Month: August 2004

Since many Christians seem eager to align Christian belief with laissez-faire capitalism, it might be instructive to consider what one of the great teachers of the church had to say on the subject of private property. I realize that St. Thomas carries more authority with Catholics than sola scriptura Protestants, but at the very least, an investigation of the riches of the Christian tradition might prevent hasty generalizations about what a “biblical worldview” implies in the area of political economy.

In the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66 St. Thomas takes up a number of topics pertaining to the just distribution of property. The obvious first question is whether private property is inherently just, or as Thomas puts it “Whether it is lawful for a man to possess a thing as his own?”

He answers:

Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.

This looks like an essentially pragmatic justification of private property. Possession of property is “necessary to human life.” Private property (as modern economics confirms) creates an incentive structure that allows for an efficient allocation of resources that will serve to meet human needs. People will tend to work harder for their own gain than for the gain of the community. Furthermore, Thomas notes that private property aids in peaceful coexistence. When ownership rights are unclear or contested, conflict breaks out and wealth creation is interrupted. As many have pointed out, some of the poorest areas of the globe have the weakest property rights protection.

However, Thomas is far from the extreme libertarian view that property rights are absolute or sacrosanct. He goes on to ask several articles later “Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?”

His answer:

[I]f the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

Why does extreme need justify theft according to Thomas?

Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.

In other words, God created the goods of this world for the use of the human race as a whole. Since private property as an institution is justified by its ability to meet human needs, it can’t be used as an excuse for denying human need.

It’s interesting to note that Thomas treats this question under the heading of “justice” rather than “charity.” The excess of some people is due “by natural law” to aiding the poor. Thus there would seem to be little support to be found here for the idea that the government should have no role in redistibuting wealth to aid the poor. At the very least, Thomas’ principles would seem to point to something like a mixed economy standing between the extremes of socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Colby Cosh:

For three years and change, the man who pledged a “more humble [American] foreign policy” has been raked over the coals for failing to adhere to that promise, despite the unusually strong reasons (e.g., the large ashen hole in the lower part of Manhattan) for a midterm course change. Now Bush has taken the first steps toward ceasing to guarantee, in toto, the defense of every other industrialized democracy in the known universe. And the man they were calling an imperialist yesterday is now instantly tarred as an isolationist. Do we need a new word here? Isoperialist? Impolationist?

From Slate’s Timothy Noah:

Not long ago, I spoke with a Democratic moderate about the war in Iraq. He said he considered support for the Iraq war to be a necessary prerequisite to assuming any powerful role in the party. It showed that the person in question was willing to project United States force abroad. But wait, I asked. Do you still think the Iraq war was a good idea? After some hemming and hawing, he admitted that he’d rather we hadn’t gone in. Then why make support for a mistaken policy a litmus test? Because, he repeated, it shows that the person in question is willing to project United States force abroad. I should emphasize that we weren’t talking about whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, which is an entirely separate and vexing question that speaks to our responsibility in a country whose previous government we destroyed. What this man was saying was that it was better to have been wrong about Iraq than to have been right. That’s the prevailing (though not always conscious) consensus in Washington, and it’s completely insane.

Via Telford Work I came across a link to something called “Worldview Weekend,” a site that promises to teach you to “live and think like a Christian.” The site even offers a “Worldview Quiz” that enables you to determine how “biblical” your worldview is. Well, much to my dismay, not only did I not score in the “Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker” category, I actually scored in the second to lowest category! Turns out I’m a “Socialist Worldview Thinker” (the only thing lower is a “Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker” – patooie! Damn commies!). Who knew that I, someone who considers himself a fairly orthodox Christian, was nothing more than a godless pinko??

Some of these questions are just utterly bizzare. For instance, “The federal government should require students to pass a national test before graduating from high school.” Now, you may be asking yourself, what does federalism in education policy have to do with Christianity? Darned if I know! A lot of the questions make this look more like a “Republican Worldview Test” than anything. Indeed, I came out socialist despite giving very “conservative” answers on questions having to do with the resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration of the Bible, etc.

One probably shouldn’t make too much of what is after all a silly internet diversion, but the unfortunate thing is that outfits like this simply lend credence to the perception that evangelical Christians are simply shills or dupes for the GOP. The fact that the quiz treats Christian and Communist as the opposite ends of the spectrum is revealing in itself.This despite the fact that much of the Christian tradition could be read as endorsing “liberal” positions (after all, both Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther allowed for wealth redistribution).

Fact is, Christians can and do take a variety of views on contested political issues of the day. The Bible doesn’t give us a blueprint for politics in the 21st century. And the Gospel can’t be identified with any political platform, left or right. Humility requires that we avoid elevating our contingent political judgments to the status of revealed truth.

It is only the novice in political economy who thinks it the duty of government to make its citizens happy. Government has no such office. To protect the weak and the minority from the impositions of the strong and the majority–to prevent any one from positively working to render the people unhappy, to do the labor not of an officious inter-meddler in the affairs of men, but of a prudent watchman who prevents outrage–these are rather the proper duties of a government. — Walt Whitman

From Godspy:

I’ve never been so close in my life to not voting in the presidential election at all—surely a cop-out and a sin for a conscientious citizen of any persuasion, religious or political. So, beyond sending a few bucks to Democrats for Life, I’m back to participating, it would appear, in that other quadrennial exercise in masochism, the one known as “the lesser-of-two-evils vote.” What’ll it be this year, Deb, choose your poison: Big Government Post-Modernism or Big Government Corporatism? Since both parties have gone a-whoring with the empire builders of every utopian persuasion, which gross national product should Empire America market to the unsuspecting world in the next four years? Madonna or Wal-Mart? Chemical abortifacients or chemical pesticides? Planned Parenthood or Planned Obsolescence?

If conservatives and libertarians disagree about ends, but agree (sometimes) about means, the reverse might be said of libertarians and liberals. To see why, consider that libertarians often trace their intellectual lineage to J.S. Mill’s “On Liberty.”

For Mill, our proper ends are not given by religion or traditional morality. Rather, the proper end of each person is the cultivation and development of his own unique character and individuality:

“As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.”



If the goal of social progress is the cultivation of individuality, then the means are primarily leaving each person to his own devices, as Mill enunciates in his famous “harm principle” (as it has come to be called):

“…the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

The sovereignty of the individual over himself is very much a bedrock principle of libertarian thought. But what does this have to do with liberalism?

Contrary to what conservatives sometimes say, the driving idea behind American liberalism has usually not been “equality of condition” or egalitarianism, per se. Rather, liberals have seen themselves as continuing the Millian project of liberating the individual. This is the basic goal modern-day liberals have in common with so-called classical liberals (i.e. libertarians).

Modern liberals differ from their libertarian cousins in giving the State a more positive role in facilitating the development of the individual. In Mill’s day, the State could plausibly be seen as the chief obstacle to individual flourishing, but later liberals have argued that concentrations of economic power, as well as oppressive social structures like racism and sexism are just as big of a problem. Liberals think that the State needs to do more in securing “positive liberty” – e.g. supplying basic economic goods which are prerequisites for any meaningful life. They see themselves as being truer to the spirit of Millian liberalism, while libertarians are more like fundamentalists who insist on sticking to the letter.

Arguably, though, libertarians and liberals have more in common with each other than either do with conservatives. Liberals and libertarians agree that the highest political end is liberation from arbitrary authority and power, and agreement about ends is presumably more important than agreement about means (since the means are employed for the sake of the ends).

Of course, libertarians and liberals will sometimes disagree on what counts as arbitrary and oppressive authority. The liberal may want to use the State to limit the influence of religion on society, whereas the libertarian may regard religion as much less of a threat to liberty because of its essentially voluntary nature. Still, one would expect to see libertarians and liberals aligned on a variety of issues in opposition to the more traditionalist brand of social conservative, Indeed, this seems to be what’s happening, for example, on issues like euthanasia, abortion and biotechnology.

Touchstone Magazine has recently put up an extensive archive of its articles going back to 1999. One of the gems I came across is a piece by Christopher Killheffer: “Our Food from God.” Killheffer writes:

The industrial system of raising animals is not disordered because it kills chickens; it is disordered because it first, from the very start of their lives, deprives chickens of their chicken-ness. Creatures God created for open air, earth, and sky, it forces into crowded steel cages stacked several levels high inside factory buildings. It causes immense suffering through the distortion of their created natures, thereby achieving exactly the opposite of what Adam achieved in naming the animals.

Rather than seeking to cooperate with the Creator in recognizing the distinctness of his creatures and stewarding them according to their specific natures, it seeks to transform their natures into a single pattern determined entirely by industrial efficiency. The warning of the Church echoes now as a condemnation: “Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator.” The factory farm’s torment and distortion of animals is nothing less than contempt for the God who created them.

Today at Tech Central Station, Kenneth Silber tries to rekindle the romance between conservatism and libertarianism, which one could say has been on the rocks of late. Disagreements about everything from stem-cell research to the Iraq war threaten to put the final nail in the coffin of “fusionism” – the ideological glue (developed most notably by the late Frank Meyer) that held the conservative-libertarian alliance together throughout the Cold War (though there were notable defectors such as Murray Rothbard who broke with official conservatism over Vietnam, and the Cold War generally).

Silber believes that a kind of neo-fusionism can be forged centered around eschewing extremism, an outreach to right-leaning centrists and moderates who have accepted the necessity of limited government, and opposition to the growing authoritarianism (as Silber sees it) of the Left:

Does fusionism have a future? I believe it does. For one thing, the publication you are now reading has a distinctly fusionist coloration. Moreover, “libertarian conservative” (unlike “promiscuous celibate”) is in fact coherent. It describes someone who thinks libertarian institutions are worth conserving (and that a country embracing such institutions is worth defending). It implies a consistency in advocating both social and economic freedoms, and a recognition that both types of freedoms require responsibility and virtue.

On the face of it, fusionism seems like a neat way to resolve the disagreements between libertarians and conservatives. But is it really a coherent philosophical position?

The fundamental premise of fusionism is that virtue cannot be coerced. For an action to have moral worth, it must be freely chosen. Therefore, liberty should be the highest political goal, because maximizing liberty will expand the space for the exercise of virtue.

The problem with this is that, while it’s true that virtue can’t be coerced, it doesn’t follow that maximizing political liberty will have the result of maximizing the free exercise of virtue. And this is why fusionism can’t ultimately reconcile the differences between libertarians and conservatives.

Take pornography for example. All libertarians believe that pornography should be legal, while at least some conservatives would support restrictions on it. The libertarian believes that the State is justified in using the force of law to restrict only those behaviors that pose a threat to life, liberty and property. So long as all the parties involved are consenting adults, the libertarian (qua libertarian) sees no problem with pornography. For the libertarian, liberty is the chief end of politics.

The conservative, on the other hand, thinks that the chief end of politics is not liberty, but virtue. And sometimes the cultivation of virtue will be served by robust governmental action. Does this mean that the conservative thinks that virtue can be coerced? Not necessarily. What the conservative does think is not that the State can make people virtuous, but that it can make it easier for people to be virtuous. For instance, the widespread availability of pornography may provide a temptation for many people to lapse into vice, so the conservative will not necessarily oppose the State’s removing this “occasion for sin.” Now, whether or not such a move would be a good idea all things considered is a matter of prudential judgment (e.g. will this create a massive black market in pornography, undermine respect for the law, etc.). But the conservative has no objection in principle to restricting people’s choices for the sake of facilitating virtue.

While libertarians and conservatives will continue to find much to agree on (e.g. opposition to taxes), there’s probably no easy way to resolve the very real philosophical differences between them. As long as conservatives and libertarians have such different ideas about the ends of politics, there will be occasions for sharp disagreement about means. I suspect neo-fusionism is apt to prove as unstable as its predecessor.

I know my day’s not complete without a dose of good and crunchy analytic philosophy of religion. The Maverick Philosopher is happy to oblige.