As we
saw in the
previous posting on this subject (the subject being Fulton Sheen’s book, Freedom
Under God), there is a difference between the natural and absolute
right to be an owner (everyone absolutely has the right to be an owner), and
the socially determined and limited rights of ownership (no owner can do
whatever he or she likes, but must not harm others or the common good when
exercising his or her rights).
 |
| Fulton Sheen . . . Solid Gold |
Yes, everyone has a
right to be an owner, even though he or she may not do whatever he or she wants
with what is owned. There is, however, a
problem that surfaces with respect to recognizing and protecting every human
being’s right to be an owner, especially of labor-displacing
capital (e.g., robots, intellectual technology), which increasingly creates
the bulk of the world’s wealth.
And it is a problem Fulton Sheen did not
address.
Most of the world
accepts without question the disproved assumption that the only way to finance
new capital formation is to refrain from consuming all
that you produce. In this way, savings can be accumulated for investment. In
other words, you must presumably first produce something and refrain from
consuming it before you can produce anything for consumption.
If we respect human
law, this fallacy (or, at least, incomplete truth)
of past savings as the only
source of financing for new capital restricts all ownership to those who already own and who can afford to
refrain from consuming all they produce. The alternative within this framework
— humanly speaking — is to change the definition of private property, and put the State in the place of God, with the power to change the
definitions of natural rights; “re-edit the dictionary,” as
the past savings economist John Maynard Keynes put it. (John Maynard Keynes, A Treatise on Money, Volume I: The Pure Theory of Money. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930, 4.)
 |
| Pope Leo XIII |
Given the assumption
of the absolute necessity of past savings to finance new capital, then, we are faced with two
alternatives. Neither of these is either realistic or acceptable, but
(depending on your orientation) is more or less plausible. We then have a third
alternative that does not appear to be practicable.
The alternatives are
capitalism, socialism (“Communism”),
and what Sheen called “diffused possession” (“Catholicism”), and others “social Christianity.”
Leo XIII, by the way, expressed a preference for the term “Christian
Democracy” over “Social Christianity,” as the latter too easily
becomes “Christian socialism.” (See Graves
de Communi Re, §§ 4-5, 10; Cf. Quadragesimo
Anno, § 120.)
We can, however, more
accurately describe Sheen’s just “diffused possession” as “the Just Third Way.” Because justice is based on universal moral values promoted by
all major religions, Sheen perhaps should have characterized it as catholic, rather than “Catholicism.”
As Sheen explained,
There are three possible solutions of the problem of property. One is to put all the eggs into a few baskets, which is capitalism; the other is to make an omelet out of them so that nobody owns, which
is Communism; the other is to distribute the eggs in as many baskets as possible,
which is the solution of the Catholic Church. Or to characterize them differently: selfish possession (Capitalism);
personal dispossession with collective selfishness (Communism); diffused possession
(Catholicism). (Freedom Under God, 33.)
#30#