I was not aware that Judaism had ever produced the social results you are advocating. Christianity did—back when it was practiced by those who called themselves "Christians." The Jewish community, I think, was very impressed with the early Christian community's measure of caring for one another. This "favor" that the church enjoyed from their Jewish neighbors seems to have been a significant factor in the rapid growth of the Jerusalem church (Acts 2:45-47). Today, the Mormons are well-known for having these social circumstances among themselves—not because Mormonism is true, but because, in this respect, they have adopted the Christian ethic.If you think I have no alternate mechanism for transforming people's hearts, then you underestimate Judaism (as you probably do).
I was not aware that there have been centuries of "Christian results" from which to draw any conclusions. In my limited knowledge of history, I am not aware of even one century in which most people (including most who call themselves "Christians") have followed Christ's teachings. Therefore, as someone cleverer than me once quipped, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and not tried."But centuries of "Christian results" speak well enough for themselves.
When someone asked you how you define the needs of the poor, you said that they have always been the same—food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education. Without diminishing the validity of these needs, I would place (further back in the consideration) two other assets: the need for 1) character and 2) social (preferably family) connections.As for government policy - "establishing a healthy economic environment" involves legislation that mandates certain business practices: e.g., profit-sharing; employee participation in corporate governance; minimum compensation tied to the Consumer Price Index.
1. Good character would include a good work ethic, which would be loathe to take charity without having done everything possible to earn one's way, as well as contentment with adequate provisions (which includes a lack of covetousness of what others have acquired).
2. Social connections provide a safety net for those who, despite their very best intentions and diligent efforts, are unable to work and support themselves. If someone has good character, all other things being equal, this will enhance his social connections. When people of good character are connected socially (preferably as family members, or members of a voluntary association, like a religion), their voluntary working and sharing together will generally preclude any one of them dying of starvation or exposure. Given such connections, even in a dire economic environment, those who gather much will have no extra, while those who gather little will generally have no lack.
As for healthcare, well, no one, including the government can guarantee anyone that he or she will be healthy. All health care availability is relative and limited to 1) the existence of remedies for a range of medical emergencies, and 2) the quantity of medicines and health workers available in proportion to the number of sick people. No government, no family, no amount of money, can guarantee that people will not get sick and die. We must content ourselves with such medical interventions as we may obtain without violating the rights of others, and then entrust ourselves to the hands of God.
I think that, historically, when governments have not oppressed their citizens, what the poor of society lacked was either character or social connections—or both. Where these things are present, adequate food, clothing and shelter, I think, will generally not be lacking (obviously, such unusual conditions as famines would be unavoidable exceptions).
When considering alternative governmental economic systems, I think that the one most beneficial to the poor will be that which encourages good character and real social relationships.
Many say that socialistic systems are a detriment to the nurturing of these phenomena, in that socialism does not encourage a non-covetous work ethic among the poor recipients of government welfare, and it does not encourage family and friends to voluntarily assist their poor, since it is assumed that some bureaucracy has assumed that responsibility.
I have no personal experience living under a thoroughly socialistic system, so I can not testify to these intuitions. However, they seem credible to me as I contemplate them. I believe that, to the degree that socialistic schemes of redistribution have been increasingly adopted here in America, I have seen (in my small circle of observation) confirmation of these concerns.
What is your transcendental source of an ethic that regards these specific policies as essential to "fairness" or "healthiness" in an economic system? I have been poor most of my life. Like most people, I am quite sensitive to being treated "unjustly." I worked at minimum-wage jobs for twelve years—most of them after the birth of my first child. However, even when we were dirt poor, it never occurred to me that my employers owed me a share of the company profits beyond the wage at which I had agreed to work, nor that I had any rightful claim to the making of decisions for a company that I neither founded nor owned. As for minimum compensation, I was willing to work for what they offered. If I and other employees were not willing to work for what they offered, the company would have had to offer more to induce our participation. If I was not content with the wage, but other employees were content with it, I had the option of finding an employer who would treat me better—or else to be self-employed.legislation that mandates certain business practices: e.g., profit-sharing; employee participation in corporate governance; minimum compensation tied to the Consumer Price Index.
Justice has to do with upholding the "rights" of other people—not their desires, nor even their needs. I have no intrinsic right to the fruits of another man's labor, nor has he the right to mine—though I am at liberty to sacrifice what is mine by right in order to assist another. My assistance to the poor, meeting their needs, is not a matter of justice, on my part, but of mercy.
As a Christian, I am committed to both justice and to mercy. However, justice is an objective value, which must be upheld by every government. Mercy cannot be dictated by law. It is not objective, but subjective, personal and voluntary. If the government takes my money forcibly and gives it to a poor person, no one in this picture is being merciful. Bureaucrats are giving away the fruits of another man's (not their own) labor, and I am not acting through mercy but coercion.
You seem to think that the workplace policies you listed are somehow linked to the rights of the workers. Apart from subjective sentiments, is there some transcendent ethic, which we ought all to recognize, from which you derive this list?
Well, if no one's property is being confiscated, and the government is only saying that employers must be fair, then I can find no objection to what you are proposing. But that is only because all people ought to be required to be fair (by which I mean "just") in all their dealings with others. The areas of disagreement, no doubt, lie in the realm of what does "justice" or "fairness" involve. If fairness means "justice," we will get on fine together in this discussion. However, if you are using the word "fairness" to mean "equal standards of living for all, regardless of the value of their labor," then I am going to have to hold out for a more rational defense of such a definition than I have seen presented.Perhaps you might consider this tantamount to "taking monies from one person and giving it to another." But it is somewhat different. Nobody is being forced to give their money to any other person; but if somebody chooses to hire persons and use the skills and labor of those persons, then that somebody is being required to do so in accordance with paradigms that (hopefully) safeguard fairness. Zero taxation involved; entirely a matter of regulation.
