Last week on this blog we decided that trying to solve the
refugee problem strictly as a refugee problem was not a solution — viable or
otherwise. Nor is military action, while
it may be necessary, a solution to a refugee problem. What is needed, frankly, is a two-pronged
approach. The first prong would be to
take care of the immediate situation.
The second prong is to implement an actual solution.
The First Prong
 |
| A solution within the Thomist framework. |
There are two parts of the first prong of the approach to
resolve the refugee crisis within the framework of the philosophy of
Aquinas. That is, take care of people
and stop the immediate danger.
First, world religious leaders have to take proactive stand, reminding people that everyone has a stake in resolving this crisis. Muslim leaders especially have a vested interest in this, as ISIS and other terrorist groups are clearly trying to discredit all of Islam and force it into the "Wahabbi mold." Muslims are increasingly seen as the problem, so they need to ensure that others see them as the solution, the first part of which is taking the lead in refugee assistance.
First, world religious leaders have to take proactive stand, reminding people that everyone has a stake in resolving this crisis. Muslim leaders especially have a vested interest in this, as ISIS and other terrorist groups are clearly trying to discredit all of Islam and force it into the "Wahabbi mold." Muslims are increasingly seen as the problem, so they need to ensure that others see them as the solution, the first part of which is taking the lead in refugee assistance.
Thus, there must be a coordinated effort to take care of
people now. Each country doing it
piecemeal virtually ensures that someone — or a lot of someones — is going to
fall through the cracks.
It would make sense to have the United Nations coordinate
the effort, ensuring that no one country bears too great a burden, and that
each country contributes in the most effective manner possible with what it is
best able to contribute. Thus, a country
with available space would contribute that, those with food surpluses would
contribute food, and so on.
The whole effort would proceed on the assumption that
housing, feeding, and clothing refugees is a temporary stopgap. The goal is to make it possible for people to
return to their own countries as soon as possible.
 |
| An interfaith, international "crusade"? |
The second part of the first prong is to eliminate ISIS, the
immediate source of the problem. This
does not mean merely contain, but to bring an end to it. This, too, cannot be done piecemeal — and, again, Muslims must take the lead.
Others must all join in; it requires a coordinated multinational effort to underscore that ISIS and other terrorist groups have placed themselves outside the global community and rule of law. In that way, it will be clear that terrorism, whether at the individual, group, or state level, is a global problem, and a recognition that all countries of the world, being equally members of the global community, have a responsibility to join together to bring an end to an immediate threat.
Others must all join in; it requires a coordinated multinational effort to underscore that ISIS and other terrorist groups have placed themselves outside the global community and rule of law. In that way, it will be clear that terrorism, whether at the individual, group, or state level, is a global problem, and a recognition that all countries of the world, being equally members of the global community, have a responsibility to join together to bring an end to an immediate threat.
The Second
Prong
Again, however, military action is not the solution, as it
leaves the underlying problem in place: lack of effective respect for human
dignity. In human terms, there is only
one way to resolve that problem, at least within acceptable parameters — we
will never be able to attain a world in which every one’s dignity is fully
respected, but that does not release us from the obligation to organize and
work toward that goal. This is the work
of social justice — organizing to reform out institutions so that they better
meet and serve human wants and needs. It is also fully in accord with the precepts of all major world religions, including Islam.
 |
| The New Deal: necessary perhaps, but not a solution. |
This understanding of social justice is in sharp contrast to
what people usually mean, i.e.,
large-scale direct assistance to meet individual needs. No, social justice is directed to the common good, not any individual good. Yes, charity and almsgiving are meritorious and often essential, but (as the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides pointed out as the ultimate end of almsgiving) the goal is to make it possible for people to
meet their own wants and needs through their own efforts, not to impose desired
results.
That being the case, the primary task in implementing and
sustaining a solution to the refugee crisis is to reform the institutions in
the home countries of the refugees so that they can return and pursue their own
lives in peace and security — and that means instituting and maintaining a
system based on justice, particularly (but not exclusively) the three
principles of economic justice. These
are 1) Participative Justice, 2) Distributive Justice, and 3) Social Justice.
1. Participative
Justice. This is how one makes input to the
economic process in order to make a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining
access to private property in productive assets as well as equality of
opportunity to engage in productive work. Participative justice does not guarantee equal results, but requires
that every person be guaranteed by society’s institutions the equal human right to make a productive
contribution to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a worker) and through one’s productive
capital (as an owner). Thus, this principle rejects monopolies,
special privileges, and other exclusionary social barriers to economic
self-reliance and personal freedom.
 |
| Aristotle on distributive justice: to each according to his inputs. |
2. Distributive
Justice. This is the out-take principle based
on the exchange or market value of one’s economic
contributions. This is the principle
that all people have a right to receive a proportionate, market-determined
share of the value of the marketable goods and services they produce with their
labor contributions, their capital contributions, or both. In contrast to a controlled or command
economy, this respects human dignity by making each economic vote count.
3. Social Justice. This is the feedback principle that results in
harmony. Social justice rebalances participative justice and distributive justice when the system violates either essential principle. Social justice includes a concept of limitation that discourages personal greed and prevents
social monopolies.
In general terms, the three principles of economic justice
require implementing and maintaining the four pillars of an economically just
social order:
 |
| Nix the Leviathan State. |
• A limited
economic role for the State.
The State is a very useful and necessary — and very, very dangerous —
social tool. Politically, it should be
under the control of the citizens rather than the other way around. Economically, because “Power naturally and
necessarily follows property,” the economy should be under the control of an
economically and politically free citizens, not the State. When the State becomes responsible for
ensuring someone’s wellbeing, that person becomes a dependent of the State, a
permanent child or slave.
 |
| Planned economies have a poor track record. |
• Free and open markets within an
understandable and fair system of laws as the most objective and democratic
means for determining just prices, just wages and just profits — the residual
after all goods or services are sold.
This includes a monetary and tax system that precludes the State from
manipulating or interfering in any way with money and credit, including setting
interest rates, other than to set and maintain the standard of value and
enforce contracts (all money is a form of contract, just as all contracts are a
form of money), and to ensure that the State can only raise money by direct
taxation or borrowing from existing savings, not emit bills of credit, i.e., “create money.”
• Restoration of private property, especially in
corporate equity and other forms of business organization. Ownership is control in all codes of law, as
Louis Kelso pointed out. That includes
“enjoyment of the fruits,” i.e., the
income generated by what is owned — all of it.
Thus, corporate shareholders are by natural right entitled to vote their
shares, and to receive the full stream of income attributable to their
proportionate shares of ownership.
Today, virtually no corporation pays out the full stream of income to
the people who are due that income by natural right.
• Widespread capital ownership, individually or
in free association with others. In our
technologically advanced global economy, more and more production — income — is
due to capital, not labor. To ensure
that everyone has the opportunity to participate in the community as a full member
of that community, it is essential that every child, woman, and man have the
opportunity and effective means to own productive capital.
Only by adhering to the three principles of economic justice
and by implementing the four pillars of an economically just social order can
there be a long-term and sustainable solution to the refugee crisis. As Leo XIII pointed out,
 |
| Pope Leo XIII |
“Many excellent results will
follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more
equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to
divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there
is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp
the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own
purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in
the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy
and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for
disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a
share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth
and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be
brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great
abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily
when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very
soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat,
but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.
That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and
to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would
spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for
no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him
the means of living a decent and happy life. These three important benefits,
however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and
exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is
derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its
use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it
altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of
taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.” (Rerum Novarum, § 47.)
How to do this? Some suggestions would be to require monitored
democratic elections as soon as the situation stabilizes as a
condition of assistance, with the added proviso that, whoever gets
into office must immediately begin implementing an intensive
program of economic democracy along the lines of Capital
Homesteading. Since (as Daniel Webster noted) "Power
naturally and necessarily follows property," this will create an
economically empowered citizenry that will also be politically
empowered, and be able to deal immediately with any threats from
outside or (more importantly) inside the country from wannabe
dictators or saviors.
As for other repressive regimes, it should be possible to make economic assistance contingent on the same conditions. Most countries are so far in debt that they can't risk cutting off the flow of aid. This would have the double advantage of empowering the citizens instead of a political élite as is usually the case with aid, and rebuilding the tax base to the point where they can start paying down debt instead of incurring more. (For an explanation of some of the basic principles of money, credit, private property, and so on, behind these recommendations, go to "Learn About CESJ" on the CESJ website. It will help answer some questions you might have.)
The question that remains is, Is there a specific program? The answer is “yes,” and we will look at it next week.
As for other repressive regimes, it should be possible to make economic assistance contingent on the same conditions. Most countries are so far in debt that they can't risk cutting off the flow of aid. This would have the double advantage of empowering the citizens instead of a political élite as is usually the case with aid, and rebuilding the tax base to the point where they can start paying down debt instead of incurring more. (For an explanation of some of the basic principles of money, credit, private property, and so on, behind these recommendations, go to "Learn About CESJ" on the CESJ website. It will help answer some questions you might have.)
The question that remains is, Is there a specific program? The answer is “yes,” and we will look at it next week.
