they who complain that others should be responsible for their growing wants regardless of the merits of their own efforts and contributions. They are rightly defined as moochers and a society which panders to the moochers more than to the producers will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own social programs - as we see happening to this great nation.
We once valued the hard work and independence of our people. No more. What changed?
Could it be that Christianity as a doctrine has much in common with socialism, self-abnegation and a glorification of the poor and mundane?
What is funny to me is that almost to a person Jews are criticized for being successful - especially in business. They are commonly admired for their capacity to negotiate favorable business deals and have a penchant for hard work.
Reminds me of this Adam Sandler (also part Jewish I believe) song: https://youtu.be/Rd1Pyu9_rxo
Those who can claim the most "victim points" in the present-day USA are given the keys to the kingdom.
What I was getting at comes from my perspective as a man who was raised Catholic. I had a father who was a PhD chemist, who I considered to be very rational, but who attended Catholic church regularly, and who never successfully reconciled to me the contradiction of the Bible's authors' denigration of wealth with what I was learning at the time from reading Ayn Rand's "We the Living" and other books celebrating mankind's potential to produce great things and be rewarded accordingly (Thomas Sowell's writings surely can be placed in this category).
Capitalism seemed like a win-win proposition to me. But in the Bible, I could only find warnings about desiring money, ie: striving for success. For example: 'Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”' Hebrews 13:5.
America is a very giving country, and last I read, approx. $350 billion is given in charitable contributions by U.S. citizens, corporations and foundations. I see this tendency deriving not so much from the influence of religion, as from the tendency of people who have more to give more. Once people become well off, and meet their primary needs and have a certain level of comfort, they tend to give more to others.
While it is not a 100% correlation, I would hazard to say that wealth encourages charity to a large degree.
But getting back to my point about Christianity and the elevation of suffering to nobility status...would you agree that all strains of Christianity advocate a certain ascetic ideal, whereby sacrifice is lauded: the sacrifice of freedom, pride, and spiritual self-confidence? As a Catholic I was taught that subjugation and self-derision were admirable ends; hardly a recipe for happiness or success or the creation of a prosperous political/economic system, in my opinion.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement: "Once people become well off, and meet their primary needs and have a certain level of comfort, they tend to give more to others." I look at money as a tool: a means rather than an end. I see no problem whatsoever in being an employer who provides valuable jobs to others or an employee who works for what he receives. And unless one is in the government, one can't really use what one has not yet acquired. ;)
"While it is not a 100% correlation, I would hazard to say that wealth encourages charity to a large degree."
I completely agree. I think it comes back to whether we seek wealth for what it allows us to accomplish, or just for the sake of having more of it than the next guy. I think one who recognizes the value of work (or money) begrudges neither his employer nor his employee just compensation. Those who conduct business deals recognize value and only trade where value is to be had on both sides, enlarging both. If one sees the value in giving his fellow a hand up in the world, I do not begrudge him - so long as he does not seek to do so using my money. How to use my money is a value judgement I reserve strictly for myself.
'would you agree that all strains of Christianity advocate a certain ascetic ideal, whereby sacrifice is lauded: the sacrifice of freedom, pride, and spiritual self-confidence?"
The first word I am drawn to in your question here is the word sacrifice. Sacrifice means to give up something now to get something better later. It might also be called opportunity cost or investment if translated to an economic sense. But can one truly trade freedom for something better? Can one trade self-confidence for something better? I can't think of what those things might be.
A religion or philosophy which advocates to abandon the freedom to choose one's own course in life is one which advocates for slavery: a caste system endorsing a disparate innate hierarchy of human value. I categorically reject all such. To my knowledge, the Christian doctrine is one to advocate the Golden Rule or the principle of equality among men - not that of slavery. Might there be some who attempt to pervert that into domination either through position of authority or twist of doctrine? I would say that this has been prevalent throughout history and affects everyone no matter which religion or philosophy one ascribes to. In a perfect world, I daresay that man would not ascribe to power for power's sake, but merely in the exercise of value of talent and the pursuit of one's personal happiness/worth.
That said, the notion of defining the best motives for attaining wealth seems unnecessary to me, at least in the economic sense. Adam Smith's invisible hand is at work as long as free trade is the default. Motives for desiring wealth are irrelevant because ostensibly the reason anyone desires something is to further his/her happiness. The beauty of capitalism is that no matter one's motives, the acquisition of wealth necessitates giving others what they desire, so it is a win-win proposition. Adopt the golden rule, or go bankrupt. Sure, there are criminal abusers who would steal and cheat others (coming from the 3% or so pool of sociopathic personalities in human society), but their efforts are usually short lived,and once they are found out they are branded, stigmatized, shunned and/or imprisoned.
Even if rank greed and love of filthy lucre is one's motive for working, he inevitably must provide benefit to other parties if he is to accumulate wealth. This assumes a completely free market of course, with legal activity undistorted by government intervention and artificial monopoly creation.
My problem with Christian doctrine is its emphasis on relinquishing wealth, and negating the natural desire to elevate status by wealth acquisition. I think that is a poisonous way of framing a social contract. If we follow the ascetic examples of Jesus or St. Francis, then from whence come the producers, inventors, builders, scientists who are motivated naturally by peer acclaim and status elevation, which is often best symbolized by resulting wealth?
Regarding the notion of Christian sacrifice being an example of foregoing short term pleasure for long-term gain...this rationalization only holds water if you believe in an afterlife. Since I do not, choosing suffering over the pursuit of happiness, status and wealth would be the opposite of a life-affirming doctrine.
Where does this idea that seeking wealth is unhealthy stem from? I always look for root psychological causes for irrational (pathological?) human behavior, and here is my theory. Since wealth is merely a symbol for status, a man defeats himself if he attempts to gain more status that he is capable of achieving in his given social setting. Not knowing one's limitations, and futilely striving for the impossible can bring great anxiety, shame and depression - all negative states to be avoided in the search for happiness. So perhaps all this paranoia about, and denigration of the seeking of money/status is simply an institutionalized mental safeguard which protects people from their own potential societal overreaching?
The Serenity prayer, which suggests wisdom as the solution to unbridled lust for wealth/status, seems a far better code to follow than then the Christian doctrine of self abnegation and wholesale demonization of the desire for wealth.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
"I think the most primal motivation of man is the attainment of status within social groups. And money is simply a symbol/means of gaining that status."
It's an interesting theory, but I would ask to what end? You answer yourself:
"Even if rank greed and love of filthy lucre is one's motive for working, he inevitably must provide benefit to other parties if he is to accumulate wealth. This assumes a completely free market of course, with legal activity undistorted by government intervention and artificial monopoly creation."
Oh, I completely agree. I am right there with you advocating free market principles because they are indicative of the highest degrees of freedom and the ability to pursue happiness (as per the Declaration of Independence) as to one's own definition of such.
"My problem with Christian doctrine is its emphasis on relinquishing wealth, and negating the natural desire to elevate status by wealth acquisition."
I think your following statement is the answer to your own concern:
"Regarding the notion of Christian sacrifice being an example of foregoing short term pleasure for long-term gain...this rationalization only holds water if you believe in an afterlife. Since I do not, choosing suffering over the pursuit of happiness, status and wealth would be the opposite of a life-affirming doctrine."
Christianity is wholly based on the notion of continuing existence. For one who can not fathom such a continuation, this life is all one can see and material pursuits become the only measuring point of one's intrinsic value. Ultimately what one is attempting to measure in the acquisition of wealth is one's own personal merit because he/she lacks any other tool with which to attempt the job.
One of the interesting observations is that people on their deathbeds never complain that they weren't wealthy enough - they lament the gaps in their personal relationships. Charles Dickens' classic "A Christmas Carol" explores this and hits a chord in me. Scrooge certainly was wealthy, but his wealth bought him neither happiness nor companionship. His business partner Marley lamented his own pursuit of riches as being short-sighted and warned Scrooge against the same.
I personally have met very poor people (Armenian refugees) who were happy - truly happy - because they had family: someone to care about and be cared about by in return. I have also met people who had plenty of money who were rather miserable because they substituted the opportunity for deep personal relationships with the pursuit of money. My uncle is one such: a very successful executive in the tech era but who spent his time while on family vacations working while his wife and children enjoyed theme parks and exotic vacations.
As you were once a Catholic, there are two stories you may be familiar with:
The first is that of the wealthy young noble. He was observant of all the commandments, but when he asked what he still needed to do, he was confronted with a serious challenge: to forsake his wealth. The story goes that he went away sorrowing.
The second story is how after Christ's death Peter had returned to fishing to support himself and his family. He had caught nothing, but at the request of a figure on shore, he let down his nets and was rewarded with a catch so big it threatened to swamp the ship and break the nets. After getting it to shore he recognized that the figure was Christ. What is interesting, however, is that that single haul made Peter instantly wealthy. Fish were a valuable food commodity in those days because they could be salted and preserved and sold at market even months later.
I'll leave you to their interpretation. Ultimately, everyone has to make their own decisions regarding what they want to believe and how they are going to live, including how one chooses to use (or ignore) the internal abilities and initial resources he has. I believe money is a tool, but not a measuring stick of the worth of a human being.
(Is there an official font for sarcasm?)