21st Century Monasteries and Edan

  Various institutions are releasing updated demographics numbers over the next few months and the initial reports are as expected; all of Asia is below replacement fertility, as is all of Europe, all of South America, North Africa, South Africa, and other areas are close. The global fertility rate has been dropping for 50 years and shows no signs of stopping within the next 25, especially since the fertility tempo (average age of the birth of a first child) is also increasing.
  The artificial gender imbalance caused by sex-selective abortion and ubiquitous ultrasounds means that the low fertility rates may be masking a more serious problem - sex ratios so skewed that the next generation will be much smaller than predicted. Areas of rural China have a 14 to 1 ratio of males to females in their young population (under 30 years old) and areas of India have an even higher imbalance, estimated to peak at almost 19 to 1. Overall these two nations alone have no less than 50 million men under the age of 30 who can never have a wife do to an artificial shortage of women.
  The impact has been horrific for women - human trafficking, ubiquitous sexual assault, and physical attacks.
  Meanwhile, the West continues to glorify hypergamy, fornication, and childlessness. Mass media dismisses the family and praises the ill and the dysfunctional. After creating an artificial 'teen culture' mass marketing continues their effort to sexualize all ages. Porn is prevalent to the point that actual art is being pushed out of public consciousness. And self-abuse so common that it is leading to mass impotence in the young.
  The apparent triumph of low, or 'pop'. culture, the dismissal of morals and ethics by those who shout from rooftops for money, the replacement of education with credentialism and the accompanying trend of people delaying marriage and children in pursuit of worthless credentials and the associated high debt will continue to drive down fertility well after demographic implosion begins to destroy the current economic system. After all, a system based upon the assumption of perpetual growth cannot survive contraction!
  And the weaknesses of Democracy are on full display as the various nation-states stagger toward the abyss.
  What can we do about this?
  Everything that matters.
  The core ideals and principles of Edan are focused not just on  the cardinal virtues but also on stability; Edan is meant to endure and thrive in the most difficult of times. How? It is structured like a family which, of course, reflects God's design. Rejecting the horrors of Communism and the dehumanizing effects of Capitalism; standing by the truth and rejecting relativism; maintaining and preserving high culture; reaching out to our neighbors in true charity. These are the things we can and will do.
  Some have called Catholic homeschoolers the monasteries of virtue of the current truly Dark Age. Edan will join them in preserving civic virtue in a world collapsing under the weight of evil.

Authentic Social Justice: the Core of Edan

  ">Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority"

Thus begins the catechism's section on Social Justice. What does it really mean? Well, when society allows justice to be done, you have social Justice - obviously. Social justice is part and parcel of both the common man and of leaders.
  Notice what it does not  say, however - it does not say that leaders or the common man must give justice to people or groups. It says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due. 
  In other words Social Justice is not the giving of things to people by government, it is the conditions of society that allow justice to be gained.

  The Catechism goes on to say,

"Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. "

  More briefly 'human rights are granted by God, not society, and the moral legitimacy of any worldly authority or society is based upon recognizing and supporting these rights'.  Or, 'any society or authority that denies the inherent, God-given rights of Man is not legitimate'.
  So governments, whatever their nature, must support the inherent rights of its people or it will have no legitimacy and and society that flaunts these rights is also illegitimate. This is key because it means that a core contention of Democracy, that legitimacy of society and authority is derived from the will of the people, i.e., the opinions of a majority of voters, is false. If 50.1% of voters support the murder of innocents that does not make the murder of innocents acceptable, it makes the society that supports such voters illegitimate.
  
  Later the catechism states,

"Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity."

Or 'the inherent rights of all men are the same'. The peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal; the stable boy has as much right to justice as the prince.

  It continues,

"On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The "talents" are not distributed equally...  ...These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures"

  More shortly, 'equality of inherent rights does not mean equality in all ways; people are tall and short, smart and dumb, skilled speakers and reticent, leaders and followers. These differences are part of God's plan and are good for all involved'. So while the peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal, the cardinal has gifts and authority the peasant does not. Likewise, while the stable boy has the same right to justice as the prince, the prince has duties and obligations the stable boy never will. And this is not just acceptable, it is good.

  The Catechism then warns us that,

">There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women...."

  In this the Catechism is speaking of when societies and leaders have or implement systems that impose sinful inequalities upon people. It continues with,

"...Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions."

  Remember how beginning of this piece we pointed out that,

"t says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due."

  This portion tells us that when society actively prevents people or groups from obtaining what is their due it is sinful.

  The Catechism concludes its section on Social Justice with,

" Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this."

  Or, 'love of neighbor and charity among and between people is the solution to social injustice'.

  So the central ideas of Social Justice are quite clear; be just and allow others to obtain justice; love your neighbor and be charitable.

  But are their guidelines for rulers and leaders as to the nuts and bolts of implementing this?

  The Catechism focuses heavily on Solidarity. Solidarity has two meanings; the earning of a livelihood through work and the friendship and social charity between all people in a society. At its heart Solidarity is the rejection of class as a dividing force between people. The poor are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the poor. The rich are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the rich. Emploers, workers, farmers, artisans, men, women, etc. - all are part of society. By rejecting class as a dividing factor it is also inherently a rejection of individualism as a defining element of humanity. While we are all individuals and have individual needs, etc. no one is ever alone and just as society is an outgrowth of the family no one in a society is capable of being truly apart from that society just as no man can ever not have a mother.
  Solidarity is also much more spiritual and emotional rather than material. The goal of Solidarity isn't wealth, the goal is justice. Granted, justice often leads to increased wealth....
  Yet Solidarity is not collectivist! As we read above, justice is about the individual person; individuals have God-given natural rights, not societies or governments. In the end Solidarity is an explicit rejection of such Liberal concepts such as Communism and Libertarianism - both collectivism and material individualism are rejected as false and, thus, unjust.

  Another key element of a just society is Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle that,

""a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

  Or as the OED states,

"The principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate, local level."

   More simply, 'as local and personal as possible'. There are many reasons for thus ranging from simple efficiency (how can a distant administrator have a clearer idea?) and moral (rights are individual, not collective, so avoid the collective). Again, this is a direct rejection of collectivism and individualism; the collective is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when the collective is the only answer.

  The next core element is Private Property. The Catechism tells us that,

"In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men."

  Or, 'men have a right to private property'. Indeed, private property is an element of dignity and freedom and part of Solidarity. But the Catechism also warns us,

"The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
  In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. "

  Another reminder that we are part of a family and that we owe all good to God and, thus, we owe solidarity to our neighbors. Note as well that yet again there is an explicit rejection of collectivism ('the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise') and individualism (' legitimate goods he... ... owns not... exclusive to himself but common to others...'). Indeed, we are morally obligated to make our property fruitful because fruitfulness helps others. If we are 'middlemen' then we must be as efficient as possible so that we do not waste what could be used charitably. The Catechism later states,

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good"

Tied with the obligation to respect the right to private property this means that governments have the right to regulate, say, workplace safety, waste disposal and pollution, etc. to ensure the common good. So while private property is a right, it is not an absolute right. Indeed,

"Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

  Note how this states that waste, excessive expense, and willfully damaging your own property is immoral.  Also, the inescapable conclusion is that to be moral we must reject not just collectivism and individualism but also Communism/Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism. Communism rejects the idea of private property, denying people freedom, security, and the option for their own justice. Socialism rejects subsidiarity and demands central planning, dehumanizing the person. Laissez-faire Capitalism rejects Solidarity and focuses on profits instead of people. The inherent collectivism of Communism and Socialism (which rejects individual rights and justice) is matched by the inherent individualism of Capitalism (which rejects legitimate authority and the common good. Thus, Edan embraces Distributism, which is no more than the consolidation of Catholic social justice.

  

  Here are the core ideas of Edan:

1) All citizens have a right to private property, a right to just compensation for their goods and services, and a right to enter into contracts, including employment contracts, of their own free will

2) Ownership of private property and work are both inherently good for the individual and for society. 'Work' includes physical, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual work.

3) The government has the authority to regulate private property and business for the common good.

4) Decisions should be made as far 'down' the hierarchy of authority as possible.

5) Co-operatives and guilds are preferred to unions and corporations. 

6) Government is for leadership, not charity.

The Enemy of my Enemy is Just a Stranger

Edan is dedicated to certain principles and opposed to certain concepts and activities, like any nation or movement. We stand for legitimate justice, responsible freedom, family, faith, and the tenets of Catholic Social Justice as described by the Church itself. We oppose moral relativity, secularism, the disruption of the family, corporatism, Socialism, Libertarianism, usury, and Anarchy. We are dedicated to using faith, reason and example to demonstrate to the world that Distributist practices lead to a more stable, more just, more sustainable society.

It is for these reasons that the King of Edan opposes the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Yes, there are superficial points of agreement between Distributism and the Occupy Wall Street protesters' complaints and goals (when they have made them); OWS appears to oppose usury and does oppose the debt-based system currently used in modern financial markets; OWS members complain about consumerism and the commoditization of certain elements of life; OWS wants to end the level of influence wealth can achieve in the political process; OWS wants to transform the current laissez-faire/Corporate/Crony Capitalism into something more just. On these and some other points OWS seems to agree with Edanian concepts and policy.

But these are only in the realm of complaints. The OWS movement seems to motivated by Socialist and Anarchist goals; Kalle Lasn of Adbusters, the motive force that began OWS, admitted that the reason that the OWS is happening now is that President Obama has not been Socialist enough to satisfy the young voters that won him the election. Many of the local protests, particularly in Los Angeles and Portland are openly controlled by Communist organizations who use pressure tactics and outright violence to control the camps and dialogue. Other camps are controlled by Anarchists and/or well-armed 'security forces' that, again, use fear and violence to control the protests and the speakers.

The '99% Declaration' document does hold many things that are obviously meritorious; the end of cash lobbying, elimination of the concept of corporations as people, etc. But it also demands such things are increased federal involvement in jobs and business (replacing corporations with bureaucracies), the rather utopian desire to end all wars, and (inexplicably for a document that is supposed to be about economics) a demand that gay “marriage” be made available.

Behind the scenes the OWS movement is having many internal problems that the King finds problematic; violence and sexual assault are common and the assaulted are pressured to remain silent; millions of dollars have been donated frequently from groups that are contrary to Catholic, Distributist, and Edanian ethics, and that money has been placed into the very banks they are protesting and are controlled by a small group of protesters. Violence and threats against outsiders is commonplace, as is vandalism and general lawlessness.

Some within the Distributists groups have embraced the OWS protests as an inherently good thing, seemingly under the concept of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'. In reality, though, the enemy of my enemy is just a stranger. The Socialist/Anarchist/Direct Democracy members of OWS that clamor for more government involvement in wages, employment, immigration, medicine, and family law are not allies to Distributism nor are they friendly to the morals and ethics that undergird Distributism.

Are Corporations People, or Not?

   Stephen Bainbridge is a Professor of Corporate Law and a relatively popular law blogger. In a recent blog post he made the statement that
“The social obligation of business is to sustainably maximize long-term profits for shareholders. Nothing more. Nothing less.”
This is a fascinating statement, especially in light of what Mr. Bainbridge writes elsewhere in his blog. In articles like this he states, quite vehemently, that 'corporations, under the law, persons'; this is because under American law corporations, LLCs, etc. are, in fact, persons just like you and me. Corporations can enter into contracts, be sued in civil court, etc. But they also have the right to free speech of the First Amendment and have been able to use the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to avoid governmental regulation of businesses (since, after all, they are no different than you or I, under the law). Indeed, there are those who point out the Fourteenth Amendment is used much more often to shield corporations from regulation than to protect actual people from discrimination.
Of course, the legal fiction that sorporations are persons is just that – fiction. Corporations are intended to shield their owners from legal and financial risk – this concept is why Mr. bainbridge can feel comfortable saying some variation of 'the only purpose of a corporation is to make money'. Yet a corporation is no longer a pile of money under certain protections, it is (in the eyes of the courts) a person; a corporation has the 'right' to free speech, assembly, political speech and donations, and equal protection as any other citizen.
But corporations are not the equal of actual citizens, are they? Being effectively immortal, they do not face the estate tax and are not required to plan for their death. In many areas they have different taxes (typically lower) than actual people who make the same amount of money. As a matter of fact, 'business friendly' states, counties, and towns often are called 'business friendly' because they offer lower taxes, even no taxes, on corporations and on the property owned by corporations. Why? Because these regions expect to have a net gain in revenue from the (never lowered) taxes they will extract from the wages and property of the real people who work for the legal person they have favored.
In the end, corporations are legal persons of privilege – they are favored by the law and government over real people and enjoy legal protection of their elite status.
And now we are back to Mr. Bainbridge's quote, the heartfelt belief of Libertarians that corporations have no social responsibilities. This is just an extension of the elite status of corporations. After all, only the most extremem of Objectivists would claim that a real person has absolutely no obligations of social responsibility. It appears that to Mr. Bainbridge the concept of social contract ends where business contracts begin.

Democracy vs. Monarchy from a Different Viewpoint

Lew Rockwell is an Anarcho-Capitalist. Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe is an Austrian School economist. Both are hard line advocates of the most extreme forms of laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

However, in an interview from 2008 Hoppe advocates Monarchy over Democracy and makes a number of points concerning the negative effects of Democracies over the past few centuries. A podcast of the interview can be found here, a transcript here.

Dr. Hoppe covers this topic more fully in his book Democracy: The God that Failed, which can be purchased here.

Recommened Reading on Economics and Catholicism.

The Ministry of Information highly recommends the discussion of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI's most recent encyclical found here.

Royal Address on the Global Economic Crisis

To the Citizens and Nobles of Edan and the Peoples of all the World, Greetings.

We are aware that the current economic shock is affecting many people, even most people, all over the world in a negative way; many people have lost employment, have lost homes, face a future of decreased actual income and increased prices, and face a lack of credit.

This last element of the crisis, a ‘lack of credit’, actually tells us all a great deal about the origins of the current crisis. For many decades legions of economists, scholars, and political leaders of the secular world have insisted that there are only two ways to approach the economy – Communism/Socialism on the one hand, and laissez faire Capitalism on the other.

This is a false dichotomy born of Modernism/Naturalism. In reality, both sides of this equation share a common element in that each system treats human beings as means to ends; Communism/Socialism treats people as a means to labor, Capitalism treats people as a means to profit. This failure to recognize people as ends in themselves fatally undermines each outlook. The inevitable result is that these economic theories’ conflict with reality leads to economic disruptions. In the face of these disruptions, leaders who embrace these theories try to alleviate the stress.

But the champions of the false dichotomy have been so successful in the academies and parliaments of the world that as each system fails (as they must) the response is either to meld the two or to declare that ‘proper Communism/Capitalism has not yet been tried, so we must become more extreme in our devotion to an ideal Communism/Capitalism’.

The long term effects of melding the two systems are to diminish what strengths they each have apart and to magnify their separate weaknesses. The short terms effects of extremist positions are the sacrifice of human dignity and even life upon the altar of a false ideal of economics. For example, adding some elements of Capitalism to a primarily Communist system does provide an immediate, albeit minor, increase in personal autonomy to the citizens of the state in question. However, the long term effect is to increase the economic system’s need for growth, resulting in greater disruptions eventually limiting the choices available to people within the system as effectively as Communist controls. Similarly, adding Communist-style centralized controls to a Capitalist system creates some immediate relief from the never-ending demand for accelerating growth, but at the expense of the autonomy that makes choices available for individuals, meaning the next, unavoidable, economic disruption will be more severe because people have fewer and fewer means of preparing for and reacting to economic issues.

Thus we return to the current ongoing collapse of the global markets. On one economic pole of this global economy is the United States, a nominally Capitalist country that has embraced Socialist practices for decades. The other pole is China, a nominally Communist nation that has embraced Capitalist practices for decades. The other nations of the world, broadly speaking, fall somewhere between these two economic powerhouses. In every nation the results are the same, if differing slightly in emphasis; the economy is predicated upon the Capitalistic basis of perpetual growth and guided with the Communist goal of replacing personal responsibility with a form of collective will. a will defined and enforced by the state, leading to limited personal autonomy.

The United States suffers more from a requirement of perpetual growth and China more from a decline in individual autonomy, but each is facing the same barrier – the failure of their theories in the face of reality. The reaction of political and academic leaders has reflected the habit of Modernism to reject reality in favor of theory. Thus the United States is attempting to force growth by expending vast sums in what seems to be an attempt to, as one American leader phrased it, ‘spend their way out of bankruptcy’. China is currently waiting to see how the United States’ gambit works, but are almost certainly prepared to further limit their people in an attempt to, again, force growth by giving even more power to the people that created the current crisis.

This growth simply cannot happen for one simple reason – fewer people. Modernism’s embrace of the idea of people as means rather than ends has so devalued human life that Modernists stopped having children in normal quantity generations ago. Now there are fewer people of working age than of retirement age, a trend that will continue for decades. In the face of a reduced demand for everything from houses to hats the economy cannot do what Capitalism demands it do – grow. Communism’s control of people is so inefficient and onerous that it tends to delay the collapse, but exacerbate it when it does finally arrive. In the end, the Modernism that accompanies both Capitalism and Communism/Socialism dooms both.

But, what then are we left to do? If we have rejected Communism/Socialism and Capitalism, what is left?

The answer is Distributism. Distributism is based upon Catholic social teaching, a cornerstone of which is the idea that people are always ends in and of themselves. The core ideas of Distributism are quite simple;

1. All men have a right to private property, to just compensation for their goods and labor, and to
enter into business agreements – including employment – of their own free will.

2. Private ownership of property and work are good both for the individual and society as a whole. Work can be physical, artistic, or intellectual.

3. That responsibility and decision-making should be ‘pushed down’ as close to the individual as possible; a national government is less efficient at and less capable of making good decisions than the regional government, the region less so than the municipality, etc. down to the family itself.

4. Private organizations are better at getting things done than governments or their agencies; smaller groups are generally better than larger; individuals and families over all are the best.

5. The more local, the better.

6. All families should be as self-sufficient as possible.

7. Coops and Guilds are preferred over corporations and unions. This also means credit unions are to be preferred over banks.

8. When engaged in business-to-business ventures, avoid middle-men and deal as directly as possible with the end client/end user.

9. Government welfare programs are to be eliminated whenever possible, reduced or avoided otherwise.

10. There is no utopia, and there never will be.

As is plainly evident, these economic principles require neither perpetual growth nor strong central control. But the greatest difference between Distributism and either Communism/Socialism and Capitalism is that its focus is not upon product (be it labor, goods, or profit), but on people. This acceptance of reality, this acknowledgment that ‘economics’ is really just people living their lives, is why Distributism is the answer to the current economic crises; because the crises isn’t truly about economics, but actually about how we think of and treat people.

Since Distributism was first described various people and groups have called it a ‘Third Way’ of economics. The Catholic Church has continually denied that it is, indeed, the third way. We believe that this is for one simple reason.

It is the only way.


Given by our hand this 24th day of July in the year 2009 Anno Domini

Ricardus Rex Edani