Adam Smith wrote a book called, "Moral Sentiments," before he wrote his more famous, "Wealth of Nations." "Moral Sentiments" describes about the virtues and morality in economics. Not just acting one's self-interest.
The US is hardly capitalist anymore. Most of the conservative/rural farming communities are actually HEAVILY subsidized (50% of farmers depend on government subsidies). Socialism is here, they're just not calling it that. Without that welfare money, farmers would be finished due to capitalist forces both domestically and internationally.
@@P4yn3 I was not talking about the U.S., or it's current economic situation. I was highlighting a book of virtues in economics written by Adam Smith that the folks in the video did not mention. They only focus "Wealth of Nations". The U.S. has definitely become a Welfare state. With some programs needed and unneeded in various areas. The U.S. is still largely a free market economy where our government has limited influence on what is sold in our markets. Hence the stereotype of large American grocery stores. Not to say it is like it was years ago. Some regulations could be loosened, or reformed, for the current time period. Some are needed, or were needed, due to certain circumstances that happened in the United States. Or because of preferences of the people and the states.
@@TheRagingheat05 Remember when Ben Shapiro had an ad read in the middle of march for life? I do. You shouldn't need Ben Shapiro to tell you to be Anti-Abortion and if he's the convincing argument you've already started from a flawed perspective. For example do you think women who perform abortions should be in jail? I do.
@@LeonMortgage do you think we should make vaccine passports? Or not have an immigration moratorium? Or that we should let massive investment firms buy up single family housing to create an actively anti Christian feudal system? Or should we have blind support for Israel because they "share are democratic values"
@@CatholicK5357 look up “Ben Shapiro on Jesus”: you will be surprised (or not, if you know a thing or two about the nature of Shapiro’s religious background)
Money is not power. The fundamental difference is power can be bought, but money cannot. Thus, Money is a worshiped in Mammon, and power is just an attribute.
Why are Catholics Christians even taking religious advice from someone's who's Jewish? I like Ben Shapiro but I don't look to him for religious advice and I don't think he expects people to look to him for religious advice.
I don't think that's what Matt was getting at. The issue is that for as Catholic as any person might be, if all the media they consume comes from a non Christian background even if it's for politics, what sort of expectations will they pick up when it comes to the doctrine. While some people are going overboard in the comments, from a Catholic perspective it's rather easy to tell when Shapiro goes off the rails, his view of justice, charity and nation are all unchristian, which is obviously expected from a jewish commentator, the comments about Jesus notwithstanding. The problem are the types that listen to nothing but Shapiro an hour a day every week of the year, what are 15 minutes of homily over the weekend? I will note, that at least our social doctrine is well developed, most protestants can't even tell the difference between what parts of what Shapiro says are unchristian and which aren't.
I think it’s because I’m the Public space for mainstream conservatism they’re isn’t a mainstay Catholic who really contemplates and reflects on the culture with such intensity and use of reason. Also there is really poor cathechis in terms of what would even define proper Catholic social teaching. For a lot people they really cry out for Justice, firmness, but what we tend to get is a accommodation for the worst of us and only mercy in which there is no justice. So then the voices who don’t properly speak of Justice and Mercy leave everyone to be open those speaking, if in error, of uncaring justice.
@@sebastianbosek5222 Shapiro often laments the decline of Christianity in America. You would have to be insane to claim that he hates Christians. Look at his co-hosts. A Protestant pastor, a secular Jew who converted to Christianity, and two Catholics.
For those who may be interested: 'Sheila', the Australian slang word for a woman, is derived from the Irish Síle (Sheila) which is equivalent to the Latin Julia.
But Julia doesn't have the same meaning in Latin, does it? Sorry genuine question I didn't think they were equivalent. Julia means youthful, and the Irish equivalent would be Iuile, wouldn't it?
If you understand Shapiro as an Orthodox Jew, not as a Christian, you'll have the means to properly evaluate his speech. His view on Jesus is typical of orthodox Judaism. Dennis Prager belongs to a more moderate form of Judaism that is more "Christian friendly". I think the driving principle governing Shapiro's thought is that of small limited government. He's also likes the ability of capitalism as a means of creating wealth. He decides big government and it's bureaucratic inefficiency. His view is that society needs strong institutions (outside government) to support most of the needs now thought to be the responsibility of governments. When large governments do the tasks of other smaller governments and institutions inefficiency and governmental corruption are going to increase. I think what I stated above resonates with conservative Catholics. And, if one takes Catholic Social Teaching seriously can coexist comfortably with Shapiro's political commentary.
At 3:50 I feel somewhat disheartened. I grew up atheist, met and married my wife, and started a family. Fast forward five years and I had some kind of revelation with my faith (or anti-faith, as it was then). I started falling in love with Christianity. Here I am reading Lewis and Chesterton and Merton and Aquinas, and all behind my wife’s back. Not because I necessarily believe. But because I WANT to. And yet when I’ve tried to broach the subject with her, she has essentially given me the ultimatum: me or these new convictions. It broke my heart, so I buttered her up and said I’m not that serious, it’s just a mild curiosity, yada yada. Now here I am still reading those authors and enjoying the Bible and watching channels like Matt’s and hiding this part of myself. It’s maddening, but I love my wife and children, and don’t know what else I can do.
@@sapach1406 She grew up Jehovah Witness, but now classifies herself as an atheist. The views religion as whole generally in a bad light. As for me, though I grew up agnostic, was atheist in my adolescence, I currently classify myself as a “reluctant agnostic.” I would like believe, genuinely. Some old secular convictions seem to get in the way, though.
@@bookishbrendan8875 My advice to you is to keep reading, keep searching and see where it leads you. In regards to your situation with your wife, I would suggest that, when you talk about this with her, always approach the subject in the most loving and charitable way as possible. Also, don't listen to reply, but listen to understand. That is, instead of making a reply to whatever she say, try to dig in a little deeper, to find the root of her views. By doing this you might pick up "an opening" or "a window of oportunity" that will allow you to explain your position a little bit better. Finally, whenever there's an obstacle in the conversation, as humans we tend to have a "No, YOU don't understand" mentallity and that puts the other party in the defensive. In order to avoid that, I'd suggest to change your mentallity to a more "Alright she's not understanding me. How could I explain my position better? How could I transmit my messege clearer?" And if you have any questions or just need someone to talk to, we are here for you brother
@@sapach1406 you provided this advice and I can almost feel the calm nature and support in it. I hope the person you replied to and many others can draw a way of communication from this. Especially when putting someone on the defensive end, which I tend to fall into often enough 😅, responding from that point turns the conversation either drastic negative or positive. Thank you, I learned something from this. 'How could I explain my position better? How could I transmit my message clearer?' this is my major takeaway!
@@bookishbrendan8875 if you can watch 'Case for Christ' story of Lee Strobel, that is if you haven't, it might give you some enlightenment. It's a bit of a reversed situation where the wife began believing and convinced her husband, kind of... I think you are at a turning point in your life.
Ben is a religious Jew so I don't really listen to him when it comes to religion, but his political takes are informative and insightful. Not to mention, 2 of his 4 other colleagues who work with him are Catholic, the other two being Christian. The Daily Wire really is a great place to get information and insight from.
@@toahordika6 what's interesting, is that they have reconciled of sorts more recently over being against the covid19 lockdowns and restrictions. They did an episode together recently about it.
That is not the same as what Ben said. Ben was suggesting that the lack of ability to come up something that others want means that it is not just work that gets you food, but a certain entrepreneurial spirit or intellect. There were those in the middleages known as bedesmen, who worked by praying for their patrons. In other words, work should be freely available for people to provide for their family; rather than saying be smart or starve.
@@bayreuth79 Lol. You said a lot with very few necessary distinctions made. So yes, society should help those who are unable to work; the command to work obviously applies only to those who can work. However, the apostles were certainly not communists. Communism has been forbidden by the Catholic Church, meaning that someone cannot be a Catholic and support it. This is because by its very nature, it goes against the dignity of humanity. Communism is not about helping the poor, though it claims to be. But the fact that the poor increase under communist rule proves the case. The free market is allowed under Catholicism. However, there should be, as recommended by the Catholic Church, certain things in place to protect the poor and to stop the super wealthy from simply hoarding money or using it for ill-gain. Monasticism is nothing like communism. It is a free man taking a voluntary vow of poverty and agreeing to share with his brethren. Communism rather forces this on society, even those who are not called to it. There is nothing virtuous about it if forced upon you.
@@CatholicK5357 Boom! As you might have picked up, my statement was to make a point, not to pronounce some ideology. Rather, it is also a principle that human beings are created to develop into adulthood, meaning taking responsibility for each his own life - that is an essential factor in being an adult. Being that all humans will also have times in which they cannot do this completely - in contrast to "will not", part if taking care of youself is also asking for help when needed with a corollary being giving help to others also when able to do this without damaging self or others, e.g. those dependent on you in a family. There is a time for everything under heaven. If one looks at scripture, one will find Jesus saying and acting in many times and way that can seem contradictory when cheery pick. Judas Iscariot was angry Jesus let the woman, perhaps Mary Magdalen, annoint His feet with precious oil. The "communists" among us would be like Judas Iscariot with little ability to understand why Jesus would do that. They would also not understand the guy who worked 8 hours getting the same pay as the guy who worked one hour. The politicization of Jesus Christ will inevitably result in those who do so not understanding Him at all, while at the same time running around thinking they are so righteous. Lord, have mercy on us. Amen
@@IskalkaQuest2010 Yes I agree. One thing you said that I would word differently, is when saying that you were making a point rather than expressing an ideology. We all hold ideologies. And any point being made would have to be an expression of some ideology or worldview. Ideology does not in of itself mean a bad worldview, although there are many of them that are bad.
@@bayreuth79 To be blunt, you are wrong. Yes, communism has been forbidden by the Catholic Church. The actual fact is that the apostles were not communist and never claimed to be. You claiming that them being communist as well as your claim that everyone accepts this is a falsehood. I have read the book of acts, and found nothing in it whatsoever to promote communism. When the Church forbids something, we must accept her own explanation as to why it is forbidden rather than make up our own interpretation. Marxism, as you say, is a form of communism. The Church has, however, forbidden all forms of communism, not just marxism. One reason being is that the Church recognizes it as a human right to own property, which communism takes issue with. Voluntarily giving up ones right to property is okay and can be even virtuous; but requiring it, is not a Christian principle. Why did the apostles practice communism you ask? Well, they didn't. The three things you mentioned that they did is not communism by definition. Yes, again, the Catholic Church has formally and infallibly denounced all forms of communism, because it is inherently anti-Christian and is dangerous - having caused the death of millions. The early Christians most certainly did not practice communism in the slightest. My reply made no assumption about which form of communism you were speaking of. Instead, you assumed that I made such an assumption. You can say that you never mentioned marxism or the the Soviet Union, but neither did I ever mention them. Giving an example of a Catholic saying something contrary to the Catholic faith does not make it any more Catholic. Thomas Merton did not have the authority to claim opposite of what the Church teaches. If the Church says something is forbidden, then it is forbidden. You are welcome to go into voluntary poverty and live communally with your brothers. But neither you nor I nor any Catholic can promote a forbidden ideology, such as communism, without being, according to the decree, excommunicated. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism
@@eg4848 Speak for yourself. And Shapiro is not against abortion in principle: he thinks its ok to murder babies who, through no fault of their own, were conceived through rape.
@@O_Rei you might want to check Clinton’s survey he done when President to find out how Catholic Catholics really were and the vast majority said they either used contraception previously or were currently using! You really can’t say ‘oh their religion modernised’ while completely ignoring what our own members of Catholicism are doing As for abortion you might want to also do a wee check to realise a horrible amount of ‘Catholics’ support abortion also!
Adam Smith was misrepresented here. He never thought that an egoistic society would work, rather, he criticized the idea harshly in his other book, Moral Sentiments. There he says that a society is dependent on virtue and empathy to work, and that a life devoted to accumulating money would be meaningless, as true happyness is not found in material wealth. Adam Smith acctually despized the elites, he understanded the free competition as a way to combat acumalation of wealth via competition, and a way of distributing wealth through free labor, as an oposite to the Mercantilist economy that existed before, in which the rich guys recieved goverment investments to build their on monopolies with the help of the state, and imcompetent people were elevated to public service because of political indication, rather than actual talent.
Like you said Christ is risen! Truth is that which most closely correlates to reality, and Jesus Christ is that truth. Therefore since Ben denies this truth, take what he says with a grain of salt.
@@josemarin7027 No I see his views compared to mine, usually I go to Candance or Knowles. Or organizations like Turning Point, and of course some of the Daily Wire
What that woman did was heroically virtuous, but remember that Christ also said that, if we have two jackets and our neighbor has one, then give one to our neighbor. So we are only obligated to give what we have in excess to the needy, but if we give even more then that is heroic and will be stored up for Heaven!
I think David Friedman summarized the pro free market stance in regards on the point made in this video with a chapter in his book called "love is not enough". It would be great living in the kingdom of heaven where everybody loves everyone else, we wouldn't need market and capitalism, but since we aren't capable to live such an high standard, the remaining options are: forcing other people to do what you want or paying them, the second option is more peaceful, more moral and in most cases also more effective.
@@tyronefromchad He's a Jew. Jews don't believe in Christ. That's wrong of him, but he should have an opportunity to talk instead of a bunch of ppl putting words in his mouth.
@@jimbojackson4045 He literally said that, no need for putting anything in his mouth. And what he said is not just 'wrong' but a mortal sin and totally disgusting, no matter which untrue other Religion he follows.
I think there's a misunderstanding. The foundation of capitalism is the understanding that the only way to receive is to give. There is no guarantee of a return but you need to provide the best of your ability. This is obviously a very simplified version of everything but it's the essence. The issue is people assume we live in a capitalistic society but the truth is we are socialist with elements of capitalism. Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism either. These are just descriptions of economic systems. They don't exist in their idealized forms and probably never will. In the same way models are an abstraction that are used to understand real word phenomena so too are the concepts of socialism and capitalism. The real questions that needs to be asked is what is the proper role of a government in a moral and free society. Which obviously begs the question of what does it mean to be free and what does it mean to be moral.
Keynes wasn't even an economist let alone a capitalist. These are caricatures that this man is speaking against. Also free market economics (what we mean by capitalism) wasn't just "invented" by Adam Smith. Rather it was developed over time and owes a great deal to medieval scholastics. Ben Shapiro didn't word that very well. Really it's just to say that people have a natural self interest to produce things that benefit society, in this case fear of starving.
We seem to have already forgotten LABOREM EXERCENS (issued on the anniversary of Rerum Novarum), although Jacob for the most part is drawing from it. 🥃🥃 I sometimes wonder about Matt, though, or maybe he's just acting as if he's not familiar with the depth and breath of Catholic social teaching. 😆🤷🏻♂️
Christ did say give without expecting to receive, but he did not say receive without expecting to give. That’s what Ben is getting at with his first comment
Interesting discussion and well worth a listen. I would love to see you do an extended conversation with John D. Mueller, the author of "Redeeming Economics," who points out that Adam Smith, and others, while making valuable contributions to economics actually miss the most important aspects of economics such as the family and gifts. Mueller points out that Augustine and Aquinas (and other Catholic thinkers) addressed these things in their own economic writings and proposes a reintegration of these aspects into economics to serve as a much needed correction to Adam Smith and other modern economists. (I'd also point out that Ben Shapiro's comments about capitalism needing virtue is quite close to Michael Novak's position in "The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.")
I am a Catholic who listens to Ben Shapiro daily. I would love specific Catholic criticism of his political ideas. I don't always agree with him, but from reading the comments it would seem I am missing something? I do not think his being Jewish should be the problem. I find that argument disturbing.
Shapiro is great for learning about certain angles and approaches to modern day arguments. But I wouldn’t take advice from him when it comes to religion and how to get to Heaven
@Andiamo D. This! No Catholic should be taking any religious guidance from Shapiro. Firstly because he is Jewish but secondly due to the things he has said about Christ! The fact he dismisses Jesus completely and even said Jesus “got what he deserved for trying to lead a revolt against the Romans”... Why on earth any Catholic would want religious guidance from someone who says those blasphemy things about the sacred heart Jesus.
@@irishandscottish1829 what interviews has he said this sort of thing? I’d like to watch them. I had not heard about this, very troubling as I do enjoy his clips. Best to pray for him to repent
@@Birb2022 why should a Christian take political advice from a jew who denies the truth that is Christ? Unfortunately your comment emphasises the reality that to many Christians today have no idea of a Christian political agenda.
I follow theology before I follow politics. I don't agree with everything Ben says :/. It's not like when listening to him your agreeing to follow everything he said word for word. Has there been times I doubted what he said? Absolutely.
Love this, love Matt, pretty happy with Jacob...but there IS a missing element in the discussion of the intersection between economics and morality. Everything government does, it does by pointing a gun at someone. A prohibited action means: Do it and we'll fine you; don't pay and we'll jail you; try to break out and we'll shoot you. A tax-increase means: Pay this or we'll fine you; don't pay the fine and we'll jail you; try to break out and we'll shoot you. A stop sign erected at taxpayer expense means: Let us spend your public money this way or we'll fine you; don't pay the fine and we'll jail you...and so on. Force is intrinsic to government action; a government JUST IS that organization to which a society grants a monopoly on threatening force to compel cooperation with its goals. That's not wrong; it's actually a positive good in a fallen world. (Anarchism is wrong.) BUT, it means that government action CAN be immoral simply by using force to compel a moral good in a situation where the use of force is not morally justified. The government are the employees of the populace; but an unjust use-of-force is still a grave moral evil, even if you delegate the task of doing it to your employees instead of doing it yourself. Jacob is correct to say that the Gospel requires us as Christians to act on our own initiative to lovingly supply support for the well-being of our neighbors in need. And it's SORT OF correct to say that "capitalism" is a system which "says" that "if you don't produce something worthwhile for me, you starve." But that picture leaves out critical details...and the omission is a misleading one, because it leads fuzzy thinkers to believe "Therefore, capitalism (not only capitalism-so-defined, but capitalism in GENERAL) is incompatible with the Gospel." NOT SO! The lived experience of an economic system comes from the intersection of government policy (including regulations, prohibitions, and compulsions) and the choices people make (partly in response to that policy). On the policy side, "Capitalism" is what we call it when the government DOESN'T habitually point guns at people to reappropriate property in the name of compassion. (Often producing perversely antiproductive outcomes...but set that aside.) This produces a great freedom-of-action. Within that freedom-of-action, all Christian persons are commanded by Christ to assist the needy...and not necessarily individually; Christian solidarity recommends voluntary organizations uniting to achieve charitable ends, and of course the Church should always be foremost in rescuing the poor. But Christians are NOT commanded to point guns at other (not necessarily Christian) persons, compelling them to hand over money to be redistributed to the needy. That's an immoral use-of-force. And it REMAINS immoral if the Christians in question send henchmen * cough * I mean, employees to point the guns and take the money. Even when those employees are called "the government." What, then, is the Christian solution? As a rule (with exceptions! with fuzzy edges!) Christians should support relatively free economies, and always look for places where government transgresses across the line between "restoring stolen property to the poor" and "taking others' property to distribute to the poor." The former is OF COURSE a just use-of-force. The latter is NOT, and Christians should not advocate for government to exceed its moral warrant for using force. But that's only half of the Christian obligation. The other half is to care for the poor voluntarily, both as individuals and as voluntary organizations, parishes, dioceses, and the like. Inserting compulsion into this formula morally corrupts it, producing class divisions and resentments, vote-buying schemes, and other moral hazards. Government, however, is a jealous god. In particular, it is jealous of the social influence of subsidiary organizations which play important roles in the life of the community. It resents it when churches care for the poor, or handle adoption services, or beautify communities. So when economic freedom is reduced (as in growing welfare states) we always notice the role of the Church shrinking. Tithes, as it turns out, fall when tax rates increase: They are competing for slices of a finite income pie. This, then, is part of the answer to the question, "Why were medieval towns centered on a Church, when modern ones center on City Hall?" As government uses force both to compel higher taxes and more redistribution, it crowds the Church out of one of her chief roles of social influence. This is why the poor in the U.S. are almost never practicing Christians any more. The Church should be part of their lives, helping them daily, using funds given freely out of love, and received with gratitude. But she no longer is visible in that role. That role is mostly served by government, using funds taken by compulsion, and received as an entitlement. The harvest of class resentment and vote-buying is easily foreseen! Many people miss all of this...and mostly because they miss the distinction between Alms Given Voluntarily and Compulsory Wealth Transfers. That distinction must ALWAYS be highlighted when discussing the role of government in forming an economic system. Whenever we ignore the distinction, we risk the grave moral turpitude of Unjustified Uses Of Force.
Excellente..simply saying...thank you cordsworks...im sharing yout thouts complitly..i was born and raise un communistic country..your point abouth state try to take over Church "domein" was obvious during communisam
Capitalism seeks to take a realist position on man’s fallen nature. It allows for people to do the bare minimum to live in a fallen world. It does not seek to promote virtue or justice. For capitalism to go beyond its bounds and push forward virtue it must rely on a preexisting culture of virtue to change the equation from self interest to altruism.
Absolutely. I don't care for any economic system that doesn't put culture, faith, and family first ahead of itself. Our society and governance should be working VERY hard to prevent us from self-destructing.
@@sebastianbosek5222 I prefer a system focused on individual justice and doesn’t violate my rights to my own labor for the sake of the collective. I recognize that no human system is perfect but I definitely think free market capitalism is the best at not violating my rights as an individual.
Imam contradicts himself quite a bit here… not sure capitalism is contradictory to Christ’s word, in fact as Shapiro as well as many others, state, you must have a virtuous society. Shapiro also discusses charity quite a bit. Capitalism has also done more for raising the economic conditions vastly. Not sure where Imam is headed, granted, I only have heard this clip but mixing governmental policy and religion is far tricker than just these basic concepts.
You've laid out the benefits proponents of Capitalism usually point to, but can you name the things we have lost as a society because of the development of capitalism?
This guy completely just argues against straw men arguments. Shapiro explicitly was talking about economic transaction, not speaking to charity at all and this guy argues that this view is anti-biblical because you should give charitably. Then he goes on to say that bad people in a good system won't work when Shapiro explicitly says that you must have a moral people for the system to work.
That first quote from Ben I'm pretty sure was said in the specific context of explaining why socialism doesn't work, that you don't have the right to not work if you are able and demand that others take care of you. As far as conservative Catholics looking to Shapiro, I see no issue. When he talks about scripture, he is talking about our scripture. He might not refer to it as the Old Testament, but it's the same book. If he says something that is contra to Catholic theology, then how is that bad, in any case? It will likely be something that is well thought out, and being challenged in that way will strengthen your ability to articulate the faith.
Big brain with your spare cash. Invest it and take the money you gain and donate it. Or you could set up a savings account and put money that you don't need in and take the dividends and give that.
I have three brief points. 1. My honest opinion is that if you really dig deep into Shapiro or anyone else, really what they are saying is that if you explore the options already being used in large economic systems, capitalism prolongs a society the longest in a broken world. I would say this is because capitalism delays the formation of large institutions that will naturally form do to the fallen nature of man, while socialism instantly creates them. Now, I would call myself distributist, but I tend to believe that distributist ideas can be brought about in a free market naturally through willing people. 2. I also don't like how no one makes a distinction between "capitalism" and a "free market." I have a free will which I choose to exercise according to gain or according to love. In the free market one can exercise self interest or interest for the other. One can rightly promote moral institutions that uphold Catholic values and uphold subsidiarity. In my opinion, Shapiro probably uses "capitalism" as if that word means "free market," because that's how many people use it. 3. Also by "self interest," one doesn't always mean something that corresponds to pride. One can have economic "self interests" such as working to provide for a family without thinking anything of themselves. That's just the way some people use that phrase.
There are multiple quotes in the Bible that can be used to support both capitalism and socialism. I think we get caught up in what economic system is more "God-worthy" instead of understanding both are inventions of man and therefore fallible and not worthy of being ascribed to Godliness. So then, what measuring stick have we as Christians to determine which system is better? I would put forth that the system that improves the standard of living and provides for the greatest freedom to follow God is the better system. Capitalism is by far the winner here.
100% that Capitalism was and is intended to be done in conjunction with Judeo Christian values. Capitalism is not capitalism without God in it. I have to disagree with the "give everything" Jesus philosophy, there first has to be something to give. And nothing creates the means by which to give and multiply like capitalism.
@Tactical LARP Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish law. "Judeo-Christian" is a correct term. Don't we also read the Jewish bible (Old Testament)? We Christians can definitely (and should) speak of a Judeo-Christian tradition.
And just to be clear, I'm not against anything Jesus preached, I'm just saying "give everything" is a misnomer. You have to create to give, so there has to be an incentive other than pure survival, which capitalism accomplishes. Read Ralph Waldo Emerson's speech "Man the Reformer". It was a speech he gave to businessmen who were about to leave their farms and head for the big town. He spoke about the inherent evils in business but also the inefficiency and lack of charity in avoiding the fruits of division of labor for the purpose of living purely and simply.
God made us free and only when we're free we can do Good. Goodness only comes from freedom. We have to be allowed to be assholes as long as we don't step on other people's God given rights. No virtue comes without freedom. Most proponents of the free market usually mention the virtues of the system _even_ when people are assholes. And it's true. Of course it's not good or desirable, but under the free market, if you're successful (economically) it's because you served your neighbor and the society is better off because of that. That's the argument: even with the worst people, the system gives better fruits and results than the alternative. But of course we should aim to be good people and good Sons of God. It's not a coincidence that most charitable societies are the most "capitalistic". "If other people are in charge of taking care of my brother, why would I care?"
That is not what the church has ever said about it read any encyclical by any Pope that deal with this stuff and you will find that they certainly dont agree with you. Start with Rerum Novarum or Quadragessimo Anno
@Zachary Trent It's not satire. I'm not saying every business under a free market is gonna be ethically good. But that's where we have to step in as Christians and that's why we have to spread the Gospel. Do you want to make following Christ mandatory? I'd assume no. So if you don't think it should be mandatory regarding the most important thing, why should it be with less important stuff? Also it's very important my point about not stepping over other people's God given rights. This leaves out of the equation a lot of sick markets like hitmans, most of prostitution, slavery, abortion...
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - J.M. Keynes
Shame that Jacob misses the point. Capitalism is based on the premise that opportunity is equal to all participants. Charity should come from the individuals within the society. If the government takes from you, then distributes part of this to the needy, you have not helped the needy in the Christian sense. You have only paid your taxes.
These guys are the reason people are leaving Catholicism. If you are helpless and are dependent on other people than you are a burden to them. You are not helping anyone. You need to be able to lift yourself up first in order to help others later. You do this through capitalism. Capitalism and the free markets have done more to lift people out of poverty, cure decease and prevent hunger than all the charities put together. It is also true that you need moral people to maintain capitalism. You need people who don`t want to kick the ladder of success after they`ve climbed it. Frankly I don`t see why men would want to join these people`s church. Women maybe but certainly not men.
Like most things, this issue requires nuance. Simplistic views almost always leave out important truths and realities. For example, we obviously have a duty to care for the poor, but St. Paul also says, if a man will not work he shall not eat. Compare that to the quote from Ben Shapiro about Capitalism. Here is the whole passage from 2nd Thessalonians chapter 3 6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. St. Paul makes it clear here that idleness is a vice and it is a virtue to work for your own living. Lets then compare this to the Capitalist principle of self-interested labor. The first distinction we have to make is that the principle of self interest that Adam Smith and the American Founders are talking about is not the same thing as mere selfishness. It is not the notion that I simply put myself first in all things. Rather, the principle of self interest they are describing is based on the notion that it is a virtue and even a duty to mind your own business. This is both a positive and a negative principle. In other words it prescribes both things you ought to do, and things you ought not to do. Minding your own business means first and foremost that you conduct your business with diligence and excellence, to the best of your ability. This is based on the idea that God gave to men gifts and duties. It is the responsibility of each man therefore to properly steward those gifts and perform those duties. Further, it is also a recognition of the fact that God made us with the desire to build things, to grow things, generally to be productive and creative. Thus when a butcher or a baker conducts his business in such a way as to build up a business, to grow his estate in life, and to fulfill his duties, such as providing for a family, he is being virtuous. He is doing one of the basic things that human beings were created to do. Minding your own business also means that you don't interfere in other people's business. Your primary responsibility in life is not to manage other people's lives it is to manage your own. Each person should focus on building up what they have been given, not trying to manage what other people have been given. St. Paul also refers to this in the 2nd Thessalonians passage above. A busybody is one who makes themselves busy with other people's affairs rather than their own. It is a fundamental part of human nature, designed by God, and necessary for human flourishing that human beings are meant to work for their own benefit. Not only is this essential for human flourishing, it is also absolutely essential to the formation of a just society. When people refuse to work for their own benefit and instead devote their time to managing and monitoring other people's affairs, it creates all manner of injustices, as well as harming that person individually. All of that is included under the principle of subsidiarity. But we also have the principle of solidarity. We all understand that taking care of your family is part of minding your own business. The principle of solidarity teaches us that our family extends outward to include our community, our nation, and eventually, all people. We have a duty to help the poor and the powerless. This is not in conflict with the principles outlined above, but rather in harmony with them. A great and common error here is to focus outward an abstractions like "humanity" rather than close to home on the realities like "my neighbor". If we look at the biblical commands to help the poor they mostly focus on people who could not help themselves. A common example in the bible is widows and orphans. In the society of the time, these are people who could not work to support themselves. So we need to be especially concerned for those marginalized people who have no options. They can't get work to provide for themselves and they have no power to protect themselves. As Christians we have a special obligation to these people because they are our family in Christ. Jesus himself personally identifies with these people, and if we do not help them, then we are neglecting him as well. there is a difference between someone who cannot work, and someone who will not do productive work. For those who are able, but circumstances such as economics or politics prevent them from having the opportunity, we need to support them, and also work to provide them with the opportunity to support themselves. In such cases, it is not enough just to give them money or food, because they are still deprived of the opportunity to work for their own benefit as befits human dignity and is needed by human psychology. We need to try to build a society in which they can have opportunity to work for their own beneift. There is also the reality that God calls some people to forego normal human goods for a higher purpose. Those who are called to religious life give up building a family and also building their own business etc. Those things are good, but some people are called to give them up. Some of these people are called to live off the charity of God's people. St. Paul acknowledges this in the passage above when he points out that he, as an Apostle and minister of Christ, had a right to live off the support of the local Church, but he chose not to in that case to set an example for them. One of the errors which has commonly appeared in the history of the Faith is rejecting one good simply because it is not a different good. People have rejected marriage because it is not celibacy. They have rejected eating meat because it is not fasting. Likewise we should not reject good honest, self interested work because it is not the religious life. Of course, there are errors on the other side as well. It is easy (and has often been done) to shirk our responsibility for the poor because it isn't our business. Or to blame poverty on the poor and imagine that every person who is suffering in poverty is there because they are lazy etc. As Christians we are all called to live the evangelical virtues, but those virtues look different depending on our state in life. Chastity looks different for a celibate religious person than it does for a married person, but both are called to chastity. Likewise, poverty looks different for a monk who takes a vow not to own anything than it does for a lay person running a business. For the later, poverty is not found in not having any property, but rather in the attitude that person takes towards their property and how they use their property. Do you look at your property as your own? or do you look at it as something God has given you to steward for the sake of the kingdom? The teaching of the Church is also clear in Rerum Novarum that it is not wrong for rich people to have luxuries. There is nothing wrong with having a nice house and nice things, if you are also giving to those who need and supporting the mission of the Church. Such things only become wrong when they become a barrier to faith and obedience. As has often been said, the problem is not having things, its when the things have you.
This guest isn't quite right on Adam Smith. Adam Smith was suggesting that free mutually beneficial transactions help both in spite of selfish motives. Adam Smith wrote "On Moral Sentiments" which he and others considered a more important work, which suggested the importance if morality. Scottish enlightenment thinkers like Smith did not discard Christianity like French enlightenment thinkers. Grouping Smith with Keynes is deeply unfair, even if we still need revelation and the Church for a full and proper formation. He was certainly opposed to the Church and should be seen in that light, but was not opposed to belief in God or morality, including in markets.
It’s always laughable when people slam capitalism all the while the thing that makes possible what they do is capitalism. The problem isn’t capitalism, the problem is a lack of morals or virtue. Capitalism more aligns with scripture than socialism which is what seem to implied in this conversation. It is in scripture that it is stated if you don’t work you don’t eat, a foolish man does not take head to care for the needs of his family, if you are faithful in the least of things you will be made ruler over much, and to those have more will be given and to those who do not, even what they have will be taken. Even at the end of it all we are judged on what we do. This idea that you shouldn’t have to produce something of value to survive is amazing to me and very naive. You can’t give what you do t have! The parable of the talents teaches us to make what we have work for us. If you guys really believed this you wouldn’t be selling merchandise, asking for patron’s if they like your material, and wouldn’t have wasted money on fancy intro graphics and expensive lighting and AC equipment just so you could “sell” your message. Jacob wouldn’t be accepting pay from a university that literally sells information/knowledge. While salvation is a gift even the final judgement is based on what we have done.
I say this a follower of the channel and a fan. Just not sure there is enough context in the conversation and the discussion is so high level it leaves out the practical application.
I don’t think that giving to charity creates a better world (specifically in terms of stability)- it seems to me that the best world would be one in which no charity was needed. The creation of fair paying jobs (far above the american standard wage) is far more important than the 1% donating the amount of money they make in 10 minutes once per year. “American capitalism requires virtuous people” or whatever is patently absurd- it has thrived off of the poor being uneducated and unable to rise up. Look at our history of company towns and labor movements, for example. The civil rights movement even. The people who made the world better weren’t atomized, individual, and great men- it was large groups of people fighting for the rights of their countrymen.
@@OrthoLou immediately after my comment about the poor being uneducated and unable to rise up, I pointed to company towns. Your comments are both laden with stupidity and bad faith.
Meh, it seems to me he's just posing as getting close to NRx for the sake of fashion or for the convenience of allowing him to fall back to amenable positions that are still recognizably right wing.
@Tactical LARP so as long as the economy is good you can be genocidal maniacs who euthanised the old and sick and killed minorities and people they didnt like for the sake of power and essentially wanted to revive german paganism cus christianity was too flabby and jewish? You realize this is a catholic channel not a retarted alt right one right?
@Tactical LARP Nazis were a disaster in the economy. 😂 The only reason to go to (a just) war against the Nazis was to defend what's Good and Truth and as many people lives as possible, but it was doomed to fall from the beginning mostly because of their economic model. 😂
@Tactical LARP Not gonna waste my time... In case anyone else comes to this thread: The Nazi economic model was doomed like every socialist and centralized economy throughout history because, as such, they didn't know _anything_ about the price system, incentives and human behavior.
This is exactly right. Two different versions of internationalism. Furthermore, they have an inner-group conflict between zionism and communism, both of which are devastating to the world. Even Churchill mentioned this fact.
Used to watch this channel a lot. Found a lot of it interesting. Then I watched more and more, and it turns out that this is a thinly veiled right-wing American political channel masquerading as a Catholic channel. Extraordinarily disappointing
Unless your the one risking the venture. Anyway what does that have to do with "giving"? If your an employee making a reasonable wage with some disposable income, them you can give according to your means. Capitalism ensures competition and better products (at least at first). Is it perfect,NO. Greed becomes the problem due to original sin. That's where limited government intervention and moral exhortation by Church come in.
I like a lot of your content, but this was a horrible take. Capitalism is the private ownership of production, capital goods, and consumption goods. Nothing more, nothing less. From the get go you get off track and never get back. 1st: The ethical claim in capitalism isn't: Give me what I want or starve, but rather there is no temporal power that owns you but you and no-one has a moral claim on your labour that you have not consented to (the opposite would be slavery). 2nd: Capitalism has no founders, it existed ever since the first private individual had something to trade something he produced/promised to produce for something else he needed. However, people discovered how a free economy operates, like how Newton discovered the mechanics of gravity. 3rd: How do you get a society without only good people? By letting them work for themselves first, producing value to others in whatever form that may take. Than for their family second and then for their neighbourhood third. How is this not more ethical than the only alternative, to beat them into submission through force to act how you the ruler perceive the good?
Adam Smith wrote a book called, "Moral Sentiments," before he wrote his more famous, "Wealth of Nations."
"Moral Sentiments" describes about the virtues and morality in economics. Not just acting one's self-interest.
The US is hardly capitalist anymore. Most of the conservative/rural farming communities are actually HEAVILY subsidized (50% of farmers depend on government subsidies).
Socialism is here, they're just not calling it that. Without that welfare money, farmers would be finished due to capitalist forces both domestically and internationally.
@@P4yn3 I was not talking about the U.S., or it's current economic situation.
I was highlighting a book of virtues in economics written by Adam Smith that the folks in the video did not mention. They only focus "Wealth of Nations".
The U.S. has definitely become a Welfare state. With some programs needed and unneeded in various areas.
The U.S. is still largely a free market economy where our government has limited influence on what is sold in our markets. Hence the stereotype of large American grocery stores.
Not to say it is like it was years ago. Some regulations could be loosened, or reformed, for the current time period.
Some are needed, or were needed, due to certain circumstances that happened in the United States. Or because of preferences of the people and the states.
Whilst I agree with some of what he says on current events and social issues, I won't be taking any religious guidance from Ben Shapiro.
@LC33 AMDG you shouldn't even be taking political or social advice from him.
@@Deathbytroll wrong. His pursuit for the pro-life is honorable and difficult to rebuttal, so there is good in all people.
@@Deathbytroll Can you give an example of the social advice that we should not take from him?
@@TheRagingheat05 Remember when Ben Shapiro had an ad read in the middle of march for life? I do.
You shouldn't need Ben Shapiro to tell you to be Anti-Abortion and if he's the convincing argument you've already started from a flawed perspective. For example do you think women who perform abortions should be in jail? I do.
@@LeonMortgage do you think we should make vaccine passports? Or not have an immigration moratorium? Or that we should let massive investment firms buy up single family housing to create an actively anti Christian feudal system? Or should we have blind support for Israel because they "share are democratic values"
It’s worth remembering that Benjamin Aaron Shapiro has also said that Jesus was pretty much just “a rebel who got what he deserved”.
Can you please reference where he said that? I'd like to use it for something.
@@CatholicK5357 look up “Ben Shapiro on Jesus”: you will be surprised (or not, if you know a thing or two about the nature of Shapiro’s religious background)
Well, he's a Jew. 🤷🏻♂️😂
@@lisandroCT And that’s the problem...
@@O_Rei I don't see any problem. What Jewish people say about Jesus doesn't change my opinion about them nor about Jesus. 🤨
"Why can't capitalists make money instead of getting power?"
Um, money is power.
Money is not power. The fundamental difference is power can be bought, but money cannot. Thus, Money is a worshiped in Mammon, and power is just an attribute.
Why are Catholics Christians even taking religious advice from someone's who's Jewish? I like Ben Shapiro but I don't look to him for religious advice and I don't think he expects people to look to him for religious advice.
I don't think that's what Matt was getting at. The issue is that for as Catholic as any person might be, if all the media they consume comes from a non Christian background even if it's for politics, what sort of expectations will they pick up when it comes to the doctrine.
While some people are going overboard in the comments, from a Catholic perspective it's rather easy to tell when Shapiro goes off the rails, his view of justice, charity and nation are all unchristian, which is obviously expected from a jewish commentator, the comments about Jesus notwithstanding. The problem are the types that listen to nothing but Shapiro an hour a day every week of the year, what are 15 minutes of homily over the weekend?
I will note, that at least our social doctrine is well developed, most protestants can't even tell the difference between what parts of what Shapiro says are unchristian and which aren't.
Especially since Shapiro actively hates Christians.
Shapiro blasphemes often and he thinks it's funny
I think it’s because I’m the Public space for mainstream conservatism they’re isn’t a mainstay Catholic who really contemplates and reflects on the culture with such intensity and use of reason. Also there is really poor cathechis in terms of what would even define proper Catholic social teaching. For a lot people they really cry out for Justice, firmness, but what we tend to get is a accommodation for the worst of us and only mercy in which there is no justice. So then the voices who don’t properly speak of Justice and Mercy leave everyone to be open those speaking, if in error, of uncaring justice.
@@sebastianbosek5222 Shapiro often laments the decline of Christianity in America. You would have to be insane to claim that he hates Christians. Look at his co-hosts. A Protestant pastor, a secular Jew who converted to Christianity, and two Catholics.
For those who may be interested: 'Sheila', the Australian slang word for a woman, is derived from the Irish Síle (Sheila) which is equivalent to the Latin Julia.
Haha! That's really interesting!!
But Julia doesn't have the same meaning in Latin, does it? Sorry genuine question I didn't think they were equivalent. Julia means youthful, and the Irish equivalent would be Iuile, wouldn't it?
If you understand Shapiro as an Orthodox Jew, not as a Christian, you'll have the means to properly evaluate his speech. His view on Jesus is typical of orthodox Judaism. Dennis Prager belongs to a more moderate form of Judaism that is more "Christian friendly".
I think the driving principle governing Shapiro's thought is that of small limited government. He's also likes the ability of capitalism as a means of creating wealth. He decides big government and it's bureaucratic inefficiency. His view is that society needs strong institutions (outside government) to support most of the needs now thought to be the responsibility of governments. When large governments do the tasks of other smaller governments and institutions inefficiency and governmental corruption are going to increase.
I think what I stated above resonates with conservative Catholics. And, if one takes Catholic Social Teaching seriously can coexist comfortably with Shapiro's political commentary.
At 3:50 I feel somewhat disheartened. I grew up atheist, met and married my wife, and started a family. Fast forward five years and I had some kind of revelation with my faith (or anti-faith, as it was then). I started falling in love with Christianity. Here I am reading Lewis and Chesterton and Merton and Aquinas, and all behind my wife’s back. Not because I necessarily believe. But because I WANT to. And yet when I’ve tried to broach the subject with her, she has essentially given me the ultimatum: me or these new convictions. It broke my heart, so I buttered her up and said I’m not that serious, it’s just a mild curiosity, yada yada. Now here I am still reading those authors and enjoying the Bible and watching channels like Matt’s and hiding this part of myself. It’s maddening, but I love my wife and children, and don’t know what else I can do.
is your wife an atheist as yourself?
@@sapach1406 She grew up Jehovah Witness, but now classifies herself as an atheist. The views religion as whole generally in a bad light.
As for me, though I grew up agnostic, was atheist in my adolescence, I currently classify myself as a “reluctant agnostic.” I would like believe, genuinely. Some old secular convictions seem to get in the way, though.
@@bookishbrendan8875 My advice to you is to keep reading, keep searching and see where it leads you.
In regards to your situation with your wife, I would suggest that, when you talk about this with her, always approach the subject in the most loving and charitable way as possible. Also, don't listen to reply, but listen to understand. That is, instead of making a reply to whatever she say, try to dig in a little deeper, to find the root of her views. By doing this you might pick up "an opening" or "a window of oportunity" that will allow you to explain your position a little bit better. Finally, whenever there's an obstacle in the conversation, as humans we tend to have a "No, YOU don't understand" mentallity and that puts the other party in the defensive. In order to avoid that, I'd suggest to change your mentallity to a more "Alright she's not understanding me. How could I explain my position better? How could I transmit my messege clearer?"
And if you have any questions or just need someone to talk to, we are here for you brother
@@sapach1406 you provided this advice and I can almost feel the calm nature and support in it. I hope the person you replied to and many others can draw a way of communication from this. Especially when putting someone on the defensive end, which I tend to fall into often enough 😅, responding from that point turns the conversation either drastic negative or positive. Thank you, I learned something from this. 'How could I explain my position better? How could I transmit my message clearer?' this is my major takeaway!
@@bookishbrendan8875 if you can watch 'Case for Christ' story of Lee Strobel, that is if you haven't, it might give you some enlightenment. It's a bit of a reversed situation where the wife began believing and convinced her husband, kind of... I think you are at a turning point in your life.
Ben is a religious Jew so I don't really listen to him when it comes to religion, but his political takes are informative and insightful. Not to mention, 2 of his 4 other colleagues who work with him are Catholic, the other two being Christian. The Daily Wire really is a great place to get information and insight from.
They aren't really Catholic though. Not in any meaningful sense.
@@RealAugustusAutumn What do you mean??? 🤣
@@RealAugustusAutumnThey are pretty Catholic and have been on the show plenty of times
The people going to Ben Shapiro for their Catholic theology really should just listen to Tom Woods (an actual Catholic AND historian/economist)
@Tactical LARP
Kind of but not really but ultimately yes
@Zachary Trent if by debunk you mean straw man and falsely ascribe motives to right wing libertarians and anarchists…. sure
Amen.
Zachary Trent I disagree with Woods, but Ferrara strawmans him.
@@toahordika6 what's interesting, is that they have reconciled of sorts more recently over being against the covid19 lockdowns and restrictions. They did an episode together recently about it.
St. Paul: If you do not work, you shall not eat.
That is not the same as what Ben said. Ben was suggesting that the lack of ability to come up something that others want means that it is not just work that gets you food, but a certain entrepreneurial spirit or intellect. There were those in the middleages known as bedesmen, who worked by praying for their patrons. In other words, work should be freely available for people to provide for their family; rather than saying be smart or starve.
@@bayreuth79 Lol. You said a lot with very few necessary distinctions made. So yes, society should help those who are unable to work; the command to work obviously applies only to those who can work. However, the apostles were certainly not communists. Communism has been forbidden by the Catholic Church, meaning that someone cannot be a Catholic and support it. This is because by its very nature, it goes against the dignity of humanity. Communism is not about helping the poor, though it claims to be. But the fact that the poor increase under communist rule proves the case.
The free market is allowed under Catholicism. However, there should be, as recommended by the Catholic Church, certain things in place to protect the poor and to stop the super wealthy from simply hoarding money or using it for ill-gain.
Monasticism is nothing like communism. It is a free man taking a voluntary vow of poverty and agreeing to share with his brethren. Communism rather forces this on society, even those who are not called to it. There is nothing virtuous about it if forced upon you.
@@CatholicK5357 Boom! As you might have picked up, my statement was to make a point, not to pronounce some ideology. Rather, it is also a principle that human beings are created to develop into adulthood, meaning taking responsibility for each his own life - that is an essential factor in being an adult. Being that all humans will also have times in which they cannot do this completely - in contrast to "will not", part if taking care of youself is also asking for help when needed with a corollary being giving help to others also when able to do this without damaging self or others, e.g. those dependent on you in a family. There is a time for everything under heaven. If one looks at scripture, one will find Jesus saying and acting in many times and way that can seem contradictory when cheery pick. Judas Iscariot was angry Jesus let the woman, perhaps Mary Magdalen, annoint His feet with precious oil. The "communists" among us would be like Judas Iscariot with little ability to understand why Jesus would do that. They would also not understand the guy who worked 8 hours getting the same pay as the guy who worked one hour.
The politicization of Jesus Christ will inevitably result in those who do so not understanding Him at all, while at the same time running around thinking they are so righteous. Lord, have mercy on us. Amen
@@IskalkaQuest2010 Yes I agree. One thing you said that I would word differently, is when saying that you were making a point rather than expressing an ideology. We all hold ideologies. And any point being made would have to be an expression of some ideology or worldview. Ideology does not in of itself mean a bad worldview, although there are many of them that are bad.
@@bayreuth79 To be blunt, you are wrong. Yes, communism has been forbidden by the Catholic Church. The actual fact is that the apostles were not communist and never claimed to be. You claiming that them being communist as well as your claim that everyone accepts this is a falsehood. I have read the book of acts, and found nothing in it whatsoever to promote communism.
When the Church forbids something, we must accept her own explanation as to why it is forbidden rather than make up our own interpretation. Marxism, as you say, is a form of communism. The Church has, however, forbidden all forms of communism, not just marxism. One reason being is that the Church recognizes it as a human right to own property, which communism takes issue with. Voluntarily giving up ones right to property is okay and can be even virtuous; but requiring it, is not a Christian principle.
Why did the apostles practice communism you ask? Well, they didn't. The three things you mentioned that they did is not communism by definition.
Yes, again, the Catholic Church has formally and infallibly denounced all forms of communism, because it is inherently anti-Christian and is dangerous - having caused the death of millions. The early Christians most certainly did not practice communism in the slightest.
My reply made no assumption about which form of communism you were speaking of. Instead, you assumed that I made such an assumption. You can say that you never mentioned marxism or the the Soviet Union, but neither did I ever mention them.
Giving an example of a Catholic saying something contrary to the Catholic faith does not make it any more Catholic. Thomas Merton did not have the authority to claim opposite of what the Church teaches. If the Church says something is forbidden, then it is forbidden. You are welcome to go into voluntary poverty and live communally with your brothers. But neither you nor I nor any Catholic can promote a forbidden ideology, such as communism, without being, according to the decree, excommunicated.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism
I heard Ben Shapiro defend contraception.
He does: the modern religion conventionally called “Judaism” today permits contraception (and even abortion for non-Jews).
@@O_Rei hes pretty outspoken against abortion and practically everyone accepts contraception in one form or another
@@eg4848 Speak for yourself. And Shapiro is not against abortion in principle: he thinks its ok to murder babies who, through no fault of their own, were conceived through rape.
@@O_Rei
Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew, if their limits on abortion are inadequate it's not because of modernism
@@O_Rei you might want to check Clinton’s survey he done when President to find out how Catholic Catholics really were and the vast majority said they either used contraception previously or were currently using!
You really can’t say ‘oh their religion modernised’ while completely ignoring what our own members of Catholicism are doing
As for abortion you might want to also do a wee check to realise a horrible amount of ‘Catholics’ support abortion also!
Adam Smith was misrepresented here. He never thought that an egoistic society would work, rather, he criticized the idea harshly in his other book, Moral Sentiments.
There he says that a society is dependent on virtue and empathy to work, and that a life devoted to accumulating money would be meaningless, as true happyness is not found in material wealth.
Adam Smith acctually despized the elites, he understanded the free competition as a way to combat acumalation of wealth via competition, and a way of distributing wealth through free labor, as an oposite to the Mercantilist economy that existed before, in which the rich guys recieved goverment investments to build their on monopolies with the help of the state, and imcompetent people were elevated to public service because of political indication, rather than actual talent.
Interesting.
_Thank you_ .
Ben Shapiro needs to repent and Accept Christ and His Catholic Church
No ! No Roman church. But he needs to know christ. Roman church is pagan religious garbage.
@Ignem Veni Mittere why ?
@Ignem Veni Mittere yes, i made the claim and i backed it up with evidence.
@Ignem Veni Mittere lol..i lost tract ! Have a good day
I agree on a lot of Shapiro's views but like guys Christ is real and alive!
Like you said Christ is risen! Truth is that which most closely correlates to reality, and Jesus Christ is that truth. Therefore since Ben denies this truth, take what he says with a grain of salt.
@@josemarin7027 I don't go to him for theology but politics and see his views
@@sarathomas8499 Christians shouldn't take political advice from him. You need to discover a Christian political agenda.
@@josemarin7027 No I see his views compared to mine, usually I go to Candance or Knowles.
Or organizations like Turning Point, and of course some of the Daily Wire
🤔 I thought Christ asks to give what we have, not our “left overs.” Remember the woman he points out who gives her coin?
What that woman did was heroically virtuous, but remember that Christ also said that, if we have two jackets and our neighbor has one, then give one to our neighbor. So we are only obligated to give what we have in excess to the needy, but if we give even more then that is heroic and will be stored up for Heaven!
I think David Friedman summarized the pro free market stance in regards on the point made in this video with a chapter in his book called "love is not enough".
It would be great living in the kingdom of heaven where everybody loves everyone else, we wouldn't need market and capitalism, but since we aren't capable to live such an high standard, the remaining options are: forcing other people to do what you want or paying them, the second option is more peaceful, more moral and in most cases also more effective.
Ya know, I'm sure Ben would love to come on the show or have you on his.
no doubt he would. don't
@Ignem Veni Mittere dangerously based.
Ben Shapiro blasphemed Jesus Christ in saying that he was 'a rebel killed for his trouble.'
Not an appropriate guest for a Catholic show.
@@tyronefromchad He's a Jew. Jews don't believe in Christ. That's wrong of him, but he should have an opportunity to talk instead of a bunch of ppl putting words in his mouth.
@@jimbojackson4045 He literally said that, no need for putting anything in his mouth. And what he said is not just 'wrong' but a mortal sin and totally disgusting, no matter which untrue other Religion he follows.
I think there's a misunderstanding. The foundation of capitalism is the understanding that the only way to receive is to give. There is no guarantee of a return but you need to provide the best of your ability. This is obviously a very simplified version of everything but it's the essence. The issue is people assume we live in a capitalistic society but the truth is we are socialist with elements of capitalism. Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism either. These are just descriptions of economic systems. They don't exist in their idealized forms and probably never will. In the same way models are an abstraction that are used to understand real word phenomena so too are the concepts of socialism and capitalism. The real questions that needs to be asked is what is the proper role of a government in a moral and free society. Which obviously begs the question of what does it mean to be free and what does it mean to be moral.
Do a search on RUclips for Shapiro and the 10 Commandments. It might give you a better understand what he saying.
Keynes wasn't even an economist let alone a capitalist. These are caricatures that this man is speaking against. Also free market economics (what we mean by capitalism) wasn't just "invented" by Adam Smith. Rather it was developed over time and owes a great deal to medieval scholastics. Ben Shapiro didn't word that very well. Really it's just to say that people have a natural self interest to produce things that benefit society, in this case fear of starving.
We seem to have already forgotten LABOREM EXERCENS (issued on the anniversary of Rerum Novarum), although Jacob for the most part is drawing from it. 🥃🥃 I sometimes wonder about Matt, though, or maybe he's just acting as if he's not familiar with the depth and breath of Catholic social teaching. 😆🤷🏻♂️
Christ did say give without expecting to receive, but he did not say receive without expecting to give. That’s what Ben is getting at with his first comment
Interesting discussion and well worth a listen. I would love to see you do an extended conversation with John D. Mueller, the author of "Redeeming Economics," who points out that Adam Smith, and others, while making valuable contributions to economics actually miss the most important aspects of economics such as the family and gifts. Mueller points out that Augustine and Aquinas (and other Catholic thinkers) addressed these things in their own economic writings and proposes a reintegration of these aspects into economics to serve as a much needed correction to Adam Smith and other modern economists. (I'd also point out that Ben Shapiro's comments about capitalism needing virtue is quite close to Michael Novak's position in "The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.")
That's a lot to pack into 7 minutes.
I am a Catholic who listens to Ben Shapiro daily. I would love specific Catholic criticism of his political ideas. I don't always agree with him, but from reading the comments it would seem I am missing something? I do not think his being Jewish should be the problem. I find that argument disturbing.
You're not missing anything. That is the entire argument, just slurs against him because he's Jewish.
Another great convo - loved it
Shapiro is great for learning about certain angles and approaches to modern day arguments. But I wouldn’t take advice from him when it comes to religion and how to get to Heaven
@Andiamo D. This!
No Catholic should be taking any religious guidance from Shapiro.
Firstly because he is Jewish but secondly due to the things he has said about Christ!
The fact he dismisses Jesus completely and even said Jesus “got what he deserved for trying to lead a revolt against the Romans”...
Why on earth any Catholic would want religious guidance from someone who says those blasphemy things about the sacred heart Jesus.
@@irishandscottish1829 what interviews has he said this sort of thing? I’d like to watch them. I had not heard about this, very troubling as I do enjoy his clips. Best to pray for him to repent
Sharpio for *occasional social commentary*
Catholic / Christian channels for religious guidance
@@Birb2022 why should a Christian take political advice from a jew who denies the truth that is Christ? Unfortunately your comment emphasises the reality that to many Christians today have no idea of a Christian political agenda.
I follow theology before I follow politics. I don't agree with everything Ben says :/. It's not like when listening to him your agreeing to follow everything he said word for word. Has there been times I doubted what he said? Absolutely.
If my guy is quoting the saints on how to run an economy, you KNOW he's run into the Juicy Question and is hiding his power level.
Hyperborean 🪐☀️⚡⚡
Wow..loved this! Our Lord was a rebel. (Not in the worldly way but He ups the ante...love it. Hard but Christianity is not meant to be easy)
Love this, love Matt, pretty happy with Jacob...but there IS a missing element in the discussion of the intersection between economics and morality.
Everything government does, it does by pointing a gun at someone. A prohibited action means: Do it and we'll fine you; don't pay and we'll jail you; try to break out and we'll shoot you. A tax-increase means: Pay this or we'll fine you; don't pay the fine and we'll jail you; try to break out and we'll shoot you. A stop sign erected at taxpayer expense means: Let us spend your public money this way or we'll fine you; don't pay the fine and we'll jail you...and so on. Force is intrinsic to government action; a government JUST IS that organization to which a society grants a monopoly on threatening force to compel cooperation with its goals.
That's not wrong; it's actually a positive good in a fallen world. (Anarchism is wrong.)
BUT, it means that government action CAN be immoral simply by using force to compel a moral good in a situation where the use of force is not morally justified. The government are the employees of the populace; but an unjust use-of-force is still a grave moral evil, even if you delegate the task of doing it to your employees instead of doing it yourself.
Jacob is correct to say that the Gospel requires us as Christians to act on our own initiative to lovingly supply support for the well-being of our neighbors in need. And it's SORT OF correct to say that "capitalism" is a system which "says" that "if you don't produce something worthwhile for me, you starve."
But that picture leaves out critical details...and the omission is a misleading one, because it leads fuzzy thinkers to believe "Therefore, capitalism (not only capitalism-so-defined, but capitalism in GENERAL) is incompatible with the Gospel."
NOT SO!
The lived experience of an economic system comes from the intersection of government policy (including regulations, prohibitions, and compulsions) and the choices people make (partly in response to that policy). On the policy side, "Capitalism" is what we call it when the government DOESN'T habitually point guns at people to reappropriate property in the name of compassion. (Often producing perversely antiproductive outcomes...but set that aside.) This produces a great freedom-of-action.
Within that freedom-of-action, all Christian persons are commanded by Christ to assist the needy...and not necessarily individually; Christian solidarity recommends voluntary organizations uniting to achieve charitable ends, and of course the Church should always be foremost in rescuing the poor.
But Christians are NOT commanded to point guns at other (not necessarily Christian) persons, compelling them to hand over money to be redistributed to the needy. That's an immoral use-of-force. And it REMAINS immoral if the Christians in question send henchmen * cough * I mean, employees to point the guns and take the money. Even when those employees are called "the government."
What, then, is the Christian solution? As a rule (with exceptions! with fuzzy edges!) Christians should support relatively free economies, and always look for places where government transgresses across the line between "restoring stolen property to the poor" and "taking others' property to distribute to the poor." The former is OF COURSE a just use-of-force. The latter is NOT, and Christians should not advocate for government to exceed its moral warrant for using force.
But that's only half of the Christian obligation. The other half is to care for the poor voluntarily, both as individuals and as voluntary organizations, parishes, dioceses, and the like. Inserting compulsion into this formula morally corrupts it, producing class divisions and resentments, vote-buying schemes, and other moral hazards.
Government, however, is a jealous god. In particular, it is jealous of the social influence of subsidiary organizations which play important roles in the life of the community. It resents it when churches care for the poor, or handle adoption services, or beautify communities. So when economic freedom is reduced (as in growing welfare states) we always notice the role of the Church shrinking. Tithes, as it turns out, fall when tax rates increase: They are competing for slices of a finite income pie.
This, then, is part of the answer to the question, "Why were medieval towns centered on a Church, when modern ones center on City Hall?" As government uses force both to compel higher taxes and more redistribution, it crowds the Church out of one of her chief roles of social influence. This is why the poor in the U.S. are almost never practicing Christians any more. The Church should be part of their lives, helping them daily, using funds given freely out of love, and received with gratitude. But she no longer is visible in that role. That role is mostly served by government, using funds taken by compulsion, and received as an entitlement. The harvest of class resentment and vote-buying is easily foreseen!
Many people miss all of this...and mostly because they miss the distinction between Alms Given Voluntarily and Compulsory Wealth Transfers. That distinction must ALWAYS be highlighted when discussing the role of government in forming an economic system. Whenever we ignore the distinction, we risk the grave moral turpitude of Unjustified Uses Of Force.
Excellente..simply saying...thank you cordsworks...im sharing yout thouts complitly..i was born and raise un communistic country..your point abouth state try to take over Church "domein" was obvious during communisam
Please discover and study the “School of Salamanca”
Capitalism seeks to take a realist position on man’s fallen nature. It allows for people to do the bare minimum to live in a fallen world. It does not seek to promote virtue or justice. For capitalism to go beyond its bounds and push forward virtue it must rely on a preexisting culture of virtue to change the equation from self interest to altruism.
Absolutely. I don't care for any economic system that doesn't put culture, faith, and family first ahead of itself. Our society and governance should be working VERY hard to prevent us from self-destructing.
@@sebastianbosek5222 I prefer a system focused on individual justice and doesn’t violate my rights to my own labor for the sake of the collective. I recognize that no human system is perfect but I definitely think free market capitalism is the best at not violating my rights as an individual.
@@rwyland Oh shoot, I totally misread what you wrote on your original post haha
Imam contradicts himself quite a bit here… not sure capitalism is contradictory to Christ’s word, in fact as Shapiro as well as many others, state, you must have a virtuous society. Shapiro also discusses charity quite a bit. Capitalism has also done more for raising the economic conditions vastly. Not sure where Imam is headed, granted, I only have heard this clip but mixing governmental policy and religion is far tricker than just these basic concepts.
You've laid out the benefits proponents of Capitalism usually point to, but can you name the things we have lost as a society because of the development of capitalism?
@@zayan6284 are you implying that the benefits do not outweigh the detriments?
@@jasonl.johnsonesq3326 yes
Thank you I greatly appreciated
your content
This guy completely just argues against straw men arguments.
Shapiro explicitly was talking about economic transaction, not speaking to charity at all and this guy argues that this view is anti-biblical because you should give charitably. Then he goes on to say that bad people in a good system won't work when Shapiro explicitly says that you must have a moral people for the system to work.
I really like this guest Matt .
If you want to be a saint and you do things to take you upon that path, that would be wrong, because it is something you want.
"Job well done."
God Loves You and so do I.
peace!
\o/
That first quote from Ben I'm pretty sure was said in the specific context of explaining why socialism doesn't work, that you don't have the right to not work if you are able and demand that others take care of you.
As far as conservative Catholics looking to Shapiro, I see no issue. When he talks about scripture, he is talking about our scripture. He might not refer to it as the Old Testament, but it's the same book. If he says something that is contra to Catholic theology, then how is that bad, in any case? It will likely be something that is well thought out, and being challenged in that way will strengthen your ability to articulate the faith.
Big brain with your spare cash. Invest it and take the money you gain and donate it. Or you could set up a savings account and put money that you don't need in and take the dividends and give that.
I have three brief points.
1. My honest opinion is that if you really dig deep into Shapiro or anyone else, really what they are saying is that if you explore the options already being used in large economic systems, capitalism prolongs a society the longest in a broken world. I would say this is because capitalism delays the formation of large institutions that will naturally form do to the fallen nature of man, while socialism instantly creates them. Now, I would call myself distributist, but I tend to believe that distributist ideas can be brought about in a free market naturally through willing people.
2. I also don't like how no one makes a distinction between "capitalism" and a "free market." I have a free will which I choose to exercise according to gain or according to love. In the free market one can exercise self interest or interest for the other. One can rightly promote moral institutions that uphold Catholic values and uphold subsidiarity. In my opinion, Shapiro probably uses "capitalism" as if that word means "free market," because that's how many people use it.
3. Also by "self interest," one doesn't always mean something that corresponds to pride. One can have economic "self interests" such as working to provide for a family without thinking anything of themselves. That's just the way some people use that phrase.
There are multiple quotes in the Bible that can be used to support both capitalism and socialism. I think we get caught up in what economic system is more "God-worthy" instead of understanding both are inventions of man and therefore fallible and not worthy of being ascribed to Godliness. So then, what measuring stick have we as Christians to determine which system is better? I would put forth that the system that improves the standard of living and provides for the greatest freedom to follow God is the better system. Capitalism is by far the winner here.
100% that Capitalism was and is intended to be done in conjunction with Judeo Christian values. Capitalism is not capitalism without God in it. I have to disagree with the "give everything" Jesus philosophy, there first has to be something to give. And nothing creates the means by which to give and multiply like capitalism.
@Tactical LARP Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish law. "Judeo-Christian" is a correct term. Don't we also read the Jewish bible (Old Testament)? We Christians can definitely (and should) speak of a Judeo-Christian tradition.
And just to be clear, I'm not against anything Jesus preached, I'm just saying "give everything" is a misnomer. You have to create to give, so there has to be an incentive other than pure survival, which capitalism accomplishes. Read Ralph Waldo Emerson's speech "Man the Reformer". It was a speech he gave to businessmen who were about to leave their farms and head for the big town. He spoke about the inherent evils in business but also the inefficiency and lack of charity in avoiding the fruits of division of labor for the purpose of living purely and simply.
@Tactical LARP And I guess it's better to not like each other. Okay. 👍🏻
@Zachary Trent So what? The term Holy Trinity was foreign to the apostles and what's your point? 🤷🏻♂️
Capitalism is axiologicaly indifferent
God made us free and only when we're free we can do Good. Goodness only comes from freedom. We have to be allowed to be assholes as long as we don't step on other people's God given rights. No virtue comes without freedom.
Most proponents of the free market usually mention the virtues of the system _even_ when people are assholes. And it's true. Of course it's not good or desirable, but under the free market, if you're successful (economically) it's because you served your neighbor and the society is better off because of that. That's the argument: even with the worst people, the system gives better fruits and results than the alternative. But of course we should aim to be good people and good Sons of God.
It's not a coincidence that most charitable societies are the most "capitalistic". "If other people are in charge of taking care of my brother, why would I care?"
That is not what the church has ever said about it read any encyclical by any Pope that deal with this stuff and you will find that they certainly dont agree with you.
Start with Rerum Novarum or Quadragessimo Anno
@Zachary Trent It's not satire. I'm not saying every business under a free market is gonna be ethically good. But that's where we have to step in as Christians and that's why we have to spread the Gospel.
Do you want to make following Christ mandatory? I'd assume no. So if you don't think it should be mandatory regarding the most important thing, why should it be with less important stuff?
Also it's very important my point about not stepping over other people's God given rights. This leaves out of the equation a lot of sick markets like hitmans, most of prostitution, slavery, abortion...
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - J.M. Keynes
Shame that Jacob misses the point. Capitalism is based on the premise that opportunity is equal to all participants. Charity should come from the individuals within the society. If the government takes from you, then distributes part of this to the needy, you have not helped the needy in the Christian sense. You have only paid your taxes.
These guys are the reason people are leaving Catholicism. If you are helpless and are dependent on other people than you are a burden to them. You are not helping anyone. You need to be able to lift yourself up first in order to help others later. You do this through capitalism. Capitalism and the free markets have done more to lift people out of poverty, cure decease and prevent hunger than all the charities put together.
It is also true that you need moral people to maintain capitalism. You need people who don`t want to kick the ladder of success after they`ve climbed it. Frankly I don`t see why men would want to join these people`s church. Women maybe but certainly not men.
Like most things, this issue requires nuance. Simplistic views almost always leave out important truths and realities.
For example, we obviously have a duty to care for the poor, but St. Paul also says, if a man will not work he shall not eat. Compare that to the quote from Ben Shapiro about Capitalism.
Here is the whole passage from 2nd Thessalonians chapter 3
6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
St. Paul makes it clear here that idleness is a vice and it is a virtue to work for your own living.
Lets then compare this to the Capitalist principle of self-interested labor.
The first distinction we have to make is that the principle of self interest that Adam Smith and the American Founders are talking about is not the same thing as mere selfishness. It is not the notion that I simply put myself first in all things. Rather, the principle of self interest they are describing is based on the notion that it is a virtue and even a duty to mind your own business. This is both a positive and a negative principle. In other words it prescribes both things you ought to do, and things you ought not to do.
Minding your own business means first and foremost that you conduct your business with diligence and excellence, to the best of your ability. This is based on the idea that God gave to men gifts and duties. It is the responsibility of each man therefore to properly steward those gifts and perform those duties. Further, it is also a recognition of the fact that God made us with the desire to build things, to grow things, generally to be productive and creative. Thus when a butcher or a baker conducts his business in such a way as to build up a business, to grow his estate in life, and to fulfill his duties, such as providing for a family, he is being virtuous. He is doing one of the basic things that human beings were created to do.
Minding your own business also means that you don't interfere in other people's business. Your primary responsibility in life is not to manage other people's lives it is to manage your own. Each person should focus on building up what they have been given, not trying to manage what other people have been given. St. Paul also refers to this in the 2nd Thessalonians passage above. A busybody is one who makes themselves busy with other people's affairs rather than their own.
It is a fundamental part of human nature, designed by God, and necessary for human flourishing that human beings are meant to work for their own benefit.
Not only is this essential for human flourishing, it is also absolutely essential to the formation of a just society. When people refuse to work for their own benefit and instead devote their time to managing and monitoring other people's affairs, it creates all manner of injustices, as well as harming that person individually.
All of that is included under the principle of subsidiarity.
But we also have the principle of solidarity.
We all understand that taking care of your family is part of minding your own business. The principle of solidarity teaches us that our family extends outward to include our community, our nation, and eventually, all people. We have a duty to help the poor and the powerless. This is not in conflict with the principles outlined above, but rather in harmony with them. A great and common error here is to focus outward an abstractions like "humanity" rather than close to home on the realities like "my neighbor".
If we look at the biblical commands to help the poor they mostly focus on people who could not help themselves. A common example in the bible is widows and orphans. In the society of the time, these are people who could not work to support themselves. So we need to be especially concerned for those marginalized people who have no options. They can't get work to provide for themselves and they have no power to protect themselves. As Christians we have a special obligation to these people because they are our family in Christ. Jesus himself personally identifies with these people, and if we do not help them, then we are neglecting him as well.
there is a difference between someone who cannot work, and someone who will not do productive work.
For those who are able, but circumstances such as economics or politics prevent them from having the opportunity, we need to support them, and also work to provide them with the opportunity to support themselves. In such cases, it is not enough just to give them money or food, because they are still deprived of the opportunity to work for their own benefit as befits human dignity and is needed by human psychology. We need to try to build a society in which they can have opportunity to work for their own beneift.
There is also the reality that God calls some people to forego normal human goods for a higher purpose. Those who are called to religious life give up building a family and also building their own business etc. Those things are good, but some people are called to give them up. Some of these people are called to live off the charity of God's people. St. Paul acknowledges this in the passage above when he points out that he, as an Apostle and minister of Christ, had a right to live off the support of the local Church, but he chose not to in that case to set an example for them.
One of the errors which has commonly appeared in the history of the Faith is rejecting one good simply because it is not a different good. People have rejected marriage because it is not celibacy. They have rejected eating meat because it is not fasting. Likewise we should not reject good honest, self interested work because it is not the religious life.
Of course, there are errors on the other side as well. It is easy (and has often been done) to shirk our responsibility for the poor because it isn't our business. Or to blame poverty on the poor and imagine that every person who is suffering in poverty is there because they are lazy etc.
As Christians we are all called to live the evangelical virtues, but those virtues look different depending on our state in life. Chastity looks different for a celibate religious person than it does for a married person, but both are called to chastity. Likewise, poverty looks different for a monk who takes a vow not to own anything than it does for a lay person running a business. For the later, poverty is not found in not having any property, but rather in the attitude that person takes towards their property and how they use their property. Do you look at your property as your own? or do you look at it as something God has given you to steward for the sake of the kingdom?
The teaching of the Church is also clear in Rerum Novarum that it is not wrong for rich people to have luxuries. There is nothing wrong with having a nice house and nice things, if you are also giving to those who need and supporting the mission of the Church. Such things only become wrong when they become a barrier to faith and obedience. As has often been said, the problem is not having things, its when the things have you.
This guest isn't quite right on Adam Smith. Adam Smith was suggesting that free mutually beneficial transactions help both in spite of selfish motives. Adam Smith wrote "On Moral Sentiments" which he and others considered a more important work, which suggested the importance if morality.
Scottish enlightenment thinkers like Smith did not discard Christianity like French enlightenment thinkers. Grouping Smith with Keynes is deeply unfair, even if we still need revelation and the Church for a full and proper formation. He was certainly opposed to the Church and should be seen in that light, but was not opposed to belief in God or morality, including in markets.
Why these guys haven't sold everything and given it to the poor? I hope there is a doctrinal explanation.
The answer is in Irinaeus Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses) Book 4 Ch 12.5
Ben Shapiro?!! Not expecting this.
His wife is a doctor btw
@@jppalves500 “My wife’s a doctor, gang.”
It’s always laughable when people slam capitalism all the while the thing that makes possible what they do is capitalism. The problem isn’t capitalism, the problem is a lack of morals or virtue. Capitalism more aligns with scripture than socialism which is what seem to implied in this conversation. It is in scripture that it is stated if you don’t work you don’t eat, a foolish man does not take head to care for the needs of his family, if you are faithful in the least of things you will be made ruler over much, and to those have more will be given and to those who do not, even what they have will be taken. Even at the end of it all we are judged on what we do. This idea that you shouldn’t have to produce something of value to survive is amazing to me and very naive. You can’t give what you do t have! The parable of the talents teaches us to make what we have work for us.
If you guys really believed this you wouldn’t be selling merchandise, asking for patron’s if they like your material, and wouldn’t have wasted money on fancy intro graphics and expensive lighting and AC equipment just so you could “sell” your message. Jacob wouldn’t be accepting pay from a university that literally sells information/knowledge.
While salvation is a gift even the final judgement is based on what we have done.
I say this a follower of the channel and a fan. Just not sure there is enough context in the conversation and the discussion is so high level it leaves out the practical application.
So, the discussant will sell his house, not for what it is worth, but for whatever anyone wants to offer for it.
What is the house worth if not what people are willing to pay for it?
Ben Shapiro is Jewish not Catholic. For Ben it is good for what he is good for. That's not spirituality.
Ben Shapiro 🤢🤢🤢👃👃👃
👀
I don’t think that giving to charity creates a better world (specifically in terms of stability)- it seems to me that the best world would be one in which no charity was needed. The creation of fair paying jobs (far above the american standard wage) is far more important than the 1% donating the amount of money they make in 10 minutes once per year. “American capitalism requires virtuous people” or whatever is patently absurd- it has thrived off of the poor being uneducated and unable to rise up. Look at our history of company towns and labor movements, for example. The civil rights movement even. The people who made the world better weren’t atomized, individual, and great men- it was large groups of people fighting for the rights of their countrymen.
This is nuts
@@OrthoLou Exactly.
@@alfredhitchcock45 with that attitude, there won’t even be meaningful improvement. Walk past your close minded assumptions.
@@OrthoLou if you think the civil rights movement was a bad thing, you’re too far gone to be brought to reason.
@@OrthoLou immediately after my comment about the poor being uneducated and unable to rise up, I pointed to company towns. Your comments are both laden with stupidity and bad faith.
'St John Bosco and Confidence in Our Lady' on RUclips
Listen to Michael Knowles
Meh, it seems to me he's just posing as getting close to NRx for the sake of fashion or for the convenience of allowing him to fall back to amenable positions that are still recognizably right wing.
I did for a while but dude turned me off when he said he would rather take photos with a transvestite Lady Maga than young Catholic America First.
Please read Barren Metal if you think Shapiro is correct
Read Ludwig Von Mises.
@Tactical LARP so as long as the economy is good you can be genocidal maniacs who euthanised the old and sick and killed minorities and people they didnt like for the sake of power and essentially wanted to revive german paganism cus christianity was too flabby and jewish?
You realize this is a catholic channel not a retarted alt right one right?
@Tactical LARP Nazis were a disaster in the economy. 😂
The only reason to go to (a just) war against the Nazis was to defend what's Good and Truth and as many people lives as possible, but it was doomed to fall from the beginning mostly because of their economic model. 😂
@Tactical LARP Not gonna waste my time...
In case anyone else comes to this thread: The Nazi economic model was doomed like every socialist and centralized economy throughout history because, as such, they didn't know _anything_ about the price system, incentives and human behavior.
@Zachary Trent You can learn a lot from people you don't agree 100% with.
Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same jewish coin.
Embrace catholicism and the third position.
This is exactly right. Two different versions of internationalism. Furthermore, they have an inner-group conflict between zionism and communism, both of which are devastating to the world. Even Churchill mentioned this fact.
The discussant is not enough nuanced in his thinking. Baby or bathwater.
😮😮😮😮😮😮
Used to watch this channel a lot. Found a lot of it interesting. Then I watched more and more, and it turns out that this is a thinly veiled right-wing American political channel masquerading as a Catholic channel. Extraordinarily disappointing
You should remember Mr. Serpico is Jewish
Capitalism is not giving!!! It's work.
If you make a profit, then you can address giving. What's wrong with your brain.
Unless your the one risking the venture. Anyway what does that have to do with "giving"? If your an employee making a reasonable wage with some disposable income, them you can give according to your means. Capitalism ensures competition and better products (at least at first). Is it perfect,NO. Greed becomes the problem due to original sin. That's where limited government intervention and moral exhortation by Church come in.
And Communism isn't working for someone else?
I like a lot of your content, but this was a horrible take.
Capitalism is the private ownership of production, capital goods, and consumption goods. Nothing more, nothing less.
From the get go you get off track and never get back.
1st: The ethical claim in capitalism isn't: Give me what I want or starve, but rather there is no temporal power that owns you but you and no-one has a moral claim on your labour that you have not consented to (the opposite would be slavery).
2nd: Capitalism has no founders, it existed ever since the first private individual had something to trade something he produced/promised to produce for something else he needed. However, people discovered how a free economy operates, like how Newton discovered the mechanics of gravity.
3rd: How do you get a society without only good people? By letting them work for themselves first, producing value to others in whatever form that may take. Than for their family second and then for their neighbourhood third. How is this not more ethical than the only alternative, to beat them into submission through force to act how you the ruler perceive the good?
Sorry, but your guest is speaking a bunch of word salad.
LOL. Wow, this guy thinks that velocity of money = economic growth! And he thinks he's qualified to talk about capitalism???
I agree we should not listen to Ben Shapiro. He is a gatekeeper for the actual truth.