Skip to main content

Economics & Greed

Proponents of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc. often level charges of greed at the adherents of opposing systems, and they're often all correct.  Greed, you see, is the precisely the problem.  It is ubiquitous; universal; like death and taxes, unconquerable.  Search as you may, throughout the world and the annals of time, you will find no political/economic system, no nation (industrialized or third world), and no heart, excepting that of our Lord alone, that is perfectly free from this evil of greed.

The first step, then, to designing a proper and realistic political/economic system is to recognize the  presence and persistence of greed in the human heart.  No matter how much progress we create, how many committees we conjure, or how many slogans we coin, we will never purge this evil from our society.  It is irremediable.  It is irradicable.

So, unable to eliminate this pock from the hearts of men and the institutions of our society, we seek to circumvent it.  We craft a system with checks and balances designed to limit, as much as possible, the free reign of any individual's or party's greed.  We establish a system unabashedly founded on this fundamental distrust of mankind, installing limitations that prevent anyone from abusing his .  

This is what separates Free Market Capitalism from other systems.  No system is perfect, to be sure, but a Capitalist society truly governed by the free market (not what we currently have, Crony Capitalism) simultaneously limits the greed of the masses and the greed of the elites.  In such a society, those who wish to succeed are forced to do so by innovating, competing, etc. to provide a product or service to their fellow men.  In essence, Capitalism subserviates our greed to the welfare of our neighbors.  



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more