Ken S. Ewert's Moral Criticism Of The Market

The principle of market justice is a system where medical care and benefits are distributed on the basis of people willing and able to pay. Moreover, the principle of market justice assumes that the free-market forces for supply and demand can govern health care, individuals are responsible for their achievements, and the market works best with minimal inference with the government (Shi and Singh, 2013). On the contrary, the principle of social justice is when health care is equally distributed, and it is a societal responsibility. Social justice regards health care a social good that should be available to all citizens regardless whether they can pay or not. The social justice method assumes that the government can decide through rational planning how much health care to produce and how to distribute it among all citizens. The problem is that the United States does not follow free-market principles, which can be seen in market justice, and social justice has been ongoing and gradual in the United States. Social justice drives publically financed programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. However, market justice drives employer-based insurance (Shi and Singh, 2013). Nonetheless, there are many Americans who cannot afford insurance, or do not have a job and do not qualify for any public programs. The amount of Americans uninsured is because of health care costs. As health care costs go up, the middle class is diminishing. Health care can very well be a factor contributing to

In Eric Foner historiographical essay “ Why is there no socialism in the United States “ he establishes different schools of thought to elaborate why it seems that the U.S. is exceptional in contrast to Europe in terms of Socialism. These four schools of thought focus on social, ideological, political, economic and cultural distinctions , that scholars believe makes the U.S. unique in contrast to Europe in terms of Socialism.

What Money Can’t Buy; The Moral Limits of Market by Michael Sandel argues the relationship between markets and our morality. His central concern is the influence of money on the sphere of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms such as rights as a citizen, care for others, and civic duties. He demonstrated that market is responsible for destroying our sense of morality by placing monetary value to it. This paper will argue the relationship between market and morality through demonstrating the type of goods corrupted by money, the flaws in the market system that causes such problems, and the political solution for this problem as suggested by Michael Sandel respectively.

Your analysis of Ewert’s article and contrast between his views of the free-market in contrast to the Christian Socialist’s argument was clear and concise. You correctly pointed out that the free-market does not itself encourage a self-serving attitude. In reality, a planned economy is based upon what a select few decide is in the best interest of the people. There is no incentive for working hard because their wealth is evenly distributed amongst the entire community. It is not the will of the people that decide how their money is spent, it is a select few who no doubt will not be living on the same level as the rest of the people. As human beings, it’s difficult to fathom that everyone would be satisfied with such stagnation while the majority

The market revolution in the United States brought a sudden change in the manual labor system originating in south and digressed to the north and later spread to the entire world. The integral part of the economic growth in the United States in the nineteenth century was a good thing that brought change in the market. In respect to the change, America took its first major step in creating the world’s most stable and strongest economy, which gave room for growth among the citizens.

Perhaps the definition of failure has changed as in the last century capitalism has created wealth like nothing done previously in human history. At the same time, socialism has spent the last century subjecting millions of innocent people to tyranny and poverty. But somehow, its tenets live on in the millennial of the world’s richest countries. And what has followed is an arbitrary connection between the free enterprise system and declining rates of economic and social phenomena. So with the charges against capitalism more severe than ever before, we may as well present the facts.

In Give Me Liberty, Foner states that pious leaders “Seized the opportunities offered by the market revolution to spread their message” (360). To showcase their cause to other individuals, leaders would deliberately “resonate…the spread of market values” (360) with spiritual belief. Therefore, with the help of the market revolution and exertion of religious ideals the rate of reformation grew exponentially. Spiritual leaders would impose strict beliefs onto their followers which ultimately results in innovations and endless productivity. In contrast; however, “evangelical preachers can hardly be described as cheerleaders for a market society” (360). Though they benefited immensely from the Market Revolution, leaders believed this era to be consisted of “selfishness– an extreme form of individualism encouraged by the scramble for wealth” (360). The revivalists critiqued those who participated in the market revolution as materialistic individuals who cared only for monetary value. Despite using its innovations for their own gain, spiritual leaders did not share the same values as corporate leaders and higher ranking business officials. The revival of religion along with the growing popularity of the market society had inspired change in America despite the different perspective they each acquired. Hence,

In America, there exists many differing approaches towards solving economic problems. From the far left to the far right, there is intense disagreement on even basic economic questions, such as poverty, the role of the government, and the role of individuals. The perspectives of Liberals and Conservatives will be discussed in this paper. Between Liberals and Conservatives, the ideological contrast is clear. While both agree on the virtues of capitalism, this is where the similarities end.

One topic subject to never-ending debate that is reviewed, revised, then and disputed among scholars, is the market and the economy. In the book, "The Mind and The Market" by Jerry Muller (2002), he discusses the different viewpoints of scholars about capitalism in the market and the influence society holds on it. This writing is comprised of summaries of several reviews from a variety of authors, which will include their viewpoints, their criticism, and an overall review from Muller 's work. These authors include Brian Fox, Patrick Murray, Charles Tilly, and Fritz Ringer. Each author originates from respected and prestigious journals from different universities, programs, and other education systems. All intellectuals are experts in their field of study with a background in either philosophy, history, or economy, making their viewpoints meaningful, insightful, and relevant. Following the summary of each review will be a comparison and contrasting piece, continuing into an evaluation addressing if they captured the book in an appropriate way. Concluding the essay will have an input of my own personal review of the book. As shown, the reviews vary with their personal opinions regarding the positives and negatives of Muller 's work.

The spread of and desire for communism among nations is derived from the perceived disparity between the rich and the poor. Proponents of communism believe that this system of coerced giving and sharing of possessions and resources is the only way in which to address and rectify this disparity. However, it is the responsibility of Christians to give freely and generously to those around them who may be in need. We are commanded by Jesus in Christ to care for the poor and the widows; however, the modern church has failed in this commandment in many respects. Many proponents of not only communism, but big government in general state that although government intervention in this way is not ideal, it is necessary because the church has failed in

In the article “Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now,” Roderick T. Long argues that, there is a misconception between both the defenders of the free market and the critics of libertarianism. To explain, those who believe in the misconception think that the libertarian society is aligned with the capitalism society. However, this misconception prevents them from observing how corporations pervert and twist a natural free market. Ultimately, he argues that there can only exist an antithetical relationship between free markets and corporate power when libertarianism advocacy is not misperceived or is correctly perceived as pro-corporate apologetics.

In "Thinking for the Sake of Global Faithfulness", Thabiti Anyabwile, reminds us that we are called to be thinking people As Christians, he says, “we are called to love the Lord our God with all our mind, all our intellect, in the cause of being faithful to God and enjoying Him forever” (2011, p. 82). In considering an alternate worldview, such as socialism, careful mindfulness should be applied. It must be done with logic and, as good Christians, with heart. Dr. James Henderson would agree with this, as he says we must be “humble and redemptive” in evaluating a worldview. (Henderson, 2015) In this paper, I will evaluate socialism as theory versus praxis with humility and a redemptive Christian worldview perspective and, in so doing; expose the true fundamentals of socialism as nothing more than the very elitism and totalitarianism it sets out to eradicate.

The Reverend Adam Smith was a Presbyterian minister who developed his economic theories within a frame work of Scottish “moderate” economic, politic, moral, and religious thought. Somewhat influenced by the clockmaker notion of God found in deism (though he himself was not a deist), Smith saw the economy of nations as a manifestation of providential design. Thus, for Smith, the “free market” was governed by the Invisible Hand of divine providence which ensured that it would contribute to moral good. This argument can only be used if one feels that interference in the free market interferes with God’s plan. An atheist, or a Christian who does not believe in particular providence, cannot legitimately assume that a free market is guided

On the surface, the distribution of goods of the early church found in Acts chapter four is an advertisement for Communism. The book of Acts delineates a society lacking in poverty resulting from the lack private ownership and the distribution of goods. The Lord commands humans to follow in his footsteps. “For God called you to do good, even if it means suffering, just as Christ suffered for you. He is your example, and you must follow in his steps.” (1 Peter 2:21 ESV). Thus, on the surface, it is logical to assume a Christian should embrace socialism or declare themselves a hypocrite before the Lord.

The source would be well received by those who favour conservatism or capitalism, as their views are similar to those of Hayek, Friedman or Thatcher. Those who support such an ideology would argue that free market enterprise is beneficial for a growing economy, increasing profit, and promotes individuality. However, caution and discretion must be used before applying an ideology similar to that in the source, as excessive use of laissez faire economics can lead to catastrophic events such as Hitler 's dictatorial reign or a recession such as the Great Depression. However, to embrace the other side of the