Pope Francis Delivers A Remarkable Speech

Address by His Holiness Pope Francis to the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg on Novemeber 25, 2014

BREAKING! In an unbelievable speech to the European Union parliament, Pope Francis channelled the pontificates of Pope Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, obliterating the "dictatorship of relativism" that has brought Europe to social emptiness and political despair. He called upon Europe to re-embrace its Christian history and culture, citing that far from being a threat to secular institutions, Christianity offers values and morals that enrich them. He called for a fusion of solidarity with SUBSIDIARITY, that respects the cultural diversity of Europe and the local governance of peoples. He decried abortion, and the throwaway culture, which leaves the unborn, aged and infirm to die alone. He assailed rampant materialism, corporatism and consumerism, that has left half of the world to starvation while the other half throws away uneaten food. He called for greater stewardship of the ecology and new innovations to better conserve the world's energy. He compared and contrasted the individual with hyper-individualism, wherein man should be free to do what is right, not free to do "whatever he wants." He focused on the nuclear family as the building block of civilisation and called upon governments to protect and promote the family. Most of all, he called upon Europe to return to God and its Christian roots. In what is quite possibly the most significant speech of the 21st cetury (so far) the pope outlined principles that, if embraced, could guide Europe into a new renaissance of greatness, but if rejected, will leave Europe in social ruin, and the European Union on the ash heap of history. This was truly a HISTORIC speech, and it received several applause concluding with a standing ovation. PLEASE WATCH & SHARE!!!!

Transcript below (emphasis mine and commentary mine)...

(Vatican Radio) The full text of the address delivered by Pope Francis to members of the European Parliament, Strasbourg, France, on Tuesday November 25, 2014.
Mr President and Vice Presidents,
Members of the European Parliament,
All associated with the work of this Institution,
Dear Friends,
            I thank you for inviting me to address this institution which is fundamental to the life of the European Union, and for giving me this opportunity to speak, through you, to the more than five-hundred million citizens whom you represent in the twenty-eight Member States.  I am especially grateful to you, Mr President, for your warm words of welcome in the name of the entire assembly.
            My visit comes more than a quarter of a century after that of Pope John Paul II.  Since then, much has changed throughout Europe and the world as a whole.  The opposing blocs which then divided the continent in two no longer exist, and gradually the hope is being realized that “Europe, endowed with sovereign and free institutions, will one day reach the full dimensions that geography, and even more, history have given it”.
            As the European Union has expanded, the world itself has become more complex and ever changing; increasingly interconnected and global, it has, as a consequence, become less and less “Eurocentric”.  Despite a larger and stronger Union, Europe seems to give the impression of being somewhat elderly and haggard, feeling less and less a protagonist in a world which frequently regards it with aloofness, mistrust and even, at times, suspicion. (No kidding. The EU is a tyranny! Christianity, particularly the moral institutes of the Christian faith, are under attack by the EU. Countries are being forced to provide abortion and same-sex marriage.)
            In addressing you today, I would like, as a pastor, to offer a message of hope and encouragement to all the citizens of Europe.
            It is a message of hope, based on the confidence that our problems can become powerful forces for unity in working to overcome all those fears which Europe – together with the entire world – is presently experiencing.  It is a message of hope in the Lord, who turns evil into good and death into life.
            It is a message of encouragement to return to the firm conviction of the founders of the European Union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent.  At the heart of this ambitious political project was confidence in man, not so much as a citizen or an economic agent, but in man, in men and women as persons endowed with transcendent dignity.      
            I feel bound to stress the close bond between these two words: “dignity” and “transcendent”.
            “Dignity” was the pivotal concept in the process of rebuilding which followed the Second World War.  Our recent past has been marked by the concern to protect human dignity, in contrast to the manifold instances of violence and discrimination which, even in Europe, took place in the course of the centuries.  Recognition of the importance of human rights came about as the result of a lengthy process, entailing much suffering and sacrifice, which helped shape an awareness of the unique worth of each individual human person.  This awareness was grounded not only in historical events, but above all in European thought, characterized as it is by an enriching encounter whose “distant springs are many, coming from Greece and Rome, from Celtic, Germanic and Slavic sources, and from Christianity which profoundly shaped them”, thus forging the very concept of the “person”.
            Today, the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the European Union to advance the dignity of the person, both within the Union and in its relations with other countries.  This is an important and praiseworthy commitment, since there are still too many situations in which human beings are treated as objects whose conception, configuration and utility can be programmed, and who can then be discarded when no longer useful, due to weakness, illness or old age.
            In the end, what kind of dignity is there without the possibility of freely expressing one’s thought or professing one’s religious faith? (This is huge. The pope is really laying into them. Religious liberty of Christians is threatened not only in Europe but in North America too. This must stop.)  What dignity can there be without a clear juridical framework which limits the rule of force and enables the rule of law to prevail over the power of tyranny?  What dignity can men and women ever enjoy if they are subjected to all types of discrimination?  What dignity can a person ever hope to find when he or she lacks food and the bare essentials for survival and, worse yet, when they lack the work which confers dignity?
            Promoting the dignity of the person means recognizing that he or she possesses inalienable rights which no one may take away arbitrarily, much less for the sake of economic interests. (Read religion here. The pope is telling them that people MUST be allowed to practice their religion both in public life as well as private.)
            At the same time, however, care must be taken not to fall into certain errors which can arise from a misunderstanding of the concept of human rights and from its misuse.  Today there is a tendency to claim ever broader individual rights; underlying this is a conception of the human person as detached from all social and anthropological contexts, as if the person were a “monad” (μονάς), increasingly unconcerned with other surrounding “monads”.  The equally essential and complementary concept of duty no longer seems to be linked to such a concept of rights.  As a result, the rights of the individual are upheld, without regard for the fact that each human being is part of a social context wherein his or her rights and duties are bound up with those of others and with the common good of society itself. (This hints toward such ideas as gay "marriage" and an absolute right to property. The Holy Father seems to be telling us here that a person's "rights" are not absolute. We do not have a "right" to sin in such a way that harms society as a whole.)
            I believe, therefore, that it is vital to develop a culture of human rights which wisely links the individual, or better, the personal aspect, to that of the common good, of the “all of us” made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society.  In fact, unless the rights of each individual are harmoniously ordered to the greater good, those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence. (The Holy Father is sounding very distributist here.) 
            To speak of transcendent human dignity thus means appealing to human nature, to our innate capacity to distinguish good from evil, to that “compass” deep within our hearts, which God has impressed upon all creation.  Above all, it means regarding human beings not as absolutes, but as beings in relation.  In my view, one of the most common diseases in Europe today is the loneliness typical of those who have no connection with others.  This is especially true of the elderly, who are often abandoned to their fate, and also in the young who lack clear points of reference and opportunities for the future.  It is also seen in the many poor who dwell in our cities and in the disorientation of immigrants who came here seeking a better future.
            This loneliness has become more acute as a result of the economic crisis, whose effects continue to have tragic consequences for the life of society.  In recent years, as the European Union has expanded, there has been growing mistrust on the part of citizens towards institutions considered to be aloof, engaged in laying down rules perceived as insensitive to individual peoples, if not downright harmful. (Again, the EU has become a tyranny.)  In many quarters we encounter a general impression of weariness and ageing, of a Europe which is now a “grandmother”, no longer fertile and vibrant.  As a result, the great ideas which once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions. (Without acknowledging the true transcendent God, the EU becomes a "god" unto itself, and it tends to act that way as well, in true tyrannical fashion.) 
            Together with this, we encounter certain rather selfish lifestyles, marked by an opulence which is no longer sustainable and frequently indifferent to the world around us (He's talking about the 1% here and the corporate elite who are "too big to fail" and manipulate governments.), and especially to the poorest of the poor.  To our dismay we see technical and economic questions dominating political debate, to the detriment of genuine concern for human beings.  Men and women risk being reduced to mere cogs in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited, with the result that – as is so tragically apparent – whenever a human life no longer proves useful for that machine, it is discarded with few qualms, (Wow! This is very reminiscent of Saint John Paul II. Centesimus Annus, 15) as in the case of the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and uncared for, and children who are killed in the womb. (Slam dunk! This is a complete condemnation of the contraception mentality which leads to the murder of the unborn. It is the sacrament of the dictatorship of relativism.)
            This is the great mistake made “when technology is allowed to take over”; the result is a confusion between ends and means”.  It is the inevitable consequence of a “throwaway culture” and an uncontrolled consumerism. (THUD! It's so politically incorrect to say such things, but also so true.) Upholding the dignity of the person means instead acknowledging the value of human life, which is freely given us and hence cannot be an object of trade or commerce.  As members of this Parliament, you are called to a great mission which may at times seem an impossible one: to tend to the needs of individuals and peoples.  To tend to those in need takes strength and tenderness, effort and generosity in the midst of a functionalistic and privatized mindset which inexorably leads to a “throwaway culture”.  To care for individuals and peoples in need means protecting memory and hope; it means taking responsibility for the present with its situations of utter marginalization and anguish, and being capable of bestowing dignity upon it.            
           How, then, can hope in the future be restored, so that, beginning with the younger generation, there can be a rediscovery of that confidence needed to pursue the great ideal of a united and peaceful Europe, a Europe which is creative and resourceful, respectful of rights and conscious of its duties?
            To answer this question, allow me to use an image.  One of the most celebrated frescoes of Raphael is found in the Vatican and depicts the so-called “School of Athens”.  Plato and Aristotle are in the centre.  Plato’s finger is pointed upward, to the world of ideas, to the sky, to heaven as we might say.  Aristotle holds his hand out before him, towards the viewer, towards the world, concrete reality.  This strikes me as a very apt image of Europe and her history, made up of the constant interplay between heaven and earth, where the sky suggests that openness to the transcendent – to God – which has always distinguished the peoples of Europe, while the earth represents Europe’s practical and concrete ability to confront situations and problems.
            The future of Europe depends on the recovery of the vital connection between these two elements.  A Europe which is no longer open to the transcendent dimension of life is a Europe which risks slowly losing its own soul and that “humanistic spirit” which it still loves and defends. (SLAM! Europe must return to her Christian roots if she wishes to survive.)
            Taking as a starting point this opening to the transcendent, I would like to reaffirm the centrality of the human person, which otherwise is at the mercy of the whims and the powers of the moment.  I consider to be fundamental not only the legacy that Christianity has offered in the past (Remember who you are Europe. Remember your history. It is your identity.) to the social and cultural formation of the continent, but above all the contribution which it desires to offer today, and in the future, to Europe’s growth.  This contribution does not represent a threat to the secularity of states or to the independence of the institutions of the European Union, but rather an enrichment. (Christianity is your friend Europe!  Not your enemy. It is the key to your future. It won't hurt your secular governments. It can only compliment them, and make them better.)  This is clear from the ideals which shaped Europe from the beginning, such as peace, subsidiarity and reciprocal solidarity (The two must balance one another.), and a humanism centred on respect for the dignity of the human person.
            I wish, then, to reiterate the readiness of the Holy See and the Catholic Church, through the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe (COMECE), to engage in meaningful, open and transparent dialogue with the institutions of the European Union. (I'm right here guys. I want to help, and so do the bishops of the Church. Our spiritual and moral council is at your disposal. We've been here all along. Why don't you just call us sometime?)  I am likewise convinced that a Europe which is capable of appreciating its religious roots and of grasping their fruitfulness and potential, will be all the more immune to the many forms of extremism spreading in the world today (POW! The reason why Europe has suffered so much in the last century, enduring two world wars, communism, and various tyrannies, is because she has forgotten her Christian roots. She has forgotten WHO she is.), not least as a result of the great vacuum of ideals which we are currently witnessing in the West, since “it is precisely man’s forgetfulness of God, and his failure to give him glory, which gives rise to violence”.
            Here I cannot fail to recall the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities, and Christians in particular, in various parts of our world.  Communities and individuals today find themselves subjected to barbaric acts of violence: they are evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many. (Ouch! Europe was silent for too long while Christians were slaughtered in the Middle East recently. Some nations in Europe even played and active role, providing funding and political support to their persecutors.)
            The motto of the European Union is United in Diversity.  Unity, however, does not mean uniformity of political, economic and cultural life, or ways of thinking. (G.K. Chesterton said the same thing about America after the Civil War. The EU is imposing a similar kind of uniformity on Europe.)  Indeed, all authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up: in this sense it is like a family, which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself.  I consider Europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of the institutions of the Union when these latter are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people, cherishing particular traditions, acknowledging its past history and its roots, liberated from so many manipulations and phobias.  Affirming the centrality of the human person means, above all, allowing all to express freely their individuality and their creativity, both as individuals and as peoples.
            At the same time, the specific features of each one represent an authentic richness to the degree that they are placed at the service of all.  The proper configuration of the European Union must always be respected, based as it is on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity (There it is again, solidarity and subsidiarity together. You can't have one without the other.), so that mutual assistance can prevail and progress can be made on the basis of mutual trust.
            Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament, within this dynamic of unity and particularity, yours is the responsibility of keeping democracy alive for the peoples of Europe.  It is no secret that a conception of unity seen as uniformity strikes at the vitality of the democratic system, weakening the rich, fruitful and constructive interplay of organizations and political parties.  This leads to the risk of living in a world of ideas, of mere words, of images, of sophistry… and to end up confusing the reality of democracy with a new political nominalism.  Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality: namely, angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism (A phrase straight from Benedict XVI), brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.
            Keeping democracies alive is a challenge in the present historic moment.  The true strength of our democracies – understood as expressions of the political will of the people – must not be allowed to collapse under the pressure of multinational interests which are not universal, (Yes, democracies can die, and they are already dying, thanks to the intervention of international corporations that control and manipulate them.) which weaken them and turn them into uniform systems of economic power at the service of unseen empires.  This is one of the challenges which history sets before you today.
            To give Europe hope means more than simply acknowledging the centrality of the human person; it also implies nurturing the gifts of each man and woman.  It means investing in individuals and in those settings in which their talents are shaped and flourish.  The first area surely is that of education, beginning with the family, the fundamental cell and most precious element of any society.  The family, united, fruitful and indissoluble, possesses the elements fundamental for fostering hope in the future.  Without this solid basis, the future ends up being built on sand, with dire social consequences. (The family is under attack in Europe as it is in America. Marriage and children are no longer valued, and this is clearly evidenced in the priorities of government, particularly the EU.)  Then too, stressing the importance of the family not only helps to give direction and hope to new generations, but also to many of our elderly, who are often forced to live alone and are effectively abandoned because there is no longer the warmth of a family hearth able to accompany and support them. (The family alleviates great suffering in society. Failure to support the family, results only in increased suffering. However, supporting the family results in less suffering. Capish?)
            Alongside the family, there are the various educational institutes: schools and universities. Education cannot be limited to providing technical expertise alone.  Rather, it should encourage the more complex process of assisting the human person to grow in his or her totality.  Young people today are asking for a suitable and complete education which can enable them to look to the future with hope instead of disenchantment.  There is so much creative potential in Europe in the various fields of scientific research, some of which have yet to be fully explored.  We need only think, for example, of alternative sources of energy, the development of which will assist in the protection of the environment.
            Europe has always been in the vanguard of efforts to promote ecology.  Our earth needs constant concern and attention.  Each of us has a personal responsibility to care for creation, this precious gift which God has entrusted to us.  This means, on the one hand, that nature is at our disposal, to enjoy and use properly.  Yet it also means that we are not its masters.  Stewards, but not masters. (This is a very Christian principle that some believers have forgotten. Pope Benedict XVI was very adamant about this.)  We need to love and respect nature, but “instead we are often guided by the pride of dominating, possessing, manipulating, exploiting; we do not ‘preserve’ the earth, we do not respect it, we do not consider it as a freely-given gift to look after”.  Respect for the environment, however, means more than not destroying it; it also means using it for good purposes.  I am thinking above all of the agricultural sector, which provides sustenance and nourishment to our human family.  It is intolerable that millions of people around the world are dying of hunger while tons of food are discarded each day from our tables.  Respect for nature also calls for recognizing that man himself is a fundamental part of it. (Again, back to Benedict XVI. Environmental protection must be man centred. We can never preserve the environment at the expense of the poor.)  Along with an environmental ecology, there is also need of that human ecology which consists in respect for the person, which I have wanted to emphasize in addressing you today.
            The second area in which people’s talents flourish is labour.  The time has come to promote policies which create employment, but above all there is a need to restore dignity to labour by ensuring proper working conditions.  This implies, on the one hand, finding new ways of joining market flexibility with the need for stability and security on the part of workers; these are indispensable for their human development.  It also implies favouring a suitable social context geared not to the exploitation of persons, but to ensuring, precisely through labour, their ability to create a family and educate their children. (THUD! If the jobs we create cannot support a family, what are we doing?)
            Likewise, there needs to be a united response to the question of migration.  We cannot allow the Mediterranean to become a vast cemetery!  The boats landing daily on the shores of Europe are filled with men and women who need acceptance and assistance.  The absence of mutual support within the European Union runs the risk of encouraging particularistic solutions to the problem, solutions which fail to take into account the human dignity of immigrants, and thus contribute to slave labour and continuing social tensions. (American Christians need to remember this too. There are forces both in Europe and in America that enjoy the cheap exploited labour of illegal immigrants. Only by giving these people rights can we stop the exploitation and raise wages across the board.)  Europe will be able to confront the problems associated with immigration only if it is capable of clearly asserting its own cultural identity (which is Christian by the way) and enacting adequate legislation to protect the rights of European citizens and to ensure the acceptance of immigrants.  Only if it is capable of adopting fair, courageous and realistic policies which can assist the countries of origin in their own social and political development and in their efforts to resolve internal conflicts – the principal cause of this phenomenon – rather than adopting policies motivated by self-interest, which increase and feed such conflicts.  We need to take action against the causes and not only the effects.
Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
            Awareness of one’s own identity is also necessary for entering into a positive dialogue with the States which have asked to become part of the Union in the future. (Hello... Europe... You are Christian... remember?)  I am thinking especially of those in the Balkans, for which membership in the European Union could be a response to the desire for peace in a region which has suffered greatly from past conflicts.  Awareness of one’s own identity is also indispensable for relations with other neighbouring countries, particularly with those bordering the Mediterranean, many of which suffer from internal conflicts, the pressure of religious fundamentalism and the reality of global terrorism. (Hello... Europe... You cannot deal with Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, if you don't even know who you are.)
Upon you, as legislators, it is incumbent to protect and nurture Europe’s identity, (Yes, government leaders, the buck stops with you!) so that its citizens can experience renewed confidence in the institutions of the Union and in its underlying project of peace and friendship.  Knowing that “the more the power of men and women increases, the greater is individual and collective responsibility”, I encourage you to work to make Europe rediscover the best of itself. (In short, democracy, secularism and civil liberty are institutes incompatible with a society that is devoid of Christian morality. Get a clue folks!)
            An anonymous second-century author wrote that “Christians are to the world what the soul is to the body”.  (Christianity is your soul Europe! By purging yourself of religion, you have made yourselves soulless. It's no wonder the youth no longer trust you.)  The function of the soul is to support the body, to be its conscience and its historical memory.  A two-thousand-year-old history links Europe and Christianity.  It is a history not free of conflicts and errors, but one constantly driven by the desire to work for the good of all.  We see this in the beauty of our cities, and even more in the beauty of the many works of charity and constructive cooperation throughout this continent.  This history, in large part, must still be written.  It is our present and our future.  It is our identity.  Europe urgently needs to recover its true features in order to grow, as its founders intended, in peace and harmony, since it is not yet free of conflicts. (And there it is, the core of his message. Europe is dead in the water, and this is the reason why. Recover your Christian identity, or you're sunk!)
            Dear Members of the European Parliament, the time has come to work together (By that he means the state and the Church as a team, working together, not fighting against each other.) in building a Europe which revolves not around the economy, but around the sacredness of the human person, around inalienable values.  In building a Europe which courageously embraces its past and confidently looks to its future in order fully to experience the hope of its present.  The time has come for us to abandon the idea of a Europe which is fearful and self-absorbed, in order to revive and encourage a Europe of leadership, a repository of science, art, music, human values and faith as well.  A Europe which contemplates the heavens and pursues lofty ideals.  A Europe which cares for, defends and protects man, every man and woman.  A Europe which bestrides the earth surely and securely, a precious point of reference for all humanity! 
            Thank you!


The Lab Manager said…
I enjoy reading your blog though I'm not a Catholic.

If the Pope cares about jobs and income, then he needs to acknowledge that much of government here in the US and elsewhere needs to be abolished. People can't raise families, provide for needs, and be good stewards of the environment when their income does not allow them to have enough beyond to do what he is asking.

Any Christian that whines about government prosecution here in the US and is not supporting candidates that want to abolish the federal income tax and reduce the size of the federal government deserves the consequences.

In most states I believe, there is referendum, so why am I not seeing ones to abolish public schools or at least being forcibly taxed on something. Single or childless people should not be paying school property tax.

I supported Ron Paul last election because he articulated many of those points and continues to do so.

This speech by the Pope was interesting to read, but I think he lacks economic knowledge though that is not his specialty.
Shane Schaetzel said…
Lab Manager,

Thank you for your comment. It's so nice to know that non-Catholics read my blog too, and I enjoy hearing from them.

The orthodox Catholic perspective on politics and economics is a little different than what you might think. I realise that the libertarian persuasion has become much more common in America in recent years, especially due to the influence of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. When it comes to foreign policy, I think Ron Paul nails it. America has to learn to butt out and leave things alone. Much of the turmoil in the Middle East right now was actually created by us.

The libertarian solution to domestic problems seems very appealing, especially when we consider the overblown monstrosity our federal government (and some state governments) has become. The "easy fix", as they say, is to simply get rid of government, and let the natural law of the jungle take over. Things will rectify themselves -- right?

We'll as a former libertarian, I'm going to have to say this is a bit naive, and I'll tell you why. You see, every business entity is essentially a smaller government. Think about it for a moment. In a corporation, you have a board of trustees. This functions like an aristocracy. Then there is a CEO, and he functions much like a monarch. He answers only to the board, and if he displeases them, they can have him replaced (dethroned). This rarely happens though, because CEOs are trained to please the board, and in the process, acquire more trust (and ultimately power) to themselves. If the CEO happens to be the founder of the corporation, then he enjoys absolute rule until his retirement, and the board pretty much serves at his behest. So they have to wait until he gone before they attain the power they want. So you see, it's really just a simple form of government, and yes, there are plenty of politics.

Now imagine taking all the laws and regulations away from corporations, by eliminating most government bureaucracy. What happens then?

Think about it.

The corporations will go unchecked, and acquire as much wealth and power as they can, because that's exactly what governments do, and you see, a corporation is just another form of government. Don't believe me? Ask anybody who works for one. What happens when they displease their superiors? They can be disciplined or even fired. No trial. No rights. Just a pink slip and bye bye!

continued below...
Shane Schaetzel said…
Historically speaking, Americans got to see what happens when corporations go unchecked back around 120 to 90 years ago. This was a time when corporations where so powerful, they actually controlled everything. All business and commerce was tied up into the hands of just a few monopolies. The gap between the rich and poor was the greatest America had ever seen. The middle-class was vanishing -- fast -- and in some places didn't even exist any more.

In response the United States government began enacting Antitrust laws, to break up monopolies, and gradually added laws and regulations to limit the overwhelming economic power these corporations had over the people. A lot of good things came out of that legislation, but some bad things too. I think somewhere around the 1960s, America lost its way, and forgot what the purpose of those laws were to begin with.

You see, it all comes back to a principle called SUBSIDIARITY, and basically it means that larger governments and businesses should serve in a subsidiary role to smaller governments and businesses. It's the exact opposite of what we have today.

In a more ideal world, which we came close to in the 1950s, but still had room for improvement, business and government is spread out to the lowest common denominator. Small family-run businesses should be the norm, and provide the bulk of labour in America. Large corporate labour should be cooperative, wherein the employees themselves hold shares in ownership and they effectively become the board, so the CEO answers to them. Worker-owned cooperatives, combined with family-run business, put the most power and control back into the hands of the little people, and builds up a healthy and robust middle-class.

I suppose you see by now that this just can't happen without some government regulation. The question now is "what kind" of government regulation? That's where America has lost it's way. Somewhere in the 1960s Washington DC shifted. It began to implement regulation that started favouring big business instead of small business. This has only gotten worse since.

You see big-government and big-business go hand in hand. The two are mutually beneficial. In order to properly address the problem of big intrusive government, we must simultaneously address the problem of big intrusive business. If we fail to do that, things will just go from bad to worse.
The Lab Manager said…
"You see big-government and big-business go hand in hand. The two are mutually beneficial. "

Shane, I've read your blog for sometime now, and yes, I agree with you here. Corporations are a government fiction that are now given rights as persons. Years ago, I read Gerry Spence's book From Freedom to Slavery the Rebirth of Tyranny in America. One of the points he makes is how corporations have seized the government apparatus and corporations used to have more control under state legislatures that charted them. I would have to find some Ron Paul quotes, but I'm sure he would agree with you on this. It is not something taught well in public or college civics or history class, but the big businesses actually loved FDR. What an opportunity to crush competition with draining regulations like minimum wage and others.

I understand your concerns about corporations becoming entities unto themselves to the detriment of all. Milton Friedman, who gave us income tax with holding, did a pretty a good job of explaining why anti trust laws did not work.


Perhaps you are familiar with Thomas Woods? He has written on the topics of monopoly and others and is of the Austrian school.

I've worked for a corporation and large small company, and yes, such places are not a democracy. However, as a person of the classical liberal persuasion, it would have really helped to keep more of my income so I could change jobs more easily along with a dynamic system that would create choices for people.
The Lab Manager said…
"You see, it all comes back to a principle called SUBSIDIARITY, and basically it means that larger governments and businesses should serve in a subsidiary role to smaller governments and businesses. It's the exact opposite of what we have today."

I've read this several times. Some of the founders of America were probably thinking along these terms where the smaller states would be served in some ways by the larger institution - national defense, uniformity of taxes like tariffs, money, and others. But still retain much sovereignty in a number of issues as long as they did not violate the Constitution.

Did you know that up until last century sometime, rulings by the Supreme Court did not have be enforced by the states? Now, the Supreme Court is treated as some minor deity especially by liberals who abuse the court system to enact unpopular edicts, gay marriage and abortion and gun control are three I can think of right now.

I think your view of libertarianism is a bit misplaced since America for most of the 19th century did not have all the laws and regulations we do now and we were not doing too badly. There were some bad things no doubt but government does not a good job of fixing those things either.
Shane Schaetzel said…
I tend to follow the Distributist line of thinking on this. I think the pope does too, for the most part, but I also see some value in a social market system on some industries. Woods is an excellent historian, but I'm not fond of his economics. I prefer the economic perspectives of Medeille, Storch, and Sheen. It flies in the face of everything that is popular today.

I'm afraid the Libertarians will soon get their way, and there is little any of us can do to stop it. This is the natural consequence of economic fascists (Democrats and Republicans) having their way for so long. The Libertarians will eventually regain control with their idealistic approaches, and unwittingly drive us back to the guilded age, wherein the middle class will shrink to nothing. I'm afraid this just has to happen before people finally wake up and smell the coffee.
Shane Schaetzel said…
I understand your disagreement with me on this, and I don't fault you for it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The axiom that governs libertarianism is this: "the government that governs best governs least."

I fundamentally disagree with that and follow the distributist axiom of: "the government that governs best, governs closest to the people."

In the end, I think the INTENTION and GOAL of distributists and libertarians is the same. We just disagree how best to get there. Not to worry. I think the libertarians will soon have their way, and when they finally do, people are going to to hate it. Sometimes we just have to learn the hard way.