By inquiring into the relationship between the principles of individuality and community one acquires a new perspective on the nature of society and the role of the person within it. The two preceding chapters have productively applied this perspective in the contexts of attempts to establish religious and social harmony. This chapter will explore its applications within the economic realm. It will address fundamental issues about the nature of economic interaction, the role to be played by social institutions and the legitimate obligations and expectations of persons with regard to this interaction.

This chapter will focus primarily upon how a Cusan vision of unity can provide new insight and thereby new solutions to some contemporary economic problems. The first section will examine the nature of economic structures as a whole, with particular attention to the role of government within such structures. The second and third sections will narrow their scope and concentrate upon the relationship between the classes within the economic structure. The former will concentrate on what, if any, obligation the economically successful have to help those less fortunate, while the latter will discuss the equitable distribution of the financial costs of running society. A brief diagram of this chapter can be seen below.

Acquisitionism Integrated Statism

Entrepre-

neurship

Emphasizes prin- Integrates Emphasizes prin-

ciple of indi- principles ciple of commu-

viduality at of individ- nity at the

the expense of uality and expense of the

the principle community. principle of

of community. individuality.

Economic Laissez-faire Regulation Command Organiza- policy. of business economy.

tion through a

pp.298-315 participa-

tory political

system in

pursuit of the

integration of

personal

achievement

in harmony

with communal

development.

Welfare Survivalist Integration Entitilist

Policy of people into

pp.315-327 the community

at large.

Tax User fees Moderately Confiscation of Policy progressive excess wealth

pp.328-333 income tax. for redistribu- tion to those

in need.

UNITY IN AN ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Possible Approaches to Economic Organization

It is possible to interpret all economic structures as conforming, to a greater or lesser degree, to one of three very basic models. The first model will be referred to as acquisitionism. It sees all economic activity as being at bottom an obsessive and singleminded pursuit of individual wealth. This view is most clearly epitomized in Max Weber's seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which describes capitalism as being essentially a "Philosophy of Avarice".¹ The reason for this is that in such a system the idea of duty, as Weber sees it, consists primarily in the individual's ability to amass capital, which is assumed as an end in itself.² Thus, the summum bonum of capitalism becomes the earning of ever more money; acquisition becomes the ultimate purpose of a person's life.³

The second model which will be examined here is referred to as statism. Here all economic activity is placed directly under the control of the state so that it can meet the needs of society as it perceives them. This view is expressed in the writings of Karl Marx who asserted that industrial capacity had to be socialized in order for humanity to exist in a non-explotive, non-alienating context. From this perspective the unique role played by each individual in determining the nature of economic activity tends to be minimized, if not eliminated. Hence, individual initiative often comes to be regarded as being, at best, superfluous or, at worst, inimical to the interests of society.

In a work entitled The Catholic Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, Michael Novak offers his vision of a just economic structure which he refers to as democratic capitalism. Novak points out that the true essence of capitalism is not the individual's acquisition of private wealth, but innovation and invention; this requires insight into determining what society's needs are in order to respond to them in a creative fashion. In short, capitalism's "distinctive materials are new possibilities glimpsed by surprise through an enterprising imagination".⁴ Thus, the capitalist does not so much take wealth, as create it.⁵ Novak also argues that democracy plays an indispensable role in the functioning of a true capitalist system. This is not only because democracy solves problems of legitimacy through a peaceful succession of power which makes long term investment possible, but also because it permits majorities to temper those excesses of capitalism which are found to be detrimental.⁶ One should note also that this democratic political structure stimulates creativity and cooperation within society. This is because in a democracy one may participate in determining the laws which govern the social structure. Inevitably, this will require interaction and cooperation with one's fellow citizens in the decision making process.

Thus, it is clear that Novak's theory of democratic capitalism requires not only individual initiative and creativity, but social cooperation as well.⁷ He points out that few economic enterprises can be conducted entirely by a lone individual and that none can succeed in isolation.⁸ In fact, he asserts that the most characteristic feature of democratic capitalism is not the glorification of the individual, but the idea of many individuals acting together in a creative enterprise [i.e. the corporation, the pension fund, the credit union].⁹ Even the market itself (including the labor market) exerts an integrating influence on society in that it obliges people, if they are to succeed, to pay attention to the wants and needs of others and to seek out ways in which these needs can be met.¹⁰

It should also be noted that the transactions in the marketplace usually will benefit both parties since customers must be satisfied if one expects them to return, while businesses must have a steady flow of customers if they are to continue. Likewise, workers must be treated in a just fashion if they are to be expected to create the quality products businesses require to satisfy their customers. Moreover, the order of the market is not a static one imposed from above, but on which is voluntary, cooperative, and above all dynamic.¹¹ Within this order every individual is free to pursue his or her own economic objectives in accord with his or her own particular vision. Likewise, the democratic order follows the direction of its own members. Thus, changes within both orders are not random occurrences, but products of a rational dialogue between human beings. In both instances human beings are encouraged to interact with others and to imagine improvements which enhance the quality of life and release human creativity.¹²

In De Docta Ignorantia, Cusa tells the reader that God has created the universe in such a way that as each thing attempts to conserve its own being it participates with other beings. He gives the example of light which illumines not so that human beings may see, but because that is inherent in its very nature, and humanity benefits from that nature expressing itself.¹³ When one seeks to conserve one's being by economic pursuits it is quite clear that one's success will require interaction with others. Furthermore, because one is possessed of a rational nature this interaction with others need not be blind, but is carried out in a conscious fashion with an awareness of one's role in the proclamation of the Divine. In fact, one's rational nature entails a moral responsibility to create a system which allows each individual to proclaim the Divine to the greatest degree that a person's limited nature allows.

Furthermore, at the beginning of De Pace Fidei, Cusa claims that because so many are preoccupied with earning their living, they have not the time to embark upon their own quest for the Absolute.¹⁴ However, if human rationality could discover a way to erect an economic structure in which individuals were able to meet their physical needs, and yet still possess the time to seek the Absolute, Cusa would no doubt see this as an incredible boon to humanity. It is reasonable to believe that the Cusan perspective can provide some key insights into the foundation principles of such a structure.

Novak's vision of democratic capitalism is attractive as a structured dynamism which allows individuals to pursue their unique insights. Furthermore it rewards people for being sensitive to the needs of their fellow human beings; but through consensus it also allows for the restriction of actions which may be destructive to the whole.

However, it has one significant drawback when analyzed from a Cusan perspective, namely, its understanding of social unity. For Novak one serves others as a means to attaining self-fulfillment. Thus, though society is cooperative their remains a fundamental opposition between the individual and society, as well as among individuals themselves. Social unity, from this perspective, is not so much a metaphysical reality but an arranged order which is intended to promote individual fulfillment; it advances the communal good as a means to individual fulfillment.

A Cusan Approach to Economic Organization

In the Cusan perspective, all men share an innate bond through the fact that each individual person is a contraction of the whole. Though each contraction is unique, as contractions of the same whole all share a common source. In short, everyone is in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, because all have as the goal of their existence the approximation of the Absolute they also share a common end. Thus, all of humanity becomes linked through bonds of mutual concern and the good of all becomes the goal of each. Moreover, as has been shown, to the extent that persons are finite beings attempting to approximate an absolute being, a diverse variety of such beings will be capable of expressing a far greater range of possibilities than can any single individual. Thus, no one can ever achieve in isolation what they can in a community. In fact, one can obtain one's identity only through one's relationship with the community. Therefore, society is not merely a voluntary association which people enter in order to achieve some subordinate good, but something which is called for by the very nature of humanity. In fact, it is only social interaction based upon mutual concern which enables humanity as a whole, and each person in particular, truly to achieve fulfillment.

This element of mutual concern, the desire that the other achieve the good, and a willingness to make a deliberate effort to realize this goal generally are absent from Novak's analysis. In Novak there is a degree of complementarity, but its essentially grounded in self-interest rather than a willing commitment to the other's good. Cusa's vision offers an opportunity to overcome the separation between personal fulfillment and community service by integrating the person into the community.

Because of this recognition of one's communal nature, a Cusan perspective would suggest amending the system of democratic capitalism in a way which will retain its dynamism and its respect for individuality in both the political and economic areas, yet enhance its understanding of unity and its spirit of community. The principles of Cusa's thought suggest a system where society is viewed not only as a collection of discrete individuals who come together in order to further their own interests, but as a true community whose members enhance each others lives in a complementary fashion and who consciously seek to develop that community in all of its facets to its complete potential. In short, it seeks to create a community animated by a spirit of active commitment to the overall well-being of both the community as a whole and each constituent member of the community. Further, the Cusan perspective recognizes the inherent connection between these two positions which so often are regarded as being inherently contradictory.

This Cusan perspective, henceforth, will be referred to as integrated entrepreneurship. It retains the values of individual initiative moderated through some form of participatory government, but incorporates these individuals into a living and unified community animated by a spirit of mutual concern rooted in the inherent nature of every human being. This encourages the individual to see how personal achievement culminates in service to others.

This sheds new light upon the passage in De Dato Patris Luminum where Cusa points out that, through the use of his reason, one can obtain the fruits of physical life, i.e., food from the earth, wool from sheep, wine from grapes, et cetera.¹⁵ Likewise, he goes on to say that one can obtain also the fruits of intellectual or spiritual life by cultivating truth and uprooting the weeds which kill fertility.¹⁶ This can be achieved by structuring the economic order in a way that encourages personal initiative and responsibility in a manner consistent with service to others. Thus, it becomes possible to integrate the person into the community in a manner that enhances the physical, intellectual and spiritual lives of every person within the community and of the community as a whole.

In recognizing the communal nature of one's personal identity one must recognize also one's personal responsibilities for enhancing the life of that community through which others enhance their own life as well. Thus, by careful use of one's reason, one can recognize the nature of one's ontological relation to one's fellows and design a structure which integrates the needs and goals of both. In this manner, that which provides for one's physical life is integrated with that which enhances one's intellectual and, most importantly, one's spiritual lives as well.

With this in mind, one gains a new perspective on Cusa's earlier assertion that every creature ascends to deification as closely as its nature permits, so that corporeal being finds perfection in living being, living being in intellectual being, and intellectual being in God.¹⁷ The human person, microcosm of the universe, uses rationality to design a system which not only meets one's physical needs, but in so doing contributes to one's own intellectual and spiritual well-being and that of one's community as well. Furthermore, by establishing a system which facilitates the realization of the potentials of its participants, the community enhances its own existence. In so doing the system increases the accuracy with which both individuals and the community approximate the Absolute and thereby contribute to their achieving the purpose of their existence. Thus, one's physical, rational and spiritual natures achieve harmony.

The perspective of an integrated entrepreneurship by recognizing the interrelationship between the principle of individuality and that of community, enables one to devise a structure which is far more suited to establishing this harmony then is possible in either an acquisitionist or a statist perspective. Like acquisitionism, integrated entrepreneurship recognizes the value of a free market where individuals are free to act in a manner which maximizes personal fulfillment. Both positions also understand that for such a market to function efficiently a certain social order must be maintained and that this is best done by the consent of those within this order.

Contrary to the acquisitionist perspective, integrated entrepreneurship realizes that the excessive centrifugal forces of unrestrained individualism would ultimately risk the destruction of the social order itself including the market. This would not only destroy the community, but weaken all those within that community by depriving them of its advantages. In short, acquisitionist perspective tends to care only for the individual's own gain while integrated entrepreneurship's, understanding the person's inherent links to the larger community, knows that the success of a single person is ultimately contingent upon the resources of society, economic and otherwise, and that any contributions made thereto will, quite naturally, benefit that person as well.

The difference between these two perspectives is that between one who seeks only to enrich oneself and the compassionate researcher working to discover genuine cures for the devastating diseases that afflict society. The researcher seeks not merely to enhance one's own economic well-being, but to improve the quality of life for the entire community in which one lives. Furthermore, one will gain not merely economic well-being, but also the advantages of enriching the interaction of one's own community and actualizing one's creative capabilities. In this fashion one enhances one's own relationship to the Absolute and that of one's community as well.

The relationship between integrated entrepreneurship and statism is somewhat different. Integrated entrepreneurship though aware of the need for an orderly economic structure, is aware also of the dangers of centralized control imposed from above which, because of its external nature, stifles individual creativity and leads to stagnation. This suggests a policy according to which the government uses its power only through the consent of the governed to maintain a stable order in which individuals are free to pursue their own personal fulfillment through serving their community. This is because integrated entrepreneurship takes note of the inherent interrelationship which all reality shares due to the very nature of existence. With this in mind one realizes that neither social institutions, nor society as a whole, can prosper in conflict with the interests of its individual members. The statist, however, while recognizing the importance of a stable society neglects the role creative individuals play in keeping a community vibrant and so subjugates the person to the community.

By adopting Cusa's understanding of the principles of individuality and community one is able to recognize the essential interrelationship between the person and the community. As a consequence of this interrelationship the character of the community takes on an inherently personal nature; likewise, the character of the person takes on a social nature. Thus it is no longer possible for the community to achieve prosperity apart from its individual members. In such a situation, stifling the creative capacities of its constituent members, society would succeed only in diminishing its own resources. Furthermore, since the person's well-being is linked inherently to the community in which one develops one cannot achieve prosperity independently therefrom. Thus, since human beings are by their very nature social organisms, their participation in society becomes a profound part of their identity; anything which depletes the resources of that community inhibits its fulfillment by eroding its potential.

By recognizing this interrelationship between the principles of individuality and community, the integration between the person and the community, sought in terms of an integrated entrepreneurship, takes on an entirely new dimension. This need no longer be based on simple utilitarian considerations, but can now find a far more secure foundation in metaphysics. Because the personal character of society and the social character of the person can be seen clearly, one can now understand that the benefits of integrated entrepreneurship are a consequence of its proper cultivation of the relationship between the person and the community. The understanding of reality articulated by Cusa's principles provides a context which, when transferred to the social realm, makes possible the very cooperation and consideration required for any practical accomplishments. The principle of individuality recognizes that people should be given the freedom to cultivate their own unique abilities, and that this will maximize their contributions to the community, while the principle of community recognizes that some order is required in any society for such personal development to take place.

The true strength of Cusa's insights lie in the recognition of the fact that the principles of individuality and community cannot coexist in a fashion where the concerns of one merely are balanced against competing claims of the other, but that the two must be integrated in a complementary fashion where each one achieves its fulfillment in the other and neither can be subjugated to the other. Thus, the efficiency of integrated entrepreneurship is dependent upon the extent to which it successfully manages this integration. It does this by creating a community which allows the individual person to participate in determining those rules under which he or she will live. It encourages one to recognize that success is contingent upon paying careful attention to the needs of those involved and making creative contributions to meeting their needs in a way they find acceptable. In this fashion the person can contribute to the community which nurtured him or her; the principles of individuality and community become mutually implicative aspects of human life. The efficiency of integrated entrepreneurship is made possible only because it recognizes some basic truths about the nature both of the person and of the society. In illuminating these truths, the Cusan perspective yields a far deeper understanding of the person and the community than does a strictly utilitarian outlook in which efficiency is regarded as the prime consideration.

Should one neglect the principle of community entirely, as occurs in an acquisitionist perspective, one would incline toward an extremely laissez faire view of economic structures. In accord with the principle of individuality, this view would see individual creativity as the prime element of a successful society, but fail to recognize the inherent link the individual shares with society as a whole. From this perspective, society is seen only as a collection of individuals bound together merely by common interests. Within such a framework individuals may form temporary alliances for certain limited ends, but nothing more is possible. In this perspective individual well-being is interpreted in a way in which it negates the communal good.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is a statist perspective which, in accord with the principle of community, sees society as a whole, but neglects the importance of its individual constituent elements. Because of this the statist perspective is likely to encourage an economic arrangement which often has been loosely described as a command economy. In such economies government controls strictly what business practices will be; little if any room is left for individual judgement. Hence, statism believes that a single centralized authority is needed in order to see to it that every individual serves the best interest of society as a whole. This is because the communal good is interpreted in a way which compromises personal fulfillment.

In short, the outlooks of both statism and acquisitionism are one-sided. Statism asserts that the individual must serve society, while acquisitionism claims that society must serve the individual. Neither harmonizes and integrates the person with the community and, therefore, both fail to understand the true nature of reality (social and otherwise) in all of its interrelated complexity. Because of this failure each perspective is in danger of generating some fundamental errors when it seeks to provide a foundation upon which remedies for social problems can be constructed. Statism places too much confidence in the power of the state due to its failure to appreciate the personal character of society and the indispensable role played by individual initiative. On the other hand, acquisitionism through exclusive concentration upon the individual ignores the communal nature inherent in the individual's being. Because of the inherent link between the individual and the community, the end result of either approach is alienation of the person and of the community. This weakens not only the neglected element but also that which had been its exclusive focus. When this occurs the distinctive elements of Cusan thought, diversity and dynamism, can no longer be maintained. Simply put, to the extent that a structure is successful in limiting dynamism it will impoverish diversity, and to the extent that it is successful in limiting diversity, it will restrain dynamism. The outright hostility with which the statist perspective regards these qualities leads to attempts to purge them from existence, while the acquisitionist perspective's neglect of the community impedes the development of the interactive and cooperative conditions necessary for such a structure to be actualized. Only the Cusan perspective offers the possibility of integrating the person into society in a manner where personal achievement is based upon service to the community.

ECONOMIC UNITY AND A CONTEMPORARY WELFARE POLICY

Another contemporary issue which has been the topic of much speculation is the relationship between rich and poor, and their respective responsibilities and obligations to society. The current situation is one where the wealthy, and increasingly the middle class, often express a feeling that too great a portion of what they work for is taken from them, yet the condition of the poor has not markedly improved. Likewise, the creation of an underclass has deprived many of the poor of any sense of hope and left them feeling quite abandoned. A social policy consistent with the principles of Nicholas of Cusa would be one animated by a spirit of charity and would offer the poor both assistance in providing for their own needs and the opportunity to fulfill their own potential. On the other hand, those who are more well-off would have the responsibility to promote the well-being of others, but would find their own fulfillment in so doing.

Possible Approaches to Public Assistance

In an article entitled "The Right to Eat and the Duty to Work", Trudy Govier outlines three possible relationships between economic haves and have-nots.¹⁸ The first scheme can aptly be described as survivalist. It proposes that no one has a legal right to state-supplied benefits produced by taking wealth from the more fortunate or industrious members of society through state coercion. This view is most clearly expressed by those who assert that the poor should "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". The second perspective will be referred to as the entitlist perspective. This asserts that everyone is entitled to receive state supplied benefits as an unconditional right. These benefits are guaranteed to the individual regardless of personal behavior. It is the state's responsibility to see to each individual's welfare based entirely upon the individual's membership in society. The final perspective can be referred to appropriately as developmentalist. This view argues that one's right to receive state benefits is conditional upon one's willingness to work. Should one decline to work then one forfeits any claim to society's benefits. However, if one is incapable of working or unable to find work, the developmentalist approach will seek to encourage society to provide the assistance necessary to enable this person to realize his or her potential.

The survivalist perspective, in accordance with the principle of individuality, sees society as nothing more than a random aggregate of individuals who share, at most, some common interests. There are no inherent bonds linking any of them together on an ontological level. Because of this, survivalism inclines towards a policy where every individual should be left to provide for him or herself as best one can or turn to voluntary charities for support. From the survivalist perspective each person is responsible for his or her own welfare and has no right to claim support from anyone else, nor is there any obligation for anyone to provide such support.

The entitlist view and the survivalist perspective are diametrically opposed. In accord with the principle of community the entitlist perspective sees society as a cohesive unit in which all individuality is minimized. It asserts that if the state does not provide an individual with the basics of life under all circumstances then the state denies the value of that life. The entitlist perspective claims that people who cannot secure the necessities of life themselves, do not forfeit their status as human beings. Hence, society should not sit idly by while its members suffer, even if such suffering results solely from their own inaction. From the entitlist perspective every individual is guaranteed the basics of life, which should be supplied by the state without any reference to whatever actions that individual may happen to take.¹⁹ Thus the entitlist would be inclined to support a policy of life-long and unconditional welfare that places no claims upon the recipient.

The developmentalist perspective attempts to offer something of a middle ground between these extremes. Within this view all rights entail correlative responsibilities.²⁰ Hence, it becomes incumbent upon individuals to work in order for them to provide the means for the state to carry out its mission of caring for its citizens.²¹ This outlook sees personal achievements as the product of individual initiative, but recognizes also that these achievements presuppose institutions requiring extensive social cooperation such as families, schools, et cetera. Therefore, the benefits accruing from such cooperation should, to some extent, be shared with society as a whole.

From the developmentalist view the relationship between the individual and society is essentially symbiotic. Each individual is related to, and dependent upon, every other member of society as well as being dependent upon society as a whole. Thus, the developmentalist perspective supports a policy where the recipient of society's assistance has an obligation to strive toward self-actualization and financial self-sufficiency.

The entitlist outlook sees society exclusively as a whole and fails to recognize the value of the very individuals it seeks to help most. Therefore, it regards the developmentalist and the survivalist perspectives as demeaning to the poor. However, by allowing the poor to receive benefits, but not encouraging the poor to develop their own potential and requesting other members of society to bear the cost of these benefits, entitlism treats these same poor people not as full and active members of society, but more as wards of the state. Because the poor are not encouraged to develop their own unique potentialities, those potentialities may very well become lost to society forever. Thus, though well-intentioned, such compassion benefits neither the poor nor society, but diminishes the resources (economic and otherwise) of both. This is because the entitlist perspective inclines the recipients of aid toward passivity, in that they receive aid, but have no correlative responsibility toward others in this respect.

In short, entitlism fails to recognize the value of cultivating the person. Survivalism, however, makes the opposite error and reduces society to nothing more than a collection of separate units which share no inherent bond. It fails to recognize that for individuals to be successful they require a society which nourishes them and encourages them to develop their latent potentialities. The survivalist perspective inclines people toward an attitude of indifference to one's fellowman, thereby rendering mutual concern an impossibility.

A Cusan Approach to Public Assistance

The Cusan approach to the relationship between haves and have-nots clearly is consistent with the developmentalist view. This is because the developmentalist perspective recognizes the interrelationship and interdependence of individuals and society. In accord with Cusa's interpretation of the principle of individuality, the value which each person inherently possesses is recognized; hence it will not accept a system which does not attempt to enable persons to cultivate their own potential and to develop into active and contributing members of society. Such a view would not merely seek to see the poor supported, but would encourage them to develop their abilities so they to can participate in the proclamation of the Absolute, both as individuals and as members of society. This is because the Cusan perspective bases personal fulfillment not upon mere economic well-being, but upon service to others. Thus, all must work to benefit others to the degree that their particular circumstances allow.

Once again it must be pointed out that for Cusa this proclamation of the Absolute is the very purpose of existence. He opens the very first chapter of De Docta Ignorantia by claiming that,

God has implanted in all things a natural desire to exist with the fullest measure of existence that is compatible with their particular nature. To this end they are endowed with suitable faculties and activities . . . if at times this does not happen, it is necessarily the result of an accident, as when sickness deceives taste or conjecture upsets calculation.²²

Any system which frustrates the person's attempt to realize this goal, regardless of the fact that it may well be motivated by the very best of intentions, is in effect some sort of metaphysical and spiritual contagion which must be corrected. Following this outlook one would not create a system which merely sustains the poor in their poverty forcing them to become dependent upon others, but one which encourages them to realize their potential and to become full and active members of society.

However, following the principle of community, the Cusan perspective also recognizes the importance society plays in a person's development and the extent to which all are indebted to their social circumstances. This would reject any system which allowed some people to languish in poverty, whether or not this poverty is state-sponsored, while others live in luxury. Society must provide assistance for its less fortunate members, since it cannot prosper as a whole while ignoring the fate of some, or even one, of its constituent members. This is particularly the case since service to others is the means to personal fulfillment in the Cusan perspective. Again it is important to note that the Cusan notion of prosperity is not merely or even primarily about material prosperity. It is rather most appropriately defined in terms of enhancing one's ability to proclaim the Divine, both in oneself and in harmony with the community. If one is forced to exist in a state of dependence, one will not be able fully to articulate one's unique nature; this diminishes the whole community's image of the Absolute, as well as one's own.

Thus, one can see that though the Cusan approach is consistent with the developmentalist perspective described by Govier, they are not in fact synonymous. The philosophy of Cusa suggests not a compromise between the survivalist and entitlist perspectives, but a full integration of survivalism's valid insights about the importance of personal achievement with the equally valid concerns of entitlism for establishing overall social well-being. Furthermore, whereas the developmentalist approach bases its policy upon society's need to care for its members, the Cusan perspective rests upon a far more secure foundation, namely, the very nature of the personal and social realities involved.

For Cusa, the goal of all economic policy is not merely increasing the sum total of material wealth or even its equitable distribution, but the perfection of the finite universe's proclamation of the Absolute. Since both the individual and the community are derived from the Absolute which is also their goal, their needs cannot be interpretated as being in competition. A far more accurate way to view this relationship is as a complementarity where the needs of the individual are fulfilled by the community and vice-versa. Thus, it becomes possible to integrate the person within the community without compromising his or her nature. In fact, the community is revealed to be the natural home of the person through which the nature of his or her being is expressed and personal fulfillment attained. The community for its part can no longer be seen as some arbitrary social arrangement, but is an entity with its own personal character which must be respected.

The Cusan perspective sees all people as sharing an inherent bond with each other and with the community as a whole; none truly can benefit if it be, at the expense of others. Thus providing for the welfare of the whole becomes the means for advancing the welfare of each. Because of this the rich and poor should not be pitted against each other as if they were in competition. It is the responsibility of those who possess sufficient resources to assist the poor in acknowledgement of the benefits they have received from the community which contributed to their personal success. The poor must be given the opportunity to develop their abilities so that they can become active members of the community rather than its wards.

Cusa's principles suggest interpreting class differences in a manner similar to the interpretation given to religious and social differences. These differences serve not as barriers which alienate people from each other and from society, but as bridges through which people can reach out to each other and forge bonds which will enhance the existence of all. Each member of the community is seen as inherently related to the others and, therefore, responsible for their well-being.

At the same time, each member likewise is seen as a unique and active person whose well-being is indispensable to the welfare of the whole. The rich and poor are not opponents battling over pieces of a stagnant economic pie, but are partners each striving to fulfill their potential and in so doing expand the resources which make possible a better life for all. Thus, in a Cusan perspective economic activity becomes an expression of the active interrelatedness which pervades all reality. Because of this its main goal is no longer the production of goods, but can be stated aptly as the production of human creativity which serves to articulate the Absolute.

In his Papal encyclical entitled, "On Human Work", Pope John Paul II points out the importance of work. He quotes the Second Vatican Council that workers "can justly consider that by their labor they are unfolding the creator's work, consulting the advantages of their brothers and sisters, and contributing by their personal industry to the realization in history of the divine plan".²³ This is clearly consistent with the spirit of Cusa's philosophy. Because work provides a context in which individuals realize their potential and express their creativity it allows them more closely to approximate the Divine. Furthermore, because work always involves a collaborative effort it naturally places the person in contact with his or her fellows so that society thereby becomes engaged in a system of mutual cooperation through which the lives of all involved are enhanced. Thus, work not only enhances the worker's approximation of the Divine, but, to the extent that it integrates the worker into the community it likewise enhances that community's approximation of the same Absolute. Each enables the other to fulfill its end; the mutual integration of both becomes not only possible, but necessary.

This is why earlier in his encyclical, when discussing the importance of labor unions, The Holy Father explains that their purpose is not to enable the workers to have more, but to enable them to become more. In short, unions should enable workers to realize their humanity more fully in every respect.²⁴ They do this by allowing the worker to play a role in determining the nature of his or her work in concert with the others involved in this enterprise. Cusa's view suggests that in doing this unions play a positive role in integrating the individual into a society. Thereby, the individual is transformed into a person and society into a community. In short, they become living entities rather than mere abstractions and are engaged in relationships which shape their identity.

As has been noted time and again, the relationship to the Absolute is of paramount importance in that it endows persons not only with their own being, but also with the purpose of their existence. Cusa's thought, therefore, suggests striving to create a system in which all people are integrated into the community in a manner which allows them dynamically to express their own unique natures. This is not antithetical to the notion of the community, since its very heart is the relationships between persons which, in turn, shape the individual's identity. Both the person and the community contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the other's existence. In contrast without the other the ability of either to approximate the Absolute would be severely compromised.

This concept of an integrated community has profound implications within the international arena as well. Just as the prosperity of every person is linked to every other person the same can be said for whole nations within the global community. Therefore, much of what has been said about how the well-off within the community should assist those who are in need may also be applied to the discussion about how wealthy nations should assist impoverished ones. This aid can be justified pragmatically on the grounds that the economic health of every individual nation contributes to global economic health as a whole.

Once again it is important to note, however, that from the perspective of Cusa such utilitarian considerations are entirely secondary. What is most important, according to the principles of Cusa's thought, is the creative contributions such nations make to the articulation of the Absolute. The poverty of one impoverishes all just as the wealth of one enriches all in accord with the inherent ontological relationship between the principles of individuality and community. This is true both in terms of the material resources available and, much more importantly, in terms of the creative capacities in operation.

ECONOMIC UNITY AND TAX POLICY

This section is particularly important because the issue of taxation underlies much of the debate about public assistance. Furthermore and at least initially, a system designed to integrate people into society is likely to have a significantly higher financial cost than one which merely seeks to warehouse such people. Hence, this section will concentrate upon the relationship between economic classes with respect to distributing the financial burdens incurred by the community. As in the previous sections it will search out how one's understanding of the principles of individuality and community essentially determines one's understanding of what constitutes a just tax policy. In this light, it will suggest some options available for understanding this relationship.

Possible Approaches to Tax Policy

The acquisitionist perspective, acknowledging solely the principle of individuality, tends to see society as a merely arbitrary conglomerate with no inherent bond holding it together. Because of this, acquisitionism sees little reason why one individual should bear a greater proportion of society's cost than another. Arguments that one individual has benefited more from society and therefore owes more to it will be rejected on the grounds that each individual is essentially self-made and that society has played no fundamental role in determining his or her destiny. With respect to tax policy acquisitionism therefore will be inclined to favor such things as user fees where one pays only for that which that one uses.

The statist perspective has an entirely different understanding of the situation. In accord with the principle of community it sees an individual's achievements as being solely attributable to his or her social circumstances. Because of this statism will be inclined toward policies which call for the confiscation of excess wealth and its redistribution to those who are less well off. According to the statist those who have, through no effort of their own, received so many of the benefits which society can provide are obliged to help relieve the suffering of those who, through no fault of their own, have been less fortunate.

A Cusan Approach to Tax Policy

Integrated entrepreneurship, since it is based upon the inherent interrelationship of the principles of individuality and community would take exception to both positions. Because integrated entrepreneurship understands the complementary nature of the principles of individuality and community it is able to recognize both the role which the community plays in the development of the person and the value of personal initiative as well as the role this plays in shaping the community. On this basis one could realize that the confiscatory and redistributionist policies of statism, through its neglect of the principle of individuality, fails to appreciate the important, indeed indispensable, role such initiative plays in the development of the community.

The policies statism would advocate ultimately would result in the repression of this initiative and the impoverishment of the community as a whole. Thus, the equity at which the statist legitimately seeks is likely to diminish the resources of all. Furthermore, it runs a serious risk of undermining its own purpose, in that by placing all decisions about the distribution of resources in the hands of the state, those individuals who are the administrators of the state determine how such resources will be parcelled out. They, therefore, possess a disproportionate share of authority. In this fashion the vast majority of society becomes alienated from the economic life it must support; social divisiveness is the natural result.

The problems of acquisitionism though admittedly somewhat different, are analogous in nature. Acquisitionism seeks to establish a policy where each member of society pays only for those resources which he or she in fact uses. Because it does not recognize the principle of community it is little inclined to acknowledge the role played by the community in the development of the person. This view leads towards a society in which individuals are radically alienated from each other and from their community as a whole. The inevitable indifference this engenders diminishes social vitality and in so doing inhibits the development of those highly capable individuals around whom acquisitionism seeks to build its society. By neglecting to encourage the development of all members of society acquisitionism itself impoverishes the resources not only of society as a whole, but of every individual member of that society by assuring that those resources will not be there to be drawn upon.

Because integrated entrepreneurship takes account of the interdependent relationship existing between the principles of community and individuality, it favors a moderately progressive tax system where those who are more wealthy pay a greater proportion of their income in order to help the community meet its expenses. In this fashion, the wealthy recognize their obligation to the community which nurtured them and in which they live by helping to provide for those who are less fortunate. At the same time, however, they keep the major share of what they have earned (baring some sort of dire emergency), regardless of how much that might be, in recognition of their personal achievements and in acknowledgement of the contribution made to the community by creating such wealth. In this manner, the principle of individuality is integrated with the principle of community, so that both are realized without compromise.

It should also be noted that since integrated entrepreneurship sees the government as but a single category in the vast network of relationships which form a community, its policies would be far less expensive than those of the statist who believes that for the most part government must bear such burdens by itself. Furthermore, since integrated entrepreneurship also seeks to develop the potential of all of the people within the community it is likely to create wealth in a far more dynamic manner than those policies the acquisitionist perspective is inclined to advocate. Ultimately, integrated entrepreneurship holds out the promise of a reduced tax burden on every individual since this cost will be distributed over a far greater number of people and far fewer people, suffering from the social pathologies linked to alienation, will be drawing upon state resources.

Thus the view of integrated entrepreneurship seems most conducive to the establishment of diversity and dynamism. This is because, unlike the statist perspective, entrepreneurship does not tend to suppress the very individuality which makes diversity and dynamism possible. Likewise, it recognizes the importance of helping those who require assistance to develop their individual capacities to become active and contributing members of a dynamic and diverse culture. This contrasts to the acquisitionist perspective which would leave each one to fend for oneself as best one can. Only integrated entrepreneurship establishes a system where service to others coincides with personal fulfillment. Acquisitionism subjugates the needs of the community to those of the individual, while statism subjugates the individual to the community. Integrated entrepreneurship, however, links both concerns in a complementary whole, for neither can succeed at the expense of the other.

1. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Talcott Parsons, trans. (New York: Scribner's, 1958), p. 51.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 53.

4. Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Free Press, 1993), p. 10.

5. Ibid., p. 24.

6. Ibid., p. 10.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., p. 28.

9. Ibid., p. 27.

10. Ibid., p. 99.

11. Ibid., p. 100.

12. Ibid., p. 111.

13. Nicholas of Cusa, Of Learned Ignorance, Germain Heron, trans. (London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1954), p. 113.

14. Nicholas of Cusa, "De Pace Fidei" in Unity and Reform, John Patrick Dolan, ed. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962), p. 196.

15. Nicholas of Cusa, "De Dato Patris Luminum" in Nicholas of Cusa's Metaphysic of Contraction, Jasper Hopkins, ed. (Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press, 1983), p. 130.

16. Ibid., p. 131.

17. Ibid., p. 127.

18. Trudy Govier, "The Right to Eat and the Duty to Work," Philosophy and Social Science, 5 (1975), 125.

19. Ibid., p. 129.

20. Ibid., p. 130

21. Ibid., p. 131.

22. Nicholas of Cusa, Of Learned Ignorance, p. 7.

23. Pope John Paul II, On Human Work (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Catholic Conference, 1981), p. 55.

24. Ibid., p. 47.