You have no problem grasping how Marxist theories, which seek to describe every problem in terms of an evil oppressor class v. a virtuous victim class, are dangerously reductive. But Marxism was a reaction a free market capitalism, which is equally reductive in how it categorizes every problem in economic terms. "If we could just deregulate, cut taxes, and let the free market works its magic..." is no more rational than "If we could just overthrow these corrupt fat cats and let The People™ govern..."
I don't
care about free markets for the sake of free markets. I care about free
people. Free markets are just the natural consequence therefrom. Free people can choose how they want to live their lives. If they want to voluntarily enter a commune, so be it. If they want to farm and barter, so be it. If they want to open an Italian restaurant, so be it. I'm not in favor of governments
creating as system of free market capitalism because that's a contradiction in terms. A market that needs to be created by the state is not free at all. Markets come into being spontaneously when free people freely associate with one another through trade.
You can't have a functional "nightwatchman" society that does nothing but protect private property rights and remains totally agnostic about everything else. That not how communities of any size work.
I don't believe that the United States of America or any nation of comparable size can be a "community" in all but the very loosest definition of the word. For that reason, I think the federal government absolutely should be the agnostic watchman that you described. Within that umbrella, the states, towns, schools, churches, and workplaces will be the real "communities" to which you refer. Those communities will have shared sets of values and social norms. This is the reason why I sometimes regret labeling myself a "libertarian" because I'm not the anarcho-capitalist you often portray me to be. I'm a strong libertarian when it comes to the scope and scale of the federal leviathan, but there are plenty of things at the state and local level that I'd be run out of libertarian circles for supporting. The answer is federalism.
A shared concept of the Good is necessary. We got away with pretending to be agnostic for a while because everyone more or less accepted Christian cultural norms at the founding. But they were already slipping then, and as that trend accelerated, we started coming apart at the seems. Mandating that every American citizen read a copy of The Road to Serfdom and reheating the GOP platform from 1980 isn't going to fix anything.
See above. America is too large and too diverse to achieve what you're describing. We can quibble over the details on how we got here, but it's futile to deny that it's where we are.
This is a great example of how liberalism is hostile to
pietas. Your outlook is both materialist and cosmopolitan. Charity starts at home, and it's important not just for its effect upon the donee, but also on the donor. A man who ignores the poor in his own community to mail a donation to some far-flung corner of the globe because "they need it more" is not a good neighbor, citizen, or Christian.
Explain missions.
That's a perspective. It's just based on an impoverished understanding of human flourishing, and it's not very Christian.
I think your understanding of human flourishing is too limited. Private property and wealth are not hostile to complete human flourishing, they aid it.
An Eastern Orthodox Moral Case for Property Rights | Acton Institute
No. The global economy is usually explicitly hostile to local communities. Wal-Mart moves in and puts all the mom & pop stores out of business. Elite universities hoover up all the most talented kids from across the globe and then deposits them into a handful of urban centers where they can all work in finance, politics or advertizing for the global elite. Extractive industries do the same thing with natural resources. It's obviously unsustainable, and it undermines all of the actually important things that make life worth living. Oh, but you can buy some cheap plastic bullsh!t at that 24-hour Wal-Mart now that wasn't available a few decades ago so... cheers?
Come on, Whiskey. Are we really going to compare various economic systems and their consequences for society?
Countries with undeveloped economies have children literally dying in the streets.
Marxism leads to oligarchy, which leads to
mass murder.
Capitalism leads to Walmart, which puts some companies out of business and pays low wages. Boo hoo?
None of those are perfect, but there's sure as hell one that stands out as "least bad."
He has the same innate human dignity as everyone else, so I'd like to see our Federal representatives take prudent measures to encourage the Chinese government to recognize that fact. However, he's not my neighbor, and I have absolutely no influence in his life. I do, however, have actual neighbors who have been harmed by the policies you're advocating. I have duties to them, and fortunately I'm better able to help them and advocate for a system that serves their interests rather than those of the American donor class. So that's what I'll do.
It's a novel idea, isn't it? That the American government should prioritize the well-being of American citizens first. Sort of like how you prioritize the needs of your daughter over those of other children first.
I agree with you. My point when I went off on my digression about the Chinese worker versus the American worker was from a theoretical ethical framework, not a political policy framework. I agree with your position that the American government should prioritize the well-being of American citizens. However, when it comes to the protectionism being bandied about by Trump and his supporters, we're in a bit of a
prisoner's dilemma situation. It's not a perfect analogue, but the American government doing what's nominally in the best interest of America, to which the Chinese government will respond with what's in the best interest of China, will result in worsening conditions for all workers.
The Pope is following the teachings and the example set by Jesus. He seeks out those on the fringe of society. I know he's probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from those concerned most with sustaining their own privileged position. But he is far from ignorant. He calls out for justice and emphasizes the needs of the sick and the poor. That doesn't make him ignorant. It makes him compassionate.
Pope Francis is far smarter than you or I could imagine. Some of us are just too ignorant to see that compassion for our fellow-man is a major part of the solution to many of the problems we face going into the future. Ignoring that fact will only lead to the gradual crumbling of American society. We can work to make life better for all or we can let Trump and his insane rhetoric begin the breakdown that is inevitable without a change of course.
I don't object to Francis' compassion. My point is simply that there are certain things that aren't covered by Jesus and his teachings. For example, neither Jesus nor Francis are physicists, climatologists, nor economists. Francis can use Jesus' message to advocate against war, but he is wholly unqualified to disarm a nuclear warhead. He can use Jesus' message to advocate for environmentalism, but he is wholly unqualified to develop and proclaim carbon quotas. He can use Jesus' message to advocate for the care of the poor, but he is wholly unqualified to comment on the economic conditions that raise the poor's standard of living.
