News from the Network, Vol. 14, No. 30

Other people and things may get into the Summer Doldrums, but not us.  There is always something going on, whether at CESJ, the Just Third Way, Justice University, and other individuals and groups:

Binary Economic Personalism

It may have a somewhat lengthy name — the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism — but it is much more straightforward and logical than people living in a world soaked in Keynesian Kraziness might suppose.  In the previous posting on this subject, we noted how many (although not all) aspects of life are “binary” and tend either to be in balance or try to move toward a balance to function properly.  This, naturally enough, led us to economic personalism, which is based on an application of binary economics.

The Meaning of Life

At the end of the previous posting on this subject, we asked the question, “what is the meaning of life within the Just Third Way?”  This came up because during their (in)famous 1927 debate, “Do We Agree?” (the answer to which, as Hilaire Belloc pointed out, is “no”), G.B. Shaw claimed that the only thing that mattered is income (i.e., consumption power and material wellbeing), regardless how you get it.

“Do We Agree?”

To answer that question briefly — and accurately — no, “we” don’t . . . if by “we” is meant G.K. Chesterton and G.B. Shaw.  The reference is to their final, er, “debate (for want of a better word) in November of 1927.

JTW Podcast: How to Speak and How to Listen

Today’s podcast is from a set of tapes, one of which is this lecture that Mortimer Adler gave many years ago on basic learning skills:

News from the Network, Vol. 14, No. 29

Some very interesting things have been going on this week . . . not all of them bad!

The Source of Power

 

Whether carrying out individual or social acts of virtue, the ordinary means of economically empowering persons both as individuals and as members of groups is private property in capital.  Recognizing equal access to private property in productive capital as a universal human right is a crucial difference between economic personalism and both capitalism and socialism. (Laborem Exercens, §§ 14-15.)

What is “The Gift of Self”?

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, the concept of personalism from an Aristotelian-Thomist perspective is based on the sovereignty of the human person under God.  It includes five key characteristics:

The Reality of the Human Person

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, any “social teaching” that does not respect the dignity of every human person, that interpretation is by definition incorrect or faulty.  Admittedly, we’ve been picking on Catholic social teaching, but that’s only because the Catholic Church has the most comprehensive — and misunderstood, even by (or especially) by Catholics — body of social thought in the world today, at least from a personalist point of view.

JTW Podcast: Universalizing Capital Ownership

This past Thursday, a Justice University team participated in a webinar presented by the International Association for Peace and Economic Development (IAED) on “The Just Third Way: Universalizing Capital Ownership.  Presenting the case for the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism were Dr. Norman Kurland, president of the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice, Dawn K. Brohawn, Director of Communications for CESJ, and Michael D. Greaney, CESJ’s Director of Research:

News from the Network, Vol. 14, No. 28

While we prefer to report on positive things, there haven’t been too many lately.  Still, there are a few, although mixed in with quite a bit of negative items:

Personalism and Solidarism

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, we saw how the “personalism” of Pope John Paul II fit into the broader framework of social virtue, particularly social justice . . . which is not socialism, however much some confused people insist that it is.

A Missing Piece of the Puzzle

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, the idea that many people have of social justice today is not entirely accurate.  It does not mean replacing individual justice and charity with redistribution, even if you call it social justice.  Social justice means, rather, reform of institutions of the common good to enable the individual virtues once again to function as intended.

The Virtue of Social Justice

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, by the beginning of the nineteenth century it had become obvious that the old individualist way of doing things was insufficient, and by the end of the nineteenth century it was just as obvious that the collectivist way was even worse.  The only thing left was what most people simply couldn’t get a handle on: the personalist way of doing things.

JTW Podcast: Three Principles of Economic Justice

Just in case you were wondering what real economic justice looks like — it has three principles that it must embody if it is to be considered “just.”  Hint: “economic justice” does not mean “redistribution.”

News from the Network, Vol. 14, No. 27

As the global situation continues to heat up in everything but a good way, world leaders seem more intent than ever on keeping old and failed programs going instead of implementing something that actually works and has been proven to work: the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism:

What “Social Justice” REALLY Means

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, individual and social virtue are two different things, and each has a specific job to do that complements, but does not replace, the other.  Individual virtue is directed to the good of individuals, of human persons.  Social virtue is directed to the common good, that is, the institutional environment within which human persons realize their individual good.

The Right Tool for the Job

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, the possibly confusingly-named “Reign of Christ the King ain’t exactly what it sounds like.  It begs for a bit of explanation — which is what today’s posting is about.

Reign of Christ the King?

In the previous posting on this subject, we saw that while God made the world, he didn’t create human society.  Human beings did that, so it’s no use blaming Him for what’s going wrong.  If there’s something wrong, it’s up to us to fix it.  The only question is how . . . especially when we discover that individually we are pretty helpless to effect changes in the social order.  What happens then?

JTW Podcast: Mortimer Adler on Socrates

Many people today claim to see no use in philosophy . . . which is itself a philosophy!  This week we take a look at what Mortimer Adler, the “Great Books” philosopher, thought about Socrates.  You might find it interesting . . . and we won’t make you take a snort of hemlock if you don’t agree, either!

News from the Network, Vol. 14, No. 26

Attention, all Savoyards and admirers of the Bard of Avon.  Be careful how you quote or even if you quote.  The degree of cultural illiteracy in the world is rising faster than the mercury in Death Valley at noon in summer.  You also might want to be wary of reading books like Huckleberry Finn, Brideshead Revisited, Tarzan of the Apes, Gone With the Wind, or anything that mentions You-Know-Who or You-Know-What, so whatever you say, say nothing:

Coercive Virtue?

Can you force people to be virtuous?

The quick and easy answer to that question is no, you cannot.  As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”  (Address at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963.)