Posted on 06/25/2013 7:28:21 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In his book "Distributive Justice" John A. Ryan writes the following: (page 252)
The Canon of Human Welfare
We say "human" welfare rather than "social" welfare, in order to make clear the fact that this canon considers the well being of men not only as a social group, but also as individuals. It includes and summarises all that is ethically and socially feasible in the five canons already reviewed. It takes account of equality, inasmuch as it regards all men as persons, as subjects of rights; and of needs, inasmuch as it awards to all the necessary participants in the industrial system at least that amount of remuneration which will meet the elementary demands of decent living and self development. It is governed by efforts and sacrifices, at least in so far as they are reflected in productivity and scarcity; and by productivity and scarcity to whatever extent is necessary in order to produce the maximum net results. It would give to every producer sufficient remuneration to evoke his greatest net contribution to the productive process. Greatest "net" contribution; for a man's absolute maximum product may not always be worth the required price. For example: a man who for a salary of 2500 dollars turns out a product valued at 3000 dollars, should not be given 3000 dollars in order to induce him to bring forth a product worth 3300 dollars. In this case a salary of 2500 dollars evokes the maximum net product, and represents the reward which would be assigned by the canon of human welfare. Once the vital needs of the individual have been safeguarded, the supreme guide of the canon of human welfare is the principle of maximum net results, or the greatest product at the lowest cost.
It is not contended here that this canon ought never to undergo modification or exception. Owing to the exceptional hazards and sacrifices of their occupation, a combination of producers might be justified in exacting larger compensation than would be accorded them by the canon of human welfare on the basis of net results in the present conditions of supply and scarcity. Unusual needs and capacities might also justify a strong group in pursuing the same course. All that is asserted at present is that in conditions of average competition the canon of human welfare is not unjust. And this is all that is necessary as a preliminary to the discussion of just profits.1
1 A very suggestive discussion of the psychology, the general principles, and the practical limitations of distributive justice, will be found in an article by Gustav Schmoller, entitled, " The Idea of Justice in Political Economy." It is No. 113 in the Publications of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
The footnote is what's important here. First, who was John A. Ryan? He was the Jim Wallis of his day. A corrupt social justice/gospel peddler. John Ryan was called by many in his day "The Right Reverend New Dealer" (second link) for his support of the New Deal. Jonah Goldberg has an entry on NRO about him here, which will give you a bit of an idea and help me get to the next item.
As you can see from his own book, he's referencing Gustav von Schmoller. Who was Schmoller? He was what they called a "Kathedersozialist", which means "Socialist of the chair".(As you can see from that last link, Emily Greene Balch was also influenced by Schmoller) In other words, an armchair revolutionary. I find this kind of ironic, that even this is a term imported from Germany. A modified and updated version of this could be "armchair quarterback". That just goes to show you how infected our society is with Germanic socialist ideals. But after a century of this sort of propaganda in our colleges and even schools, what else would anybody expect?
Here's a bit of what this socialist theoretician wrote:
The decisive ideal conceptions will be influenced not exclusively but essentially by distributive justice. Institutions which govern whole groups of human beings and the entire distribution of wealth and incomes necessarily call forth a judgment upon their total effects. Inasmuch, indeed, as single institutions concern only single men and single phases of life, the justice required will only be a partial one. Naturally this is always easy to attain. A just assessment of taxes, a just distribution of the burdens for the improvement of highways, of the duty of military service, a just gradation of wages are much easier to attain than a just distribution of the total incomes and wealth. But an endeavor towards these ends will never cease; all partially just regulations have significance only in a system of the just distribution of the total. And with this we finally come to the question what can be and what should the State do in this matter?In our view it will obviously not be a body confined to the extension of justice in criminal law, in the jurisdiction upon contracts and further, perhaps, in the assessment of taxes, but ignoring the just distribution of goods. What sense is there in warming up in the legislatures over the hundredth part of a cent, which a quart of beer or a yard of cloth is raised in price for the poor man, when one takes the standpoint on principle, that his wages are to be regarded as something indifferent and remote from all human intervention. Our modern civilized commonwealth indeed cannot remove every injustice, because primarily it operates and has to operate by means of law. But it should not therefore be indifferent to the moral sentiments of men who ask for justice in distributing wealth and incomes for the grand total of human society. The State is the centre and the heart in which all institutions empty and unite. It also has a strong direct influence on the distribution of incomes and wealth as the greatest employer of labor, the greatest property holder, or the administrator of the greatest undertakings. Above all it exercises as legislator and administrator the greatest indirect influence on law and custom, on all social institutions; and this is the decisive point.
This is what we're dealing with, this is how the elites think. They view the state as the center of our lives, and do not think it tyranny to be this insertive into daily activity. They have openly written: "No, planning is not by itself tyrannical".
What do those of us out here who are being "planned" have to say? Yes, you are tyrants. You are dictating to our lives about things you have no business dictating about.
As to Ryan, John A. Ryan's most widely known book was not "Distributive Justice", but rather his prior book "A Living Wage". But according to Ryan himself:
Distributive Justice is unquestionably the most important book I have written
He had his own reasons for its importance, unfortunately the book is locked and we cannot see what those are. But I know why I think it's important. From what I can tell Ryan's book is the first time "Distributive Justice" enters the English Language in a major way; that is, here's a popular writer at the time, using this term as a book title that would be sold at book stores and likely used as a college text by some of his peers. Sure, when Gustav Schmoller's work on this matter is originally translated from German into English(Translation date unknown, but the publication was 1894, so it's safe to say that the translation was done around that same time) would be the first time it enters into the language in a small way.(Outside of offhand classroom references by various professors of the late 1800's. But those are impossible to track)
This is the ideology behind the recent Sweden gang-rape verdict.
“For example: a man who for a salary of 2500 dollars turns out a product valued at 3000 dollars, should not be given 3000 dollars in order to induce him to bring forth a product worth 3300 dollars.”
Unbelieveable that supposedly intelligent people think like this, but I have known some people that do so. It’s the pie scenario; socialists want to slice up the pie into equallly small slices, capitalists want to make a bigger pie.
As I remember the terms "Distributive Justice" were first used by Aristotle in his "Politics." Perhaps Aristotle did not attach the same meaning. In essence Aristotle meant giving every man his due by means of proportion.
Just the title makes one want to head for the hills.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html
He doesn’t use the specific slogan of ‘distributive justice’, but he does talk a lot about justice and a just distribution of things. It’s book 3, part IX.(probably elsewhere as well)
Ultimately, wealth redistribution is a very, very old concept that authoritarian dictators have used for centuries. What these “social theorists” have done is re-packaged it as if it’s something brand new and they sell it as if it’s a 20th century concept. It’s not new at all, it’s much older than Liberty and it’s not all that surprising that Aristotle wrote of the concept. Benjamin Franklin tells us:
http://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2011/08/ben-franklin-wealth-redistribution.html
“”Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partizans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharoah, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever.””
This was all said at the Constitutional Convention, hardly a miniscule event on its own in world history. This is likely one of the reasons why the Founders were so absolutely in favor of private propery. They read history. They knew. They saw it both in the books and in their own lives.
The ownership of private property has not been nearly the problem that the use and abuse of private property has been. Most people writing on the subject of property do not seem to understand the technical aspects of property law as it developed in the Common Law countries. Before one criticizes the distribution of property one must at least understand how its governance developed.
“This is likely one of the reasons why the Founders were so absolutely in favor of private property.”
Unfortunately they did not specifically delineate a right to hold property in the Constitution. The few property protections they did delineate have been circumvented by the Supreme Court and Congress.
The State is the centre and the heart in which all institutions empty and unite. It also has a strong direct influence on the distribution of incomes and wealth as the greatest employer of labor, the greatest property holder, or the administrator of the greatest undertakings. Above all it exercises as legislator and administrator the greatest indirect influence on law and custom, on all social institutions; and this is the decisive point.
And why is John Ryan's book "Distributive Jusice" locked? There are no copies floating around anywhere? That's very strange in itself.
Could you elaborate or explain that, please? Also the rest of your comments. I don't have time or the brain power to study Aristotle or study up on the technical aspects of how property law developed in the Common Law countries, or even what the Common Law countries are. Not everyone here is a scholar.
Histories of the Common Law of Property are available. An example of property misuse would be if I undertook digging a swimming pool on my land and it caused the land to collapse and destroy your house. Another real case would be my uncle. A neighbor was erecting an apartment on his land, a legal activity, but the contractor for some reason dug under my uncle’s house foundation by about twenty feet creating a danger that my uncle’s house would collapse. The neighbor was forced to hire a contractor to fix the problem and in addition pay my uncle $60,000.
By the way I’m not jumping on you but the individual attacking property. Schmoller I believe.
Thank you for your replies. I didn’t think you were attacking me at all; I just have limitations due to lack of education and not having read about the topics at hand in a deep or scholarly way.
Good I’m glad you did not feel I was attacking you. Property law is rather fun and is centuries old. America at its founding still used some of England’s Common Law of Property such as Primogeniture-the right of the eldest to inherit to the detriment of the younger siblings. It was Jefferson that rid Virginia of that principle.
I was not clear enough in that last paragraph, sorry about that.(I rewrote the part in the original posting)
Ryan’s autobiography is the book that’s locked. It’s still in copyright, so Google keeps things like it under lock and key.
You can find Ryan’s “Distributive Justice” here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fQI9AAAAYAAJ
His book Living Wage is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9T0uAAAAYAAJ
Thank you! Copyrighted but not possible to get a copy, is that it?
You are quite stalwar to read all these articles and books and extract that telling bits for people like me without the brains.
Seriously.
And those who don’t appreciate your blogs on TB2 - they’re idiots, then! Maybe try other sites to post them on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.