Orthodoxy and Libertarianism

Faithful Skeptic · Sep 26, 2011

Orthodoxy and Libertarianism | Libertas

I agree with the author a lot, and had a somewhat similar conversion to libertarianism (though, like him, I saw it more as a 'coming home' than a conversion). The big difference is that I came to libertarianism from the left. It was the Iraq War that almost immediately forced me to start looking at the Bush policies, and government policies in general, much more carefully. Back then, I thought the only other option was to become a Democrat. Then I even became disenchanted in the Democrats, and saw little significant difference between them and the Republicans. Yes, they differ, but they agree on virtually everything that I dislike about government, and disagree where I think government shouldn't intervene anyway. Anyway, a former hard-core Republican friend of mine started making sense to me and I was completely blown away. Apparently he had heard about this Ron Paul character and he changed his mind on virtually all of the things that we disagreed on. So I, myself, looked into this Ron Paul miracle-worker (in that he convinced my hardheaded friend that he was wrong). After looking into Ron Paul, he, and other libertarians (bloggers and academics alike) convinced me that I, too, was hardheadedly wrong in a few ways (I was a fan of idealistic communism for a time). I still advocate idealistic communism (not the USSR/China crap, that's state socialism, not communism), but I now only advocate it if it is completely voluntary. I knew aggression was wrong, I just never realized the aggression inherent in a few of the things that I supported. The greatest motivation for me endorsing an anarcho-libertarian political perspective was, oddly enough, my own faith. I felt like non-aggression was one moral position that seemed to identify the strongest with Christianity.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the article and libertarianism in general? I know there are a few of us in TAW that have the little libertarian image as the party affiliation in their profiles.

TheCunctator · Sep 26, 2011

Faithful Skeptic said:
Orthodoxy and Libertarianism | Libertas

I agree with the author a lot, and had a somewhat similar conversion to libertarianism (though, like him, I saw it more as a 'coming home' than a conversion). The big difference is that I came to libertarianism from the left. It was the Iraq War that almost immediately forced me to start looking at the Bush policies, and government policies in general, much more carefully. Back then, I thought the only other option was to become a Democrat. Then I even became disenchanted in the Democrats, and saw little significant difference between them and the Republicans. Yes, they differ, but they agree on virtually everything that I dislike about government, and disagree where I think government shouldn't intervene anyway. Anyway, a former hard-core Republican friend of mine started making sense to me and I was completely blown away. Apparently he had heard about this Ron Paul character and he changed his mind on virtually all of the things that we disagreed on. So I, myself, looked into this Ron Paul miracle-worker (in that he convinced my hardheaded friend that he was wrong). After looking into Ron Paul, he, and other libertarians (bloggers and academics alike) convinced me that I, too, was hardheadedly wrong in a few ways (I was a fan of idealistic communism for a time). I still advocate idealistic communism (not the USSR/China crap, that's state socialism, not communism), but I now only advocate it if it is completely voluntary. I knew aggression was wrong, I just never realized the aggression inherent in a few of the things that I supported. The greatest motivation for me endorsing an anarcho-libertarian political perspective was, oddly enough, my own faith. I felt like non-aggression was one moral position that seemed to identify the strongest with Christianity.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the article and libertarianism in general? I know there are a few of us in TAW that have the little libertarian image as the party affiliation in their profiles.

I tend to think that Libertarian is a bit too idealistic, though I do agree that there is far too much waste and inappropriate regulation of the free markets, though in terms of foreign trade, I'd consider myself more of a realist-protectionist.

Does the Orthodox Church heavily involve itself in the specifics of economic issues? I tend to be wary of associating economics with morality, simply because it's a very dicey issue.

MKJ · Sep 26, 2011

TheCunctator said:
I tend to think that Libertarian is a bit too idealistic, though I do agree that there is far too much waste and inappropriate regulation of the free markets, though in terms of foreign trade, I'd consider myself more of a realist-protectionist.

Does the Orthodox Church heavily involve itself in the specifics of economic issues? I tend to be wary of associating economics with morality, simply because it's a very dicey issue.

Yes, I have heard libertarianism described as a kind of utopianism, and I think that is accurate. An easy example is the claim that charity will provide for all the needs of those who really need it - but there is really no evidence that is so - it certainly hasn't happened in the past.

The main problem I have with it is the assumption that the market can be self-regulating and somehow moral. On the one hand it tends to reduce everything to economic values, which we know isn't true. It is essentially driven by human desire, which we know is disordered, and can be manipulated, for example through advertising. And it tends to assume that individuals and families will somehow be able to really hold onto and control meaningful capital, whereas history tends to suggest that in very free markets the capital quickly begins to concentrate more and more in the hands of a few - those that have it find it easy to get more, and those who don't, and work for wages, quickly become dependent on the capital owners. And then you know which group has more power to affect things like legislation, and make it more favorable to those large business interests.

And I think too that libertarianism inadequately reflects the duties that individuals have to the larger community.

gzt · Sep 26, 2011

There are certainly some good aspects to the philosophy, but I have broad disagreements on many levels and particular disagreements on many policy issues. I don't feel like going into them on a religious board. I would just say that there are a number of ends that we Christians must support (and some that we must not) and some means that we should prefer and some means that are forbidden to us, but beyond that politics is a practical question that we can disagree on as Christians. I would agree that it is possible to be a libertarian and be a good Orthodox Christian, so my disagreement with libertarianism does not at all reflect a judgment of your religious practice. Beyond that, I don't think there can be productive, on-topic conversation about this on this board.

gzt · Sep 26, 2011

TheCunctator said:
I tend to think that Libertarian is a bit too idealistic, though I do agree that there is far too much waste and inappropriate regulation of the free markets, though in terms of foreign trade, I'd consider myself more of a realist-protectionist.

Does the Orthodox Church heavily involve itself in the specifics of economic issues? I tend to be wary of associating economics with morality, simply because it's a very dicey issue.

No. There are certain ends it supports, but the Church really hasn't the competence to go about discussing specifics in a policy debate.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 26, 2011

Faithful Skeptic said:
Orthodoxy and Libertarianism | Libertas

I agree with the author a lot, and had a somewhat similar conversion to libertarianism (though, like him, I saw it more as a 'coming home' than a conversion). The big difference is that I came to libertarianism from the left. It was the Iraq War that almost immediately forced me to start looking at the Bush policies, and government policies in general, much more carefully. Back then, I thought the only other option was to become a Democrat. Then I even became disenchanted in the Democrats, and saw little significant difference between them and the Republicans. Yes, they differ, but they agree on virtually everything that I dislike about government, and disagree where I think government shouldn't intervene anyway. Anyway, a former hard-core Republican friend of mine started making sense to me and I was completely blown away. Apparently he had heard about this Ron Paul character and he changed his mind on virtually all of the things that we disagreed on. So I, myself, looked into this Ron Paul miracle-worker (in that he convinced my hardheaded friend that he was wrong). After looking into Ron Paul, he, and other libertarians (bloggers and academics alike) convinced me that I, too, was hardheadedly wrong in a few ways (I was a fan of idealistic communism for a time). I still advocate idealistic communism (not the USSR/China crap, that's state socialism, not communism), but I now only advocate it if it is completely voluntary. I knew aggression was wrong, I just never realized the aggression inherent in a few of the things that I supported. The greatest motivation for me endorsing an anarcho-libertarian political perspective was, oddly enough, my own faith. I felt like non-aggression was one moral position that seemed to identify the strongest with Christianity.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the article and libertarianism in general? I know there are a few of us in TAW that have the little libertarian image as the party affiliation in their profiles.

If I may say,

I think alot of people may not realize, as you noted, that there's nothing wrong with certain forms of government as long as its voluntary---and Ron Paul has had some of the most amazing insights that I've seen when it comes to government. However, where I get a bit nervous is when it seems there's advocacy for what's known as anarchaism. For others who feel that the government can never be "limited" and that using the state to punish will lead inevitably to chaos, I still wonder...but that's from what I've seen.

JohnTh · Sep 26, 2011

TheCunctator said:
I tend to think that Libertarian is a bit too idealistic, though I do agree that there is far too much waste and inappropriate regulation of the free markets, though in terms of foreign trade, I'd consider myself more of a realist-protectionist.

Does the Orthodox Church heavily involve itself in the specifics of economic issues? I tend to be wary of associating economics with morality, simply because it's a very dicey issue.

Well, I think that the Church must be involved but in his own way, and not in the way in which usually the men outside of it think.

IOW the main involvment of the Church should be as Church ie the mystic body of Christ which brings the men from earth to heaven ie. the Church should act upon the economists and not so much upon the economics.

If an economist became a "saint economist" (like the St. Justin Popovic said) then his fruits will be accordingly. Then he will apply his virtues upon his science and he will spiritualize it.

Othewise, I think that it is an endless maze in search of a "perfect economic system" governated by (very) imperfect men.

just my2c & hth

MKJ · Sep 26, 2011

JohnTh said:
Well, I think that the Church must be involved but in his own way, and not in the way in which usually the men outside of it think.

IOW the main involvment of the Church should be as Church ie the mystic body of Christ which brings the men from earth to heaven ie. the Church should act upon the economists and not so much upon the economics.

If an economist became a "saint economist" (like the St. Justin Popovic said) then his fruits will be accordingly. Then he will apply his virtues upon his science and he will spiritualize it.

Othewise, I think that it is an endless maze in search of a "perfect economic system" governated by (very) imperfect men.

just my2c & hth

In a sense to though I think we are all economists, practically speaking; which would make this idea much widerthan one might think.

Alexander Nevsky · Sep 26, 2011

I am afraid I just cannot see in what way libertarianism, or any other -isms, can have any sort of connection with the Orthodox Church. Ideologies are just but inventions of the Enlightenment in order to abolish religion.

S.ilvio · Sep 26, 2011

Ron Paul is probably one of the most dangerous men in America today.

His heartless policies on Healthcare, if introduced would be akin to survival of the richest...

Nik0s · Sep 26, 2011

Alexander Nevsky said:
I am afraid I just cannot see in what way libertarianism, or any other -isms, can have any sort of connection with the Orthodox Church. Ideologies are just but inventions of the Enlightenment in order to abolish religion.

I have to agree.

Ignatius21 · Sep 26, 2011

I would echo the idea that Libertarianism is, on the whole, a very idealistic and what you might call "right-wing utopian" view of government. There is much about it that I respect, and on the whole I think government is far more involved than it needs to be in many areas of life, and certainly it is terribly inefficient, and always seems to only reward itself for its inefficiency. That said, there are a number of things about Libertarianism (as I've encountered it among its...often rabid...fan base):

1. Frequently they tend to be pro-choice, even if they hold to pro-life personal ethics. The U.S. Libertarian Party is officially pro-choice in its platform. Often they get around this with a very rationalistic argument that (a) Government's responsibility is to protect the lives of its citizens and unborn children are not yet citizens, and/or (b) laws should not be based on ethics or morality (because that would promote one ethical system over another), but rather on a somewhat vague notion of "the common good." Murder is to be outlawed not because such is intrinsically evil, but rather because allowing it would quickly lead to chaos and be detrimental to the functioning of civil society. Evidently allowing people to murder their neighbors harms the greater society because they've taken away someone who was a productive citizen , provided for others, etc...but murdering your unborn neighbor is somehow OK because it simply prevents a productive citizen from coming into being?

2. They often don't really seem consistent in how they apply the intervention of the government. If the argument is that we should step in to punish or prevent those acts that detract from the smooth operation of the civil society (i.e. murder, theft, breaches of contract and the like), why do they seem to be unconcerned generally with the ease of obtaining a divorce? It's beyond argument that easy divorce causes emotional damage, broken homes (leading to statistically far higher rates of criminal activity, bad grades, drug use and the like among the kids who are left to pick up the pieces), harms people's productivity, consumes a lot of money that could otherwise have been spent producing goods rather than lining the pockets of divorce firms, etc.? For that matter, why not outlaw adultery? Isn't that, in cold and crass terms, at least a breach of contract? And on a large scale something that contributes to the overall degradation of a civil society? It seems inconsistent as to when government should "protect life, liberty and property" and when they should let people just do whatever they want. When does personal liberty run afoul of the law? When must it be limited to prevent an overall breakdown in the whole system?

So the terms just seem very vague to me. It sounds well and good to "defend life, liberty and property" until we realize that all three of those terms are meaningless without reference to some moral absolute...otherwise we just play shell games by changing the meanings of the terms on the fly. Stealing your neighbor's lawn mower is a theft of property...cheating on your husband, then getting a quick divorce and taking half his property in the settlement is...individual liberty...

All that aside, though, I think Ron Paul's label of our society as the "Nanny State" is very accurate, and our society overall does seem to want the liberty to do whatever they want without any consequence, knowing somebody else will come and clean up the mess. I'm teaching my 3 year old not to think that way right now...and I think he may be getting it, more than most voters.

Faithful Skeptic · Sep 26, 2011

Personally, I don't exactly see how an ideology like libertarianism has the elimination of religion as one of its goals. Philosophical ideologies existed before the enlightenment. Could either of you try to back that claim up?

As far as libertarianism being too idealistic and utopian, I'm actually a libertarian because I think something like anarcho-communism is too idealistic and utopian. Libertarianism seems like another acceptable ideology that might be able to play a greater role in the "real world". Not only that, but it would not preclude anarcho-communal societies from forming/existing--they are quite possible withing the libertarian mindset.

As for the pro-choice aspect, I don't really know just yet where I stand on that legally. I am 100% against abortion in every case (which is kind of rare) morally, but I'm just not sure how that should or should not be enforced. Dr. Paul is of the opinion that such a matter should be left to the states, besides being against abortion in every case morally, and I, thus far, am leaning toward that direction. That said, I think the mindset that abortion is morally acceptable is what needs to really be changed, and I don't see how incarcerating those that have abortions will help to change that.

As for your second point, Ignatius, even in a libertarian world, you can cancel a contract, so I'm not sure how you're attacking the libertarian stance contractually. I believe that the libertarian mindset on divorce is going to be similar to the Orthodox Church's mindset on divorce. It is one of the most important contracts a person can get into, and, as such, should be examined very carefully before one enters it. However, people make mistakes, and that sad fact should not preclude people from attempting to fix the mistake in the way that they deem best. It's a situation that should be avoided at all costs, but if it isn't avoided, then it should be remedied. Outlawing divorce would in fact be a prime example of a nanny-state. It would be an attempt by the state to forcefully prevent its citizenry from making decisions that may or may not end up being mistakes. Again, the libertarian would want to change the mindset by showing how important the institution of marriage is and why it should not be taken likely, but forcing people who know longer wish to be together to remain married against their will in order to seemingly "protect" others from perceived discomfort goes against libertarian tenets. Libertarianism only allows the "state" to intervene when someone imposes their liberty on someone else: "your freedom ends where mine begins", etc.

That leads me to the very reason why I think libertarianism fits very well in an Orthodox perspective--the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is the foundational concept that determines whether something is not morally justifiable to a libertarian. From Wikipedia:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, or NAP, for short) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a moral stance.

Any act that violates the "NAP" is morally unjustifiable. However, that does not mean any act that does not violate it is inherently justifiable. It's simply the first step in judging whether or not it is OK to do something. I actually think the NAP may not go far enough in some instances, as even Christ Himself tells us that we should turn the other cheek. Obviously I hold my Orthodox Christian morality to a higher standard than any libertarian conception, but the NAP is the only secular, generalized moral stance that I think will not lead to violate my Christian conscience.

Also, it is important to note that there are some different strains of libertarianism, all of which should (in theory) be centered around the non-aggression principle. I'm more of a "left-libertarian". I advocate liberty foremost, but also strongly stress social obligations that we ought to adhere to. The objectivist libertarians advocate doing that which benefits them most. We all agree that we should not force each other to act in certain ways, but that does NOT mean that we agree on what we ought to do.

truthseeker32 · Sep 26, 2011

S.ilvio said:
Ron Paul is probably one of the most dangerous men in America today.

His heartless policies on Healthcare, if introduced would be akin to survival of the richest...

The problem with libertarianism is it assumes we can rely on people to voluntarily enter into a Rousseau-like social contract.

Faithful Skeptic · Sep 26, 2011

truthseeker32 said:
The problem with libertarianism is it assumes we can rely on people to voluntarily enter into a Rousseau-like social contract.

What I find even more heartless is forcing people to do things against their will by threatening to do violence to them if they do not. God did not FORCE his goodness on us, who are we to attempt to force some sort of perceived goodness on others?

The problem with most other ideologies is that they promote force as a legitimate means to an end.

gzt · Sep 26, 2011

I think we're wandering far afield of Orthodoxy and are now discussing purely political issues, which doesn't seem to be on-topic for this message board...

D+C · Sep 26, 2011

I like libertarians. I have issues with libertarianism.

While I agree it isn't entirely on topic, if anyone is interested this article from my favourite modern political philosopher, Roger Scruton, is a fascinating look at libertarianism. First Principles - The Journey Home

E.C. · Sep 26, 2011

Hmm... must be an election in the quasi-near-future...

Libertarianism just sounds plain dangerous for where the United States is presently situated. Sure, there is a bit of the Bush Jr. mess to clean up, but sadly the Obama mess is making Bush Jr's look like a stroll in the park. Libertarianism seems to be nothing more than Tea Party fanatics who wish to damage the country more by jumping ship from the Republican Party. Sure, I'm no happier with the two-party system like many people, but I am realistic enough to know that the majority of Americans will not vote for a third party and I am realistic enough to know that any "issue" a third party revolves around will just get gobbled up by either the Democrats or the Republicans. That is what has happened time and time again in the 220 years (give or take a few) we have been around with our present Constitution: a "third party" says "we will revolve around this" and one of the big two will take that issue and run with it. The only thing that the Libertarians have going for them is to decrease government waste and the international strength of the United States.

Sadly, both of those issues are being gobbled up by the two parties. The one thing the fractured Republicans have going for them is to cut all the ridiculous spending of Obama and his ultra-liberals. The Democrats claim to desire to lower the international presence of the USA, but have little to show for it other than the closing of military bases and fighting under some other banner such as NATO, the UN, etc. Frankly, the best thing which we need to do in the USA for this coming election is to get Obama out and to replace him with somebody like Jon Huntsman Jr because 1) he not only has experience in international politics, but it has been successful and 2) during his time in Utah as governor he was rated as the governor with the best fiscal policy in the entire country. Plus, he is a moderate Republican which means that many anti-Obama Democrats (such as myself, a New Deal Era thinking Democrat) just may vote for him. This also means that he does not partake of childish tactics, think the Tea Party and LaRouche Group, such as Photoshopping Hitler-stache's onto photos of politicians. But, that is just my opinion.

As for American politics vis-a-vis Orthodoxy I shall echo the essence of the OCA's Q&A page on this: The Orthodox Church agrees with certain policies of both parties and disagrees with certain policies of both parties. Voting in the USA is a right and those who choose to exercise that right should do so by voting according to their conscience.

I can see the Libertarians in this election doing what Ralph Nader did in 2000: siphon votes away so that the candidate who will cause the most damage to this country wins.

[/rant]

JesusIsTheWay33 · Sep 26, 2011

Deuteronomy said:
You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy labourers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt.

Amos 8:4-10 (NIV) said:
Hear this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the poor of the land,

saying,
“When will the New Moon be over
that we may sell grain,
and the Sabbath be ended
that we may market wheat?”—
skimping on the measure,
boosting the price
and cheating with dishonest scales,
buying the poor with silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
selling even the sweepings with the wheat.
The LORD has sworn by himself, the Pride of Jacob: “I will never forget anything they have done.
“Will not the land tremble for this,
and all who live in it mourn?
The whole land will rise like the Nile;
it will be stirred up and then sink
like the river of Egypt.
“In that day,” declares the Sovereign LORD, “I will make the sun go down at noon
and darken the earth in broad daylight.
I will turn your religious festivals into mourning
and all your singing into weeping.
I will make all of you wear sackcloth
and shave your heads.
I will make that time like mourning for an only son
and the end of it like a bitter day.

Matthew 19:21-22 (NIV) said:
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Luke 16:19-31 (NIV) said:
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

St Basil the Great's Sermon to the Rich said:
Naked did you not drop from the womb? Shall you not return again naked to the earth? Where have the things you now possess come from? If you say they just spontaneously appeared, then you are an atheist, not acknowledging the Creator, nor showing any gratitude towards the one who gave them. But if you say that they are from God, declare to us the reason why you received them. Is God unjust, who divided to us the things of this life unequally? Why are you wealthy while that other man is poor? Is it, perhaps, in order that you may receive wages for kindheartedness and faithful stewardship, and in order that he may be honored with great prizes for his endurance? But, as for you, when you hoard all these things in the insatiable bosom of greed, do you suppose you do no wrong in cheating so many people? Who is a man of greed? Someone who does not rest content with what is sufficient. Who is a cheater? Someone who takes away what belongs to others. And are you not a man of greed? are you not a cheater? taking those things which you received for the sake of stewardship, and making them your very own? Now, someone who takes a man who is clothed and renders him naked would be termed a robber; but when someone fails to clothe the naked, while he is able to do this, is such a man deserving of any other appellation? The bread which you hold back belongs to the hungry; the coat, which you guard in your locked storage-chests, belongs to the naked; the footwear mouldering in your closet belongs to those without shoes. The silver that you keep hidden in a safe place belongs to the one in need. Thus, however many are those whom you could have provided for, so many are those whom you wrong.

St Basil the Great said:
But how do you make use of money? By dressing in expensive clothing? Won’t two yards of tunic suffice you, and the covering of one coat satisfy all your need of clothes? But is it for food’s sake that you have such a demand for wealth? One bread-loaf is enough to fill a belly. Why are you sad, then? What have you been deprived of? The status that comes from wealth? But if you would stop seeking earthly status, you should then find the true, resplendent kind that would conduct you into the kingdom of heaven. But what you love is simply to possess wealth, even if you derive no help from it. Now everyone knows that an obsession for useless things is mindless. Just so, what I am going to say should seem to you no greater paradox; and it is utterly, absolutely true. When wealth is dispersed, in the way the Lord advises, it naturally stays put; but when held back it is transferred to another. If you hoard it, you won’t keep it; if you scatter, you won’t lose. For (says the scripture), “He has dispersed, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever” (Ps 112:9).
But it isn’t for the sake of clothing or food that riches are a matter of such concern to so many people; but, by a certain wily artifice of the devil, countless pretexts of expenditure are proposed to the rich, so that they strive for superfluous, useless things as though they were necessary, and so that nothing measures up to their conception of what they should spend. For they divide up their wealth with a view to present and future uses; and they assign the one portion to themselves, and the other to their children. Next, they subdivide their expense account for various spending purposes. Hear now what sort of arrangements they make. Let some of our assets be accounted as liquid, others as fixed; and let liquid assets exceed the limits of necessity; let this much be on hand for household extravagance, let that much take care of showy visits to town. Let this tend to whoever goes on exotic voyages, and let that furnish the one who stays at home with an opulent lifestyle which will be envied by all. It amazes me, how they can pile on notions of superfluities. There are countless chariots, some for transporting goods, others for carrying themselves, covered with bronze and silver. A multitude of horses, and such as have pedigrees of well-bred fathers, as among people. And some of these carry the men about town, dissipating them; others are for hunting; others have been trained for the road. Reins, belts, collars, all of silver, all inlaid with gold. Saddles of genuine purple: they primp up the horses like brides. A plethora of asses, distinguished according to color, with men to hold the reins, some running before, some following after. An unlimited number of other servants striving to fulfill every outlandish wish: stewards, treasurers, gardeners, workers skilled in every art hitherto invented, whether for necessary purposes or for enjoyment and luxury. Butchers, bakers, winepourers, huntsmen, sculptors, painters, artisans of every pleasure. Herds of camels, some bearing burdens, others put to graze; herds of horses and of cattle, flocks of sheep, swine; the herdsmen of these; with land sufficient to feed them all, and which continually augments the wealth with additional revenue; baths in town; baths in the country; houses gleaming round with every variety of marble, in one place Phrygian stone, elsewhere tiles from Laconia or Thessaly. And of these houses, some are heated in winter, others are cooled in the summer. A floor decorated with mosaic gems, gold laid out on the roof. And however much of the walls eludes the marble tiling is adorned with choice works of pictorial art.

St John Chrysostom said:
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person's gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people's hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

It seems to me these quotes lay out some foundations for an orthodox economic outlook. Whether or not it is Orthodox, I can't say. Does anyone else have other quotes, particularly from the Fathers, on the subject?

Thekla · Sep 26, 2011

Evagrius said:
It seems to me these quotes lay out some foundations for an orthodox economic outlook. Whether or not it is Orthodox, I can't say. Does anyone else have other quotes, particularly from the Fathers, on the subject?

There are tons ... :sorry:

with time, I'll try to add more.

There are also several books on the subject.

Orthodoxy and Libertarianism

Newbie

Dio, abbi pietà su questa anima miserabile!

Contributor

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Newbie

Contributor

friend of the Huns

Newbie

Nik0s

Guest

Can somebody please pass the incense?

Newbie

Lost in the Cosmos

Newbie

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Active Member

Well-Known Member

JesusIsTheWay33

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads