Michael August - September 2013

ter respects the fundamental rights of each human

being? — For each human being does, in fact, have

fundamental rights. We all agree, for example, that

each newborn baby has the right to life. — Which

group then, the advocates of the present system or

the advocates of Social Credit, offers the best pos-

sibilities for each individual to exercise these funda-

mental rights? — Considering that the right to life

implies an undeniable right to the necessities of life,

which of these two groups offers to each individual

the best chances of obtaining these necessities?

A few principles

In order to prevent any accusation that we may

have made up our own partisan ideas when speak-

ing of these principles, we will quote verbatim from

a few authorities with whom no one can contest the

soundness of their doctrine as regards the funda-

mental rights of every human being.

In the Constitution on the Church

Gaudium et

Spes

(n. 69), the Fathers of the Second Vatican Coun-

cil wrote:

“God intended the earth and all that it contains

for the use of every human being and people. Thus,

as all men follow justice and unite in charity, creat-

ed goods should abound for them on a reasonable

basis... The right to have a share of earthly goods

sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to

everyone.”

It is neither the governments, nor the bankers,

nor the economists who are the creators of the

goods of this earth. For this very reason, it is not

their place to establish, approve, or try to justify rules

that would ignore or deny this universal destination

of the goods created by our Heavenly Father ! God

excludes no one from the right to a share in these

earthly goods; that is why a system of purchases

and sales, like the present, with rules that bind the

purchasing power to employment in the production

of goods, excludes all those who are not hired for

production — and this represent more than half of

the population: children, housewives, the sick, the

elderly, the unemployed, etc…!

Pope Pius XII put it very clearly in his famous

radio address of June 1, 1941:

“Material goods have been created by God to

meet the needs of all men, and must be at the dis-

posal of all of them, as justice and charity require.”

“Every man indeed, as a reason-gifted being,

has from nature the fundamental right to make use

of the material goods of the earth, though it is re-

served to human will and the juridical forms of the

peoples to regulate, with more detail, the practical

realization of that right.”

Do the present laws facilitate a practical achieve-

ment of this right of each and every individual to their

share in the goods of the earth? — The Social Credit

proposals would implement this right in a very direct

way; by guaranteeing to each individual, without ex-

cluding anyone, whether hired or not for production,

a monthly dividend.

The right of everyone to a share in the goods of

the earth is a natural right, an individual right, not

pertaining to any group membership. No order or

legislation can legitimately suppress this individual

right. As Pope Pius XII put it in the same address al-

ready mentioned above:

“Such an individual right cannot, by any means,

be suppressed, even by the exercise of other un-

questionable and recognized rights over material

goods.”

Meaning that, even the property rights of those

who may have ownership of the resources for pro-

duction, cannot disregard the individual right of each

person to their share of the goods of the earth.

A Social Credit system acknowledges private

property, and even supports it, but also firmly up-

holds the social responsibility of this private prop-

erty. Furthermore, the Social Credit mechanism of

distribution (the dividend), which would allow for

the goods produced to reach those who need them,

would certainly not harm the producers, since their

main concern is to sell their production.

We do not offer these reflections as proof that

the Popes advocate Social Credit — this is not the

responsibility of the Church — rather, we wish to

demonstrate how wonderfully Social Credit would

facilitate “the practical realization of that individual

right”, as proclaimed by these authorities.

This individual right goes back to the very cre-

ation of man. Though civil authorities, dictators of

the economy, close-minded sociologists blinded by

man-made laws and regulations, have been able to

forget, to push aside or to minimize it, this right has

continued to be affirmed by the Masters in Moral

Theology.

The various social security measures — late and

flawed in their application — are an admission of

this right of all to a share in the necessities of life.

However, the fact that the redistribution of the claims

on goods (money) must be continuously adjusted,

taking from Peter to give to Paul, proves that this

redistribution, as presently regulated, is defective.

Instead of defective “correctives”, as well as many

overlooked cases, would it not be infinitely better to

establish a source of purchasing power that would

operate automatically in guaranteeing right from the

start, the basic share to which everyone is entitled?

This is something that the present system, which

binds income to employment, cannot do.

Ends and means

The social and economic sectors today suffer

from a distorted concept, where the ends are taken

for the means, and the means are taken for the ends.

As in the case, for example, of those who think

that man was created to be employed in economic

activities. The contrary is true, it is the economic

activities that exist in order to serve man, not visa-

versa. If the progress in the production of material

goods makes it possible to satisfy man’s needs with

a minimal amount of human labour, so much the

better! There are other activities for man that are

far more superior than economic functions, and if

people have more free time, more leisure time to de-

vote to these other activities, we must bless God for

having allowed this progress.

Similarly, man does not exist for production, but

that production exists to serve man and to satisfy his

basic needs. To persist in using to the full capacity

every means of production when all human needs

have been satisfied, is to provoke either the waste of

resources through the production of goods that no

one needs, or creating and stimulating new, artificial

needs, causing materialism and turning men’s hearts

from their true end; eternity.

The policy of full-employment is another form

of distortion between the ends and the means. The

purpose of industry is not to supply jobs, but to sup-

ply goods. Human labour is only a part of the means

of production, it is not an end. If production can be

achieved with less human labour, and still continue

to maintain the proper flow of goods, this is also a

good thing. Man will then be free to devote his time

to other activities of his own choosing.

When money becomes the end (or goal) of a

business, it is obvious that this too is a distortion of

the ends and the means. It is the greatest heresy of

the present economic system. When investing cap-

ital, investors try to invest in what will bring in the

highest financial return, and not necessarily in what

will better satisfy the basic needs of man. If there

is more money to be made in alcohol and poisons,

investments will go to industries that produce alco-

Where does money

come from? Money

should be be the symbol

of realities (goods and

services). Today,

however, physical

realities, and even

human beings, are

subjected to the

diktats of money.

Here is another example where

money rules instead of serving: in

March, 2013, under the pressure of the

IMF and the European Central Bank,

and after several days of paralysis

when the banks were closed and ac-

counts frozen, the government of the

island of Cyprus agreed to confiscate

by force individuals’ savings in Cyprus’

banks in order to get an emergency

help of 10 million euros (13 million dol-

lars). At first, all savers were to contrib-

ute, but in the end, only the depositors

of 100,000 euros and plus contributed.

The text of the cartoon is in Cypriot

language, and could be translated as

follow: “Bank robbery Cypriot style”.

MICHAEL August/September 2013