GM: Ivan illich made a similar point in Rivers North of the Future, noting that St. John Chrysostom had preached against the establishment of institutions of charity by bishops. Prior to the institutionalization of charity, every Christian family put some bread aside in case the Lord should come to the door hungry when people came in need of food or shelter, the Christian Fed and sheltered them, did not simply refer them to a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter supported by taxes or contributions. Nor did they say, “we should change the social order to give these people a dividend!”
This is not to argue that Social Credit would not be an improvement on the current situation; only to point out that Grace must be personal, not institutional. Ivan illich was most eloquent on this in the above referenced book of conversations with Canada’sDavid Cayley, Rivers North in the Future.
There seems to be some diversity of opinion on that point within this group, and I recall numerous postings equating Social Credit with “Grace”. As far as Justice is concerned, perhaps a more nuanced and therefore more plausible assertion, do you accept the old definition of justice as “giving each one what is due?” Your assertion that this must mean a dividend seems to have no historical precedent, alleging that such a dividend is “just” comes out of nowhere. At best, Social Credit may be one way to attempt to make a more just socio-economic order. But to declare it the way, exclusively, is too much.
Furthermore, how can Social Credit ensure “justice” if it is National? Suppose that every Canadian and every US American gets an extra $10,000-$15,000 a year in a dividend to spend on more consumer goods. These are, for the most part, people comfortably well off and, on a global scale, extremely rich merely in so far as they have food, clothing, shelter, and access to education free of charge (at least k-12). How is it “just” to give these people a dividend to amplify their plenty, while many Mexicans and Indians and Filipinos live on vast garbage dumps trying to survive by what they can scrounge there? To be “just”, Social Credit would have to be global, it seems. No one seems to propose that. From what I have read of Major Douglas, even he seemed to think in terms of the nation state. So, the rich get richer. Three cheers for that?
Me: “This is not to argue that Social Credit would not be an improvement on the current situation; only to point out that Grace must be personal, not institutional.”
That would express the MERELY transcendental aspect of Grace as opposed to a more integrated understanding of it as both God’s Grace and grace as in love in action.
“Ivan illich was most eloquent on this in the above referenced book…”
I think that Illich’s critique was probably of the MERE institutionalization of charity/grace and not advocating either the non-cultivation of it as a personal experience or its reflective application in man’s temporal systems….because to do so would not be mentally consistent.
“There seems to be some diversity of opinion on that point within this group, and I recall numerous postings equating Social Credit with “Grace”.
I think there is unity within diversity regarding Grace here, and I think all of us would agree that the temporal expression of Grace as in love in action is what Social Credit is all about and is logically and spiritually consistent.
“As far as Justice is concerned, perhaps a more nuanced and therefore more plausible assertion, do you accept the old definition of justice as “giving each one what is due?”
That would be the MERE legalistic, i.e. pharisaic interpretation of economic and monetary justice, yes. One of the definitions of pharisaic according to Dictionary.com being: (lower case) practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion OR conduct without regard to the spirit;
“At best, Social Credit may be one way to attempt to make a more just socio-economic order. But to declare it the way, exclusively, is too much.”
I, and I don’t think anyone else here has said it is the only way. I would say it is the best way and probably the only way that monetary and economic justice for both the individual and for enterprise, i.e. for the entirety of the economic system, can actually be accomplished…as opposed to being palliated out of ignorance, non-confront or perhaps out of alloyed integrity/other intention. Also, as it goes to the heart of the ideas/paradigms that the business model of finance currently uses to enforce its economic dominance, it is the terminal solution to that problem as well.
“Furthermore, how can Social Credit ensure “justice” if it is National?”
Because it is consistent with the Catholic concept of subsidiarity which would oppose an internationalization of monopolistic finance, and institutionalizing a national economic philosophy of grace and its BEST PROBLEM SOLVING reflective policies, is the correct process and an exact expression of that concept.
GM: I am not going to argue this. Maurin and Illich have done so eloquently. Consult them .
Me: Fine. What about the rest of what I posted? Or have you conveniently gone into intellectual apathy and so avoided looking at such?
GM: I will not respond to your offensive ad hominems. You can keep that for yourself
Me: Please address the content.
GM: no time for more.
Me: Fine. It’s all in the record.
Social Credit/Wisdomics/Gracenomics/ Gracientialism 