Showing posts with label World Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Affairs. Show all posts

Saturday, June 22, 2024

Argentina's Javier Milei Confirms the Many Evil Faces of Socialism

I have long made the argument that fascism is socialism every bit as much as Communism. We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism, I’ve argued, and that A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name... is still socialism. Other theoretical thinkers, such as George Reisman, have said so also. But never, to my knowledge, has any prominent political leader.


Until now.


In a near-perfect pro-Capitalist speech before a world audience at Davos Switzerland, the World Economic Forum, Javier Milei, Argentina’s Radical Capitalist Leader, gave a speech that we rarely hear from the world’s leaders. In it, Milei documents socialism's many, and unavoidable, records of poverty and loss of individual freedom—and the continuing efforts to repeat socialism’s deadly ideas. Then, he explained why this is once again happening right under our noses:


Fortunately, there are more and more of us [“libertarians”] who are daring to make our voices heard, because we see that if we don’t truly and decisively fight against these [statsist] ideas, our fate entails increasing levels of regulation, socialism, and poverty, less freedom, and consequently, a worse quality of life.


The West has unfortunately already started to go along this path. I know, to many it may sound ridiculous to suggest that the West has turned to socialism, but it’s only ridiculous if you limit yourself to the traditional economic definition of socialism, which says that it’s an economic system where the state owns the means of production. This definition, in my view, should be updated in the light of current circumstances.


Today, states don’t need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals. With tools such as printing money, debt, subsidies, controlling the interest rate, price controls, and regulations to correct so-called market failures, they can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals.


This is how we come to the point where, by using different names or guises, a good deal of the generally accepted ideologies in most Western countries are collectivist variants, whether they proclaim to be communist, fascist, socialist, social democrat, national socialist, Christian democrat, neo-Keynesian, progressive, populist, nationalist, or globalist.


Ultimately, there are no major differences. They all say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals. They all defend a model contrary to the one [“free market Capitalism”] that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history. [my emphasis]


Kudos to Javier Milei for ripping off the veneer of slogans and labels socialists use to deflect us from their true totalitarian socialist designs. 


Related Reading:


A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...


We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism


Sanders' Brand of Socialism is Old Fashioned Fascism


Correcting Michael Coburn: Fascism and Marxian Socialism are Not, Fundamentally, Opposites


QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘


Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini


The Great Reset = Red Fascism


Venezuela: From Stalin to Mussolini


Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian—George Reisman for the Mises Institu

Saturday, May 11, 2024

Gaza, not Hamas, Attacked Israel


QUORA: ‘Does anyone really believe Hamas attacked Israel?

I posted this answer:

I don’t. That’s too simplistic. The truth is much broader than that.

Analysis of the Gaza conflict grossly misses the point. I think that to say Hamas attacked Israel way understates the full truth and understanding needed to fully grasp the magnitude of what actually happened on October 7. Hamas was not merely some criminal enterprise operating in an underworld of a nation governed more or less under the rule of law, like the Mexican Drug Cartels.

The fact is, Hamas was the GOVERNMENT of Gaza. Therefore, it was Gaza, not merely Hamas the terrorist group, that attacked Israel, just as it was the Empire of Japan that attacked the USA in 1941. And just as Japan got what it deserved because of its Imperial Government’s attack on Pearl Harbor, so it is that Gaza is getting what IT deserves in attacking Israel. All of the suffering and destruction and death Gaza residents are enduring is what THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, not Israel, brought down on them.

It's morally black and white. And it’s not merely about terrorism or anti-Semitism. Israel was the victim of an unimaginably vicious, unprovoked aggression directed at civilian targets (which was arguably morally worse even than Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan at least chose a military target). Israel is now defending itself. Who has the moral high ground? By any rational moral judgment, the defender, Israel—100%.

Israel shouldn't be called on to “cease fire” (i.e. surrender). The world should demand that Hamas unconditionally surrender, just as Japan did. And the world should commit to tracking down and forcing Hama members to answer for their war crimes, along with Hama’s state sponsors, just as the Nazis and Japanese war mongers did. The Gazan War would end immediately, just as WWII did.
[Supplemental, posted 5/15/24]

Some of the comments indicate the need for some clarification of my position. Apparently, I left the impression on some that anything Israel does in response to Oct. 7 is justified. That’s certainly not the case.

Israel is not seeking, and should never seek, revenge. For Israel to become like Hamas would surrender its moral high ground. Israel is fighting a war of self defense, not revenge. It does not target civilians. Its goal is military. When Japan attacked America, President FDR set the goal of his defensive military strategy—Japan’s (and the other Axis Powers’) unconditional surrender. It took Truman’s atomic bombs to reach that goal regarding Japan. Israel has set a goal to destroy Hamas. Just as America’s goal was not to kill civilians but to force Japan’s surrender, so it is Israel’s goal to eliminate the Gazan Hamas threat. As long as Israel sticks to that goal, and its military operations are in service to that legitimate goal, all consequences, including civilian deaths, are not the moral responsibility of Israel, but of Gaza’s Hamas dictatorship.
One commenter states that “Every conflict has to have a limit and a line not crossed?” Why? For what it’s worth, that is the “standard analysis.” But it’s not mine. There is no line that Israel must adhere to that stands in the way of achieving its strategic goal of eliminating the threat to its people, which is any government’s first responsibility. Israel is the victim! Any line prior to securing the safety of its people amounts to the victory of the aggressor, a moral abomination. I do not believe in Just War Theory. The only line that should not be crossed is for any country to attack another unprovoked, a line which Gaza crossed. 

Wednesday, January 31, 2024

On “War with Iran” After 3 U.S. Soldiers Killed

The recent un-provoked killing of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan by Iraqi-based Iranian terrorist proxies led to an exchange on Facebook. Without mentioning names, I republish part of the exchange [sic]. The owner of the Facebook page posted:


I don’t understand how anyone can vote for Biden in this upcoming election.   I understand that our choices for President will…most likely…not be good ones.  But…Iran has attacked US installations over 160 times recently. The most recent attack on one in Jordan killed three of our servicemen and injured many others.  And the administration doesn’t want to escalate anything with Iran!  Iran has been at war with the US for decades and the escalation is obvious.  WTH is this president waiting for to protect our troops.


I commented:


The delusion at the White House is astounding. We keep hearing fears of "a wider war," an "escalation of tensions," and such buzzwords. That's the talk of appeasement, and it's leading us in the direction of World War III. I don't think it will get that far. But that's the road our current policies are pointing to.


Another correspondent chimed in:


A war with Iran is not the way to hold them accountable….. another war??? Seriously 😳 no. Not the answer and I hope congress sees that as well


The owner replied:


Then what? Continue to let them bomb and kill our soldiers with no recourse?


The commenter reiterated:


there must be other ways to hold them accountable…… to which you and I rest assured know nothing about. But war with them is not the answer here


I replied:


Our policies since WW II of fighting long, dragged-out, no-win wars, capped by Bush’s failed “nation-building” fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq, have so corrupted our thinking about war that we are reduced to what you are essentially saying—the pathetic belief that the most powerful and moral country in the history of the planet cannot defend itself against a pipsqueak terrorist theocracy that incessantly wages war against us.


You are partly right. Another NO-WIN war is not the answer. Appeasement led to WW II, and an uncompromising Allied policy of unconditional surrender or utter destruction led to lasting peace and prosperity. The crushing of Italy, Germany, and Japan resulted in those nations becoming our allies, friends, and trading partners. They learned their lessons. I’m not a military expert. But I do know that Iran is no Italy, Germany, or Japan. The U.S. can cripple Iran’s economy in hours or days, and neutralize its military, with air power alone. It can be supplemented with massive economic sanctions, enforced by naval blockades and the like. No need for “forward strategy for freedom” or “democracy” campaigns. No need for troops on the ground. Whatever we do, we should make it clear that we will continue to do what’s necessary until the current murderers and criminals ruling Iran are replaced with better political leaders and policies. 


It must be said: The idea that “war with them is not the answer” is a dangerous evasion that leads to a PRO-WAR POLICY OF CONTINUING APPEASEMENT. We ARE at war with Iran—and have been since 1979. They know it. It’s time for us to acknowledge it as well, and act accordingly. Imagine a peaceful, civilized Iran that deals with the West through the shared prosperity of commerce rather than war-through-terrorism.


Related Reading:


The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff


"Who is morally responsible for the deaths of innocents in Gaza?"


Craig Biddle on Israel vs. Hamas for The Objective Standard: Why You and I and Everyone Should Support Israel Against the Barbarians

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

The Migration Crisis

Ross Douthat has a good column titled The Permanent Migration Crisis. The subject of the New York Times article is on what has been dubbed the “migration crisis.” He observes that mass migration is mainly moving from Africa to Western Europe and Latin America to the United States. His intelligent analysis examines the interesting problems this massive wave of migration is creating for both the political Left and Right. I believe his analysis is largely accurate. In zeroing in on the cause of the crisis, Douthat observes:


Civil wars and climate change will play their part, but the most important shifts are, first, the way the internet and smartphones have made it easier to make your way around the world, and second, the population imbalance between a rich, rapidly-aging West and a poorer, younger Global South, a deeply unstable equilibrium drawing economic migrants north.


All of this is a bigger problem for Europe than the United States — European aging is more advanced, Africa’s population will boom for decades (in 50 years there may be five Africans for every European) while Latin America’s birthrates have declined. 


Granted, there is no easy fix in the short to mid term. But does it have to be permanent? No. Note that the migration moves from “poorer” to “rich” regions. The migration is primarily driven by desperation of people escaping intolerable living conditions in their home countries. But do the poor regions have to be poor? What is the reason why the rich nations are rich? Certainly, people in rich countries are no better, smarter, or harder working than those in poor regions. What’s holding back the poor? What’s facilitating the economic growth of the rich? Douthat identifies the problem, but doesn’t address the causes.


I posted this comment, slightly edited for grammatical correctness:


What seems always to be missing from analysis of the migration crisis is recognition of the fact that people are moving from places dominated by authoritarianism and with minimal fossil fuel use to places with substantial Capitalistic freedom powered by extensive fossil fuels use. That's the elephant in the room. Freedom of migration is a good thing. But the migration CRISIS is purely political. Fundamentally, what the countries from which mass migration originates need is more Capitalism—i.e. individual liberty, including property rights and the freedom to use fossil fuels, rule of law, limited democratic governance, etc.—so they can prosper and better protect themselves from domestic violence, tyranny, and the ever-present climate dangers.


Related Reading:


Pope Francis: Prosperity, Liberty, and Climate Change are the Common Enemy


At Climate Summit, America takes Lead on Energy Realism and Prosperity


Capitalist Industrialization, Not Handouts, is “Poor” Countries' Best Protection Against Natural Disasters


CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM—Kieth H. Lockitch 


Religionists Should Promote Capitalism and More Reliable Energy to End Poverty, Not ‘Protect’ the Poor from Fossil Fuels.


The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein


Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein


Mexico Feels Pressure of Relentless Migration From South America by James Fredrick for The New York Times 9/21 23

Thursday, October 13, 2022

N.J. Governor Phil Murphy’s Hypocrisy on Saudi Arabia

Brent Johnson’s recent report, Saudi Arabia move to cut oil supply ‘a war on N.J. working families,’ Murphy says, is very instructive.


Gov. Phil Murphy’s “clean energy” agenda includes “weaning the state off its century-old addiction to fossil fuels.”


But if fossil fuels are as bad for N.J. residents as Murphy keeps saying, he should be cheering the Saudi cutbacks. Why doesn’t he? By criticizing them instead, Murphy is tacitly admitting that the Dem’s war on fossil fuels is destructive to the well-being of ordinary people. So if the Saudi cutback is analogous to “a war on N.J. working families,” then his agenda is analogous to “a nuclear holocaust” for N.J. As the worldwide energy crisis unfolds, the utopian anti-fossil fuel “clean energy” agenda is increasingly exposed by its own champions’ hypocrisy as a dangerous fraud. 


Related Reading:


When Climate Dogmatism Meets Energy Reality


The ‘Jihad on Pipelines,’ New Jersey Front


The False Promise of ‘Clean Solar Powered Utility Scale Energy’


My Letter Rebutting Sierra Club Opposition to N.J. PennEast Gas Pipeline


Human Energy Needs vs. 'Mother Earth'


Environmentalists Seeking to Deprive NJ Residents of Reliable Energy


Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change—Ronald Bailey

Sunday, July 24, 2022

The Real Danger is Not Too Much Heat, but Too Little Reliable Low-Cost Energy

This summer’s heat waves are triggering the predictable hysteria among the climate elites. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, Europe's lead role fighting climate change falls victim to a massive heat wave, is following that script to a tee. The hysteria is complete with the always-reliable Chicken Little hand wringing about “saving the planet from the climate crisis.” 


But while this editorial, which also ran in the 7/23/22 NJ Star-Ledger, laments people prioritizing keeping cool and safe over “fighting climate change,” the real lesson to be drawn from these not-really-unprecedented heat waves is that it is not the weather that we should fear. The real danger is the prospect of running short of the reliable, low-cost energy we need to protect ourselves from these climate dangers due to the Left’s long-running War on Fossil Fuels coupled with their continuing efforts to stifle nuclear power. 


My mission is and has long been to save humanity from the crusading planet savers. That “European countries are now backing away from their commitments to meet carbon-neutral goals” may be bad news for climate catastrophists. But it’s actually good news for humans. 


Related Reading:


Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein


Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin


Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: Remember Life Before Them


A Humanist Approach To Environmental Issues—Alex Epstein @ Forbes


The Suicidal Demonization of Fossil Fuels


Climate Change Catastrophists Who Oppose Nuclear have Anti-Humanist Premises


The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables--Michael Shellenberger


Japan's Earthquake Recovery: "Green Energy's" Failed Test


Tuesday, July 20, 2021

BLM’s and the DSA’s Totalitarian Essence Exposed

From the Dispatch, 7/16/21, on the Cuban uprising:


“The people of Cuba are being punished by the U.S. government because the country has maintained its commitment to sovereignty and self-determination. United States leaders have tried to crush this Revolution for decades,” Black Lives Matter said in a statement Wednesday, referring to Cuba’s 1950s Marxist uprising that installed the sitting government. “Instead of amity, respect, and goodwill, the U.S. government has only instigated suffering for the country’s 11 million people—of which 4 million are Black and Brown.”


The whole statement contains laughable nonsense, such as that the U.S. economic embargo “undermines Cubans’ right to choose their own government,” and outright evil such as defending Cuba’s asylum for Assata Shakur, the former Joanne Chesimard convicted of the cold blooded murder of a New Jersey state trooper in 1973 and protected by the Cuban government ever since.


But the reference to that country’s “commitment to sovereignty and self-determination” gets to the heart of BLM’s ideological essence.


There are no collective rights apart from or above the individual rights that make up the collective, whatever the collective’s form. No country can claim sovereignty and self-determination unless it respects its own citizens' individual right to sovereignty and self-determination -- i.e., the inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the property rights necessary to the expression of those rights. Communist Cuba does not and never has respected or secured individual rights, which is the core motivation of the demonstrations. BLM once again exposes its totalitarian essence. 


Also noted by the Dispatch:


“DSA stands with the Cuban people and their Revolution in this moment of unrest,” the International Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America tweeted earlier this week, also in defense of the Communist regime. “End the blockade.”


What about the crushing tyranny that actual individual living, breathing, thinking Cuban people have suffered under and are protesting against? Not relevant, according to collectivism, which holds that the group, rather than the individual, is the standard of moral, economic, and political concern. That’s the evil genius of collectivism—Totalitarian ideologues can spout off about “the people '' while ignoring the economic and political crimes committed against actual people.


Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Socialists of America have totalitarian ideological foundations. Their defense of Cuba’s government and “revolution” have concretized the practical consequences of those ideas. I give them credit for honesty and consistency, Other communist/socialist apologists, such as Democrat Senators Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, have tried to wriggle out of the fact that socialism is incompatible with individual rights, the only genuine form of liberty. Black Lives Matter and Democratic Socialists of America now sit in a rarefied group, honest socialists that includes people like Robert Heilbroner: They know liberty and socialism are antipodes, and they choose socialism anyway. They won’t let such considerations as liberty get in the way of their noble ideal. 


SUPPLEMENTAL, 7/22/21

It’s been said that Black Lives Matter is not seen by most people who express support for it for what it really is, a violent, totalitarian, racist movement. There’s certainly truth to that statement -- or at least was. Most supporters probably were innocently sincere in their belief that BLM actually was for justice for blacks, especially those victimized by police violence. But no supporters can now be granted a pass based on them being innocent dupes—not after BLM’s statement of support for the Cuban communist regime towards the Cuban protests. Here is an excerpt from a Reason article, In Their Own Words, This Is What It's Actually Like for Black and Brown People in Cuba, in which a disillusioned former BLM supporter awakens:

BLM in particular has been criticized by the right for having Marxist roots. While it is certainly not true that every person involved with or sympathetic to BLM is also a Marxist, the group's support of the communist regime in Cuba has cost it support from people who otherwise identify with the broader civil liberties goals of the movement.

"When they killed George Floyd I remember that all of [the Cubans] in Miami were accusing BLM of being Marxist, of being communist. And I defended them, bro. I would say, 'Look, it's more than that,'" the 25-year-old Cuban activist says in the voice recording. "And now I see that no, it's actually less than that. It's like they have this ideological starting point from which they see the world instead of standing alongside allies and people who are going through the same things they are."

"You feel alone," he adds. "You feel like…I don't know. It's a letdown. It's horrible, really."
All of you remaining BLM supporters, know this: You no longer have the luxury of ignorant innocence. If you support Black Lives Matter, you are supporting evil. Therefore, you are evil.


Related:


QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’


A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism


Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'


QUORA: ‘How does Black Lives Matter differ from the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s? Which is stronger?’


Exclusive: Cuban Activist Explains What’s Really Motivating the Cuban People’s Uprising by Brad Polumbo for FEE


No matter what media spin suggests, Marcell Felipe insists that the protests are a rejection of socialism and communism.


Thursday, February 18, 2021

Venezuela: From Stalin to Mussolini

The Foundation of Economic Education is reporting that Venezuela’s socialist government is retreating from its hard core criminal socialist policies. In  Bloomberg: Venezuela Turns to Privatization After Being Bankrupted by Socialism, FEE’s Jon Miltimore reports that “After much pain and suffering, Venezuelan socialist leaders have conceded they cannot effectively run an economy.”


According to Bloomberg News, Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro has quietly begun transferring state assets back into the hands of private owners in an effort to reverse the country's economic collapse.


“Saddled with hundreds of failed state companies in an economy barreling over a cliff, the Venezuelan government is abandoning socialist doctrine by offloading key enterprises to private investors, offering profit in exchange for a share of revenue or products,” write Caracas-based journalists Fabiola Zerpa and Nicolle Yapur.


The transfer, which was not announced publicly but was confirmed by “nine people with knowledge of the matter,” reportedly includes dozens of coffee processors, grain silos, and hotels that were confiscated as part of Venezuela's widespread nationalization that began under Chavez.


Maduro’s effort to quietly form private-public partnerships, a strategy that began in 2017, reveals the total failure of Venezuela’s command economy. Bloomberg points out, for example, that once-successful food processing plants have been “mostly idle” since being seized by the government, plants that could have been feeding a starving population.


This should lead to a modest economic improvement. But make no mistake. Venezuela's "privatization," a shift from total nationalization of private industries (theft) to public/private "partnerships," is NOT a shift from socialism to capitalism. It is a shift from one form of socialism to another. Venezuela is merely moving from communism to fascism. It's akin to replacing Stalin with Mussolini. As Miltimore correctly observes:


It seems that after much pain and suffering, even socialist leaders in Venezuela have conceded that they cannot run an economy with enough efficiency to avoid economic ruin. But while returning enterprises to private owners is a step in the right direction, it’s hardly accurate to call Maduro's strategy “capitalism.”


At best, Venezuela’s current economic system is a form of fascism, which Sheldon Richman once described as “socialism with a capitalist veneer.”


Related Reading:


QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?


Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter


The Great Reset = Red Fascism


Fascism: Back Door to Socialism that Obama and the Left Well Understand


We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism


A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...


Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini


The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Pope Francis, Capitalism’s Arch Enemy, Condemns Free Market Capitalism -- Again

Pope Francis is again condemning Capitalism. Brad Polumbo calls out the Pope on the absurdity of his criticisms in The Pope Just Called Private Property a ‘Secondary Right.’ He Couldn't Be More Wrong, published for The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)


I hate to be critical of a fellow champion of Capitalism. But I have to give this article two cheers. Why? Because the author gives the Pope the benefit of the doubt in claiming he doesn’t understand capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Francis thoroughly understands capitalism. 


The subtitle of Polumbo’s article is:


Pope Francis’s criticisms of free-market capitalism don’t mesh well with available facts, empirical evidence, or a basic understanding of how economics actually works.


Polumbo also states:


There’s no doubt that the Pope is a learned man in matters of religion, and he likely has the best of intentions in preaching his collectivist gospel. But his elementary arguments against free-market capitalism are incredibly weak.


Best of intentions? Let’s delve a little deeper into Polumbo’s article. First, Polumbo offers select quotes from Pope Francis. All italics are mine:


“The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom,” Francis wrote in part of a lengthy religious text. “To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves. Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home. Such care does not interest those economic powers that demand quick profits.”


“In today’s world, many forms of injustice persist, fed by… a profit-based economic model that does not hesitate to exploit, discard and even kill human beings,” Francis lamented.


The Pope decried the free-market “dogma of neo-liberal faith” that views “the magic theories of ‘spillover’ or ‘trickle’ ... as the only solution to societal problems.” He went on to write that “market freedom cannot supersede the rights of peoples and the dignity of the poor.”


Francis reiterated his belief that “if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.” He concluded that “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.



Polumbo understands the vital economic, social, and moral role of property rights. 


Pope Francis explicitly argues that property rights are only a “secondary natural right;” superseded by the needs and wants of others. Taken to its logical conclusion, arguing that property rights are second to the needs of others really means property rights aren’t valid at all, because human needs and scarcity of resources are permanent realities.


Right. Without property rights, “human needs and scarcity of resources are permanent realities.” Any Communist dictator proves this point in spades. Polumbo cites Thomas Sowell and Frederick Bastiat in identifying the social and economic benefits of property rights, but also gets to the moral root of those benefits:


Moreover, Francis is wrong philosophically to dismiss property rights as secondary. We would all agree that the right to life is paramount. But property rights are an extension of the right to life—because a man’s right to life necessarily depends on his livelihood.


“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation,” Ayn Rand once wrote. “Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.”


Can Pope Francis, the learned head of one of humanity's oldest institutions, really not know the available facts, empirical evidence, basic economics, or philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, or of the disastrous history of Capitalism’s antipode in practice, collectivism? I think not. And if not, can we credit Him with “the best of intentions?” I think not. 


Can Francis really be ignorant of the available facts, empirical evidence, basic economics, or philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, or of the disastrous history of Capitalism’s antipode in practice, collectivism? I think not. The Catholic Church, as an institution, has a vested interest in poverty. When the Church ruled for centuries, what we now call the Dark and Middle Ages, poverty reigned. It is only with the arrival of modern capitalism that general living standards exploded. Over the past 250 years, the Church had a front row seat to observe the rising prosperity, backed up by mountains of literature explaining the theoretical and empirical economic causes of the prosperity. How can any Pope deny these facts? Can the learned leader of an institution that has been around for 2000 years and has seen it all really be so ignorant of the reality of free market economics and the bloody record of collectivism? No. So why Francis’ trade against Capitalism? Easy. “The poor” is the Cathloic Church's base. Poverty and Church power are linked.


More fundamentally, poverty and Church morals are linked. If handouts to the poor trumps property rights, then the unearned trumps the earned. If poverty is the standard of morality, where does a social system that diminishes poverty based on individual self-determination leave the Catholic Church? Obsolete. The Church doesn’t care about people who work their way up from poverty. They only care about moving the wealth from those who do to those who don’t. The standard of Catholic moral teaching is self-sacrificial giving. If the ranks of those in need is shrinking, who’s left to give to? Poverty, not prosperity, is the Church’s moral standard. Given Capitalism’s record in practice, where does that leave the centuries of Church moral teaching about giving to the poor? 


Francis is the latest in a line of anti-Capitalist Catholic Popes. His demotion of property rights is not new. When Francis says “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.,” he is reiterating Pope Paul VI in his 1967 Encyclical Populorum Progressio who advanced the totalitarian principle that the “public authorities” must coercively ensure that “created goods should flow fairly to all,” emphasizing that  “All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle.” 


The Pope does not want to “help” the “underprivileged people.” He wants to preserve their misery and expand their ranks. Poverty is virtue, and the most virtuous act one can perform is to take a vow of poverty. That’s why the Church hates capitalism. That’s why Pope after Pope condemns Capitalism. We can explain how Capitalism works until we’re blue in the face. It doesn’t matter to the Church, and never has. Why? Because it’s not whether Capitalism works or how it works. The problem is that it works--works to facilitate man’s escape from poverty. And they’re smart. They attack capitalism at its root--profit-seeking, property rights, and the ethics of rational self-interest. 


Francis is not ignorant. He’s a Marxist (“the principle of the universal destination of created goods,” or, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need) and a communist (“[W]e need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home.”) and an altruist (“[I]f one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.”). Francis knows exactly what he is saying. And he means it. Francis and the Church are not misguided souls. They are Capitalism’s arch enemies as much as Communism is. This fact must be explicitly acknowledged by Capitalism’s champions. 


Related Reading:


Pope Francis’s Anti-Capitalism is No Misunderstanding


Catholic Social Doctrine is both Socialist and Statist


How the Catholic Church Paved the Way for the Birth Control Mandate


Pope Francis’s Embrace of Anti-Fossil Fuel Agenda Follows From Church’s Anti-Capitalism


The Illegitimacy of Pope Francis's “Legitimate Redistribution” of Wealth—Natalie Ogle for The Objective Standard


Pope Francis: Prosperity, Liberty, and Climate Change are the Common Enemy


Pope Francis’s ‘Authority’ Stems From The Church’s Authoritarian Self-Image


Climate Alarmism and the Catholic Church; Faith-Based Allies in the War on Prosperity


The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages: A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard