I thought the thread about whether a Global America would be good or bad. It directly discusses that (“in the only cases where the masses have escaped from grinding poverty , the only cases in recorded history are where they have capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off it is exactly in the kind of societies that depart from, so the record of history is absolutely crystal clear”).
Firstly a system that has the freedom to trade and make profit doesn’t have to be greedy, and neither does free trade have to operate at the expense of anybodies dignity. That’s why in the market place there are usually restrictions. Greed usually leads to the unfair expense of other people, that’s usually what people mean by greed; although it can refer to having more than one truly deserves. There is nothing intrinsically greedy with being rich. But it is greedy to be rich and not help others.
Secondly, even if greed has lead to the well being of more people, that does not justify greed in the intrinsically evil sense. Especially since that same greed can lead to many others going without despite the people that it helps.
The best you can argue is that there are possible situations where making more than one needs is necessary, but like i said making more than one need’s is not greed in every context.
You’re making the mistake of defining all greed by financial greed. 150,000,000 people weren’t killed in communist countries in last 100 years by financial greed but by political greed. Which proves his point that greed exists in different flavors but some greeds are worse than others.
And you also dodged his key factual assertion - that historically no system has saved more from grinding poverty than Capitalism/Free Trade. Which is supremely ironic considering it answers the OP.
Again, you’re ignoring the factual assertion that financial “greed” (Capitalism/Free trade) has historically helped more get out of poverty than any other system. This is factual assertion not opinion.
No, the best you can argue is that we should use whatever system has been historically proven to help the most get out of poverty, whatever that system is. To do otherwise is just being willfully ignorant or obtuse.
What would you say would God require to be a prerequisite for a nation to take on such a responsible task? Keeping in mind of course that Fr. Ripperger teaches that at least one nation is due for a “spanking by God”.
I dislike the idea. Ultimately, pretty much all governments are inept when they expand to more than a small area. I don’t even want to think about how terrible our government would be if it tried to span the entire globe…
This assumes that no other logically possible system works
Secondly, if something is intrinsically evil, even if it benefits me, i can’t argue that others should live by it’s rule.
If you choose to do so that is your bag.
That being said capitalism is not necessarily evil, but the promotion of greed is.
True, but that is far from one global government. The colonies were spread between various European countries and weren’t ruled by one particular country. Even then, those colonies weren’t always under direct rule, but often had governors. And sometimes, they even had a certain level of self rule. I think the circumstances here are a little different.
No it only assumes we should use the best system that works based on known data until a better one is discovered.
Correct and arguing for a system other than the one proven to help the most get out of poverty is the definition of intrinsically evil because it indicates one would rather more people go into poverty.
All systems have some “greed” in them. We can either
(A) choose the one that helps the most get out of poverty (at the expense of being labeled “promoters of greed”) or
(B) engage in willful blindness and treat them all the same in order to appear morally righteous (at the expense of saving millions from poverty).
Not with the current US President
That’s not true
Name one governmental system that is completely devoid of greed.
Prove to me that it’s logically impossible to not have a system where people have to be greedy. Greed is a choice, not a necessary mechanism of economics.
I predict that this is going to turn into a game semantics, but oh well. What the heart wants…
I’m not saying it’s not possible, nor is that what @Aquinas11 was saying. He was saying that all systems do have greed in them. I asked you a question first, and I’m assuming you weren’t able to think of an answer, which is why you tried to turn the question back on me.
To actually answer your question, since you couldn’t answer mine (which you won’t be able to do, as one doesn’t exist.)
The fact of the matter is, we are fallen humans, prone to greed. Until we are no longer fallen, there will be no system which is safe from greed because no matter the system, it is up to us greedy humans to enforce that system.
We will not be living in a system devoid of greed until Jesus comes back. When we are freed from concupiscence and live in God’s eternal kingdom there will no longer be greed in the system. Until them, we are human and there will be greed. To try to pretend otherwise is to ignore the entirety of human history.
Instead of just admitting they’re wrong, a false stalemate is created (“I predict this is going to turn into a game of semantics, but oh well”).
It’s not even a false stalemate. Their question was perfectly answerable. As long as humans are involved, there is always the potential for greed. Hence, you cannot create a governmental system that is devoid of the potential for greed, because the systems we are discussing all involved humans, either at the operational level, or at the receiving level.
I’ll never understand Christians who think government can bring about an ideal society. Sure the atheists will think that, that’s all they have, but for Christians, governments are an echo of the reality we should all be striving towards. We know things won’t be perfect until Jesus comes again, so don’t expect governments to fix everything. That’s not their job.
I thought this discussion was on how the world economy works?
Friedman’s comments seemed on topic to me.
How about no.
A dreadful idea. What right has the USA to impose its form of government on other peoples? An imperialist one-world government is not a positive good, in my opinion.
The fact that some system or other allows the possibility of greed is not an excuse to promote greed as a driving virtue. And since some systems are more likely than others to create wealth at the moral expense of another persons dignity, it is our moral obligation to choose a system that doesn’t allow this.
While it seems almost inevitable that humans are selfish, what you can’t do is choose a system that has poverty as an inbuilt inevitability of competition.
Thus any system you choose will inevitably require government enforcement and tax. Notice that no system has a truly free market, unless the government also has an ensured means to production…
And even if it was practically impossible to have a virtuous system, all you are really saying is that your preference is a necessary evil. But I will never agree with it, even if i have no choice in the matter.
That’s not what we’re doing. That’s not even close to what we’re doing. If you honestly think that’s what we’re doing, then I cannot help you, because I cannot comprehend how you have arrived at that conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that Capitlism is the only economic system in history that has allowed for wide-spread economic advancment across all economic tiers. Until a superior system is thought up and shown to actually work, we will continue to promote it as the best available system.
You seem to have a problem with this. Until you can show a superior system, to claim we should promote a different system is irraitonal.
There is no other system that actually generates wealth. Capitalism is the only system that actually creates wealth. All other systems can only redistribute what others have created, or create wealth through the acquisition of new resources. (in case you weren’t aware, that’s the number one cause of war in history) Hence, even though some people may abuse the system, it remains the best option. Despite what Hollywood (a legitimately exploitative subset of business) would like you to think, most business owners are not exploiting their workers.