# What Calvinism Has Done for America -- John C. Monsma



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 18, 2007)

_What Calvinism Has Done for America_ (1919) by John Clover Monsma is available online here.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2007)

One German historian called Calvin "the founder of America." 

Here is a Rushdoony discussion on Calvin's Influence on America. J. Calvin, John Knox and the U.S.

Lester de Koster, quoting Oswald Spengler,

German historian Oswald Spengler says in Decline of the West, "While the Lutheran movement advanced leaderless in central Europe, Calvin viewed his rule in Geneva as the starting-point of a systematic subjugation of the world under a Protestantism unfalteringly thought to its logical conclusion. Therefore, he, and he alone became a world power...(II: 299).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> I think I read Bancroft's history that Calvin did more to found America than almost anyone else with concepts of limited government and capitalism.
> 
> And of course there is Max Weber's classic, Calvinism and Capitalism (or something like Capitalism and the Protestant work ethic) that traced those distinctly American triats of hard work, honesty and frugality as originating with Calvin.



Trevor,

Are you sure you didn't mean to say that Ron Paul was responsible for all of the above?


----------



## MW (May 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> And of course there is Max Weber's classic, Calvinism and Capitalism (or something like Capitalism and the Protestant work ethic) that traced those distinctly American triats of hard work, honesty and frugality as originating with Calvin.



A good read in response is an article by W S Reid, Calvin as a critic of capitalism (can't recall the journal), which helps to balance the scales somewhat. Capitalism owes more to the evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest (or in economic terms, the prosperity of the unscrupulous) than to Calvin, in my honest opinion. But I would be thinking of a specific form of economic policy which may not be what others mean by the term "capitalism."


----------



## Theoretical (May 19, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> A good read in response is an article by W S Reid, Calvin as a critic of capitalism (can't recall the journal), which helps to balance the scales somewhat. Capitalism owes more to the evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest (or in economic terms, the prosperity of the unscrupulous) than to Calvin, in my honest opinion. But I would be thinking of a specific form of economic policy which may not be what others mean by the term "capitalism."


Rev. Winzer, I think you'd be referencing the Social Darwinist-influenced capitalism of the "Captains of Industry" such as Carnegie and Rockefeller. I'd say they'd fit a different category than the sort of limited government mostly unregulated market society many of the more distinctively and outspokenly political board members would prefer.

It is also very notable that these individuals (Carnegie and the like) also didn't have a problem with, and in fact encouraged, Government regulation or even socialistic ownership, since their companies were at the top and their empires would be protected by government, etc... Free-market capitalist exemplaries they were not, especially with the political manipulation employed to gain their empires in the first place.

I'd say our modern economic system is an ugly combination of Adam Smith's economic terminology and free market cliches, Jeremy Bentham/John Stuart Mill utilitarian philosophy, and Social Darwinism.


----------



## Timothy William (May 19, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> A good read in response is an article by W S Reid, Calvin as a critic of capitalism (can't recall the journal), which helps to balance the scales somewhat. Capitalism owes more to the evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest (or in economic terms, the prosperity of the unscrupulous) than to Calvin, in my honest opinion. But I would be thinking of a specific form of economic policy which may not be what others mean by the term "capitalism."



Rev. Winzer, I can't accept the historical accuracy of your views on capitalist and economic thought. On the contrary, since the time when Darwin's views were accepted by society at large, economic theory has moved away from free market capitalism, while the most prominent, and most remembered, 18th and early-mid 19th century economic thinkers were probably the most capitalistic in history. The theoretical (including moral) underpinnings of modern finance were quite explicitly developed and systematised by Ricardo, Say, Smith, Bastiat and the like well before Darwin. Nor, from what I have seen, do the unscrupulous tend to prosper in the long run any more than the honest, and alternate arrangements of the economy tend to weaken, not strengthen, the relationship between honest effort and reward.


----------



## MW (May 19, 2007)

Gentlemen, thankyou for your interesting replies. Please explain what you mean by a free market, and I will respond by showing that as free as you make the market is as beneficial as it becomes for unscrupulous mismanagers of the creation. Government intervention is the only way to ensure that the rules of fair trade are observed. A man should not be disadvantaged because he honours God and will not work on the Sabbath. Sabbath-breakers should not be given an advantage simply because they have no principles. A conservationist should be able to farm the land and reap the benefit without concern over a big share of the market being consumed by those who care little about preserving natural resources. Something greater than the value of the dollar should drive industry; there should be a regard for the integrity and well-being of the worker. Economic growth should not be obtained at the risk of making family growth impossible. And I could keep multiplying areas where God's law requires the magistrate to take an overseeing interest for the good of society.

A free market was a theoretical possibility (1) in a developing society, and (2) where men valued their honour over their estates. It was never practically realised because our governments saw the havoc which openness reaked on industrial societies. We now live in fully developed economies which make restrictions a moral necessity. Moral integrity is at an all time low (!), so that unrestricted trade only minsters to the covetous.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Armourbearer:
> 
> Yes, gov't has the responsibility to keep all the competitors playing fair and not exercising monopoly. The market is free but under supervision of the gov't to ensure that the winners win fairly.
> 
> I believe in a free market but not an unrestricted free market.



Absolutely, but I think there is a difference between the govment making sure everyone plays fairly and the govment engaging in unnessary controls and regulations (rent controls, price controls, mercantislism, etc).


----------



## Theoretical (May 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Armourbearer:
> 
> Yes, gov't has the responsibility to keep all the competitors playing fair and not exercising monopoly. The market is free but under supervision of the gov't to ensure that the winners win fairly.
> 
> I believe in a free market but not an unrestricted free market.





Draught Horse said:


> Absolutely, but I think there is a difference between the govment making sure everyone plays fairly and the govment engaging in unnessary controls and regulations (rent controls, price controls, mercantislism, etc).


----------



## MW (May 20, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Absolutely, but I think there is a difference between the govment making sure everyone plays fairly and the govment engaging in unnessary controls and regulations (rent controls, price controls, mercantislism, etc).



In a situation where there are few renters but numerous places to rent, the controls exist naturally. Reverse the situation, and the property owners can make renters bid for properties. This is oppression of the poor.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 20, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> In a situation where there are few renters but numerous places to rent, the controls exist naturally. Reverse the situation, and the property owners can make renters bid for properties. This is oppression of the poor.



So what would you say the proper way to deal with the shortage of properties is, if one does not do it by price? Most Free market supporters would probably point to some government scheme as to blame for the shortage in the first place.

CT


----------



## MW (May 20, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> So what would you say the proper way to deal with the shortage of properties is, if one does not do it by price? Most Free market supporters would probably point to some government scheme as to blame for the shortage in the first place.



I don't think blaming the govt. is going to deal with the issue. Honestly, I don't know what the strategic answer is, given that urbanisation seems to inevitably lead to this problem; but I do know our govts. have a responsibility to the poor and oppressed and not to put economic growth first. As God's ordinance they accomplish much good, and we as Christians should be the first to recognise it. Their moral failings should be our major concern, not their fiscal policies.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2007)

What if their fiscal policies are immoral?


----------



## MW (May 20, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> What if their fiscal policies are immoral?



I would need to clarify if by "immoral" you mean according to a standard of economics, or acting against the moral well-being of society; but if the latter, then I would say it is something Christians should be concerned with.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2007)

Are there two different standards of right and wrong, then? And who gets to determine what the moral well being of society is? The marxist? The socialist? The libertarian? The Neo Con?


----------



## MW (May 20, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Are there two different standards of right and wrong, then? And who gets to determine what the moral well being of society is? The marxist? The socialist? The libertarian? The Neo Con?



I'm not sure where the questions are leading, or how they tend towards clarifying what I asked previously. I have already stated that Christians should be concerned for the moral well-being of society, that is, we should evaluate these morals from a distinctively Christian point of view, which I take to be a biblical standard. Fiscal policy might have moral ramifications, in which case we are in a position to evaluate them from the biblical perspective; but the Bible does not lay out an economic plan for national prosperity, hence we cannot offer a distinctively Christian critique of fiscal policy where no moral issue is at stake.


----------



## Peter (May 20, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Armourbearer:
> 
> Yes, gov't has the responsibility to keep all the competitors playing fair and not exercising monopoly. The market is free but under supervision of the gov't to ensure that the winners win fairly.
> 
> I believe in a free market but not an unrestricted free market.



Is it fair or prudent to give "gov't" a territorial monopoly on aggression?


----------



## Peter (May 20, 2007)

I mean in general. Why do we allow one organization (the "USA", the "commonwealth of Australia", etc.) complete dominance of the use of coercion in a given physical location? Wouldn't it be much better (more accountability, more efficiency) if gov't also had to compete in a free market.


----------



## Peter (May 20, 2007)

I think we're talking about two different things. Which is ok because I'm probably talking nonsense. I just thought I'd repeat something I read that I thought would get a rise out of the PBers.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 20, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I don't think blaming the govt. is going to deal with the issue.



Well it depends on what they did, if they deserve blame or not. Also just by experience shortages either do not exist or exist very briefly when government is not involved. And as you yourself admitted, the problems go away when one does not have shortages. The fastest way of getting rid of shortages is by the bare free market.



> Honestly, I don't know what the strategic answer is, given that urbanisation seems to inevitably lead to this problem; but I do know our govts. have a responsibility to the poor and oppressed and not to put economic growth first.



I think everyone agrees that the government has a God given responsibility to the poor as well as to the rich. The question is what does that look like.



> As God's ordinance they accomplish much good, and we as Christians should be the first to recognise it. Their moral failings should be our major concern, not their fiscal policies.



It is pretty hard to separate fiscal politices away from the morality of those politicies.

Here is an analogy that might help to see my view of the housing shortage. A poor person is diagnosed some illness. The doctor says that it can be fixed with surgery but they will be out of work for two weeks. After that time, they will be good to go and pain free. Or they can take a pill, be in constant pain, they will be less effective in almost everything they do, but they will not have to miss any work.

CT


----------



## MW (May 20, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> The fastest way of getting rid of shortages is by the bare free market.



I think the feudal system shows otherwise. And they at least had the advantage that more children increases productivity, enabling lower classes to earn more from rented lands and perhaps rise to the status of a landed proprietor. That possibility no longer exists. Once the shortage is created it becomes almost irremedial. As stated earlier, it was easy to hold out the ideal of a free market in a developing country -- and the US had much opportunity for development. But now that natural restraints are put on the development they are closer now to the European situation in the 19th century, and they will find it is impossible to practically and ethically realise the ideal.


----------

