Our Lord said, "the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Mt 12:16) And, clarifying what he meant, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mk 9:35) Are the rich people who are successful businessmen and entrepreneurs first on this earth or last? A naive answer is that they are first, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, they are last, because they have created and are continuing to create much value for the consumers, while themselves refraining from spending all of their cash. They are humble servants of the public, but they themselves do not avail themselves of the fruits of social cooperation to the greatest possible extent, e.g., by dying broke. One doesn't eat dollar bills. Normally, their money goes to finance productive activities, pay wages, and create goods for the consumers, which the businessmen themselves do not bid away from the less prosperous, thereby keeping prices low. As Mises judges, "the clerks and workers who boast of their moral superiority deceive themselves and find consolation in this self-deception. They do not admit that they have been tried and found wanting by their fellow citizens, the consumers." (Human Action, 314)
Thus, those who have served their fellow man by taking an active part in building a civilization while themselves being at least somewhat ascetic should be glorified here and will for sure be glorified in the hereafter.
It may be true that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mt 19:24) But the same holds for smart people, gifted people, great artists, political leaders, etc. As Aquinas writes, "Science and anything else conducive to greatness, is to man an occasion of self-confidence, so that he does not wholly surrender himself to God. The result is that such like things sometimes occasion a hindrance to devotion; while in simple souls and women devotion abounds by repressing pride. If, however, a man perfectly submits to God his science or any other perfection, by this very fact his devotion is increased." (ST, II-II, 82, 3, ad 3)
Entrepreneurial foresight and cunning are perfections; insofar as a person who has become rich has not spent all the profits of his company on himself but, for example, plowed them back into other businesses and finally contributed to philanthropic causes, he has not received his reward in full and is due for a reward from the Father (Mt 6:2-4).
Don't forget that in Biblical times the rich usually were tax collectors and other government parasites who fed off of the productive masses. This essentially proves the classical theory of class struggle (rulers vs. ruled), disproving the Marxist one (class vs. class).
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
What do you think Our Lord intended to say?
In other words, successful entrepreneurs are first in achievement or impact they made on the world but last in their capacity as servants to the people.
mattch, I think Jesus meant ultimately that happiness is found in loving self-giving, such as to one's life's work and to other human beings, because only in such self-giving do you come to know and love yourself.
I like to view the free-market as a competition over who can serve the greatest amount of people in the most efficient way possible. I don't really understand most of the Bible, so I won't really comment on your interpretation of it.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
dchernik:They are humble servants of the public, but they themselves do not avail themselves of the fruits of social cooperation to the greatest possible extent, e.g., by dying broke.
But they are; they are utilizing social cooperation so much that it's made them wealthy. A lot of people wish to cooperate with them: consumers trade their dollars for the product, workers trade their time for dollars, and other companies trade their product for dollars.
So I would say they avail themselves of the fruits of social cooperation quite well, insofar as the fruit is success and profits. Because if you're waiting until you die for your reward....well that's just not living.
Amen!
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Mises objects to Jesus:
One thing of course is clear, and no skilful [sic] interpretation can obscure it. Jesus's words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor…. In God's Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. Later revisers have tried to soften the words of Christ against the rich … but there is quite enough left to support those who incite the world to hatred of the rich, revenge, murder and arson…. This is a case in which the Redeemer's words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenceless against all movements which aim at destroying human society. The church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it … was continually disarmed by the words: "Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the Kingdom of God."
And
never and nowhere can a system of social ethics embracing social cooperation be built up on a doctrine which prohibits any concern for sustenance and work, while it expresses fierce resentment against the rich, preaches hatred of the family, and advocates voluntary castration.
Finally,
It is only in this way that we can understand why, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus recommends his own people to take no thought for food, drink, and clothing; why he exhorts them not to sow or reap or gather in barns, not to labour or spin. It is the only explanation, too, of his disciples' "communism" … The primitive Christians do not produce, labour, or gather anything at all. The newly converted realize their possessions and divide the proceeds with the brethren and sisters. Such a way of living is untenable in the long run.
Mises is being way too harsh here. For example, he misrepresents the first beatitude which says "blessed are the poor in spirit" which signifies humility (a virtue complementary to magnanimity and includes such things as ardent desire to learn), dependence on and service to God, and fear of and obedience to the natural and divine laws, not material poverty. He also claims that Jesus's disciples were convinced of his return within their lifetimes, a claim I've often heard but one that I think is simply false. When he invokes the lilies who "do not labor or spin," he advises his followers to love the universal good more than the temporal goods, but "seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well." In other words, saying "love God more than your stomach" does not entail "do not enjoy food." So Jesus nowhere says that we must neglect temporal prosperity. This same passage may well be interpreted as a parable of God's love: that if grass is so beautiful, how much more then human beings: "If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!" "Do not worry" does not mean "do not work"; it means to trust in God that an opportunity or ideas how to satisfy your worldly concerns will come to you; don't despair. Finally, in saying "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys," he talks to his apostles, those who will build the church, not necessarily to everyone.
dchernik: Mises objects to Jesus: One thing of course is clear, and no skilful [sic] interpretation can obscure it. Jesus's words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor…. In God's Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. Later revisers have tried to soften the words of Christ against the rich … but there is quite enough left to support those who incite the world to hatred of the rich, revenge, murder and arson…. This is a case in which the Redeemer's words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenceless against all movements which aim at destroying human society. The church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it … was continually disarmed by the words: "Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the Kingdom of God." And never and nowhere can a system of social ethics embracing social cooperation be built up on a doctrine which prohibits any concern for sustenance and work, while it expresses fierce resentment against the rich, preaches hatred of the family, and advocates voluntary castration. Finally, It is only in this way that we can understand why, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus recommends his own people to take no thought for food, drink, and clothing; why he exhorts them not to sow or reap or gather in barns, not to labour or spin. It is the only explanation, too, of his disciples' "communism" … The primitive Christians do not produce, labour, or gather anything at all. The newly converted realize their possessions and divide the proceeds with the brethren and sisters. Such a way of living is untenable in the long run.
Whatever you might think of his strident tone, you have to respect von Mises's honesty here.
Instead of engaging in apologetics, he takes Christ's reported words for what they were manifestly intended to mean and is honest enough to admit that they're incompatible with his own beliefs.
M.
True, but the Bible is vague and subject to many interpretations, like the one dchernik just gave it. I'll have to say my opinion is closer to Mises's, but I'm no Bible expert so I can't really say much more.
I hope we could agree that meaningful interpretation should start with the intended meaning of the author, not the prior beliefs of the interpreter. I was trying to warn dchernik of this.
mattch: I hope we could agree that meaningful interpretation should start with the intended meaning of the author, not the prior beliefs of the interpreter. I was trying to warn dchernik of this.
This seems to be the issue. How to know the intended meaning of the author? In case of the new testament even, how to know who the author or the authors where? The whole struggle between all christian denominations are based exactly on the question what the intention or the meaning of the author is,no?
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag: This seems to be the issue. How to know the intended meaning of the author? In case of the new testament even, how to know who the author or the authors where? The whole struggle between all christian denominations are based exactly on the question what the intention or the meaning of the author is,no?
True. But it also depends what your goals are. You might truly believe in the special authority of the author, and be sincerely searching for guidance. Or you might be seeking to justify your own interests or prior beliefs by misusing the authority that the author holds with others.
In JC's case this is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with a literary figure, rather than a verifiable historical individual. And the people who created this literary figure probably had their own agenda, that wasn't necessarily JC's.
For me he was a fallible and misguided earthly human-being, who did happen to say some impractical but also beautiful and thought-provoking things.
m.
See Mises vs. Jesus for an extended and more polished apologetics.
krazy kaju: Don't forget that in Biblical times the rich usually were tax collectors and other government parasites who fed off of the productive masses. This essentially proves the classical theory of class struggle (rulers vs. ruled), disproving the Marxist one (class vs. class).
Kaju, can you point me towards any more 'classical theory' class struggle articles?
Irish Liberty Forum
Although I find it VERY dangerous to turn Jesus into a classical liberal/Market Anarchist spiritual paragon (He WAS a religous "entreprenur", he does say many things which not only are anti-state (Along with some suspicious statements involving obedience and submission ((Whether these were metaphorical or literal is another discussion entirely)) ) But also seem to provide a powerful moral fabric for a society without coercion.
I cant believe what Im seeing here. Dont you think the rich can very well defend themselves people? Oh waitt, theyre absolutely moral, hard working, productive people. Most dont make their money buying and selling the debt of the classes beneath them. No, most weren't handed an oppurtunity and shown the way to achieve it. No, no. They did it all on their own. I get it. And they help the poor by not spending ALL their money.
Because some brave soul in our past was willing to stand up and "steal" from the rich, I was able to eat as a child on food stamps. And before you say anything, my father worked 12 hrs a day 6 days a week before losing his job. Because some brave soul was willing to forcibly remove the property of some greedy money-grubbing heiress, I was able to use public assistance to put me through college and hopefully create a better situation for future generations.
You people go to great lengths to justify greed is good and were on our own. It makes me sick sometimes. My problem is that you libertarians are almost spot-on, until it comes to economics. Then the "I dont want no lazy sap taking any of my hard-earned money to maybe FEED HIS DAMN CHILDREN!!!"
Adam E Zandarski
You and others can starve for all I care.
Amen.
MatthewWilliam: krazy kaju: Don't forget that in Biblical times the rich usually were tax collectors and other government parasites who fed off of the productive masses. This essentially proves the classical theory of class struggle (rulers vs. ruled), disproving the Marxist one (class vs. class). Kaju, can you point me towards any more 'classical theory' class struggle articles?
Raico and Hoppe.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap