"Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that." - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
More and more I have been thinking about the relationship between Christianity and libertarianism. I mentioned in my response to the USA Today that capitalism does not offer moral guidance. It is not a philosophy. It is an economic system. I also said that if capitalism did offer moral guidance, if it did say, "Give to the poor," then Christians should be uneasy with capitalism for when they did give to the poor there would be a dilemma about which moral code they were really following. This is important for Christians because the supernatural element is foundational to physical actions. Giving to the poor because you love Christ is very different than giving to the poor because you have humanitarian concerns. Having said this, then, I believe I have put myself in a quandary, because while capitalism has no ethical code - again, it is purely a descriptive term referring to a complex system of private property exchange - libertarianism does have an ethical code, namely the non-aggression axiom. It says that we are all owners of our persons and that no one, not even a government, has the right to initiate force and violate that ownership. (Note: There is a summary of my argument at the end of the post).
Now, the non-aggression axiom is, I believe, consistent with Christianity. Christ's Sermon on the Mount tells us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This, he says, is a summary of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. He repeats Moses's law, "Thou shalt not murder," but goes one more step and says to avoid even anger. He calls those who work for peace "blessed," and says that they will be called the children of God. His lessons on revenge are almost pacifist. The 10 Commandments not only tell us not to steal, but not to covet. There can be no doubt that when it comes to Biblical teachings, peacemaking and non-aggression are present.
So, where does libertarianism fit in this picture? If the non-aggression axiom can be found in the word of God, what good is libertarianism?
Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty takes a Natural Law approach. I've read Part I three or four times and listened to it on audio book once or twice. This paragraph has always troubled me:
We shall be speaking throughout this work of "rights," in particular the rights of individuals to property in their persons and in material objects. But how do we define "rights"? "Right" has cogently and trenchantly been defined by Professor Sadowsky:
"When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use?"
Sadowsky's definition highlights the crucial distinction we shall make throughout this work between a man's right and the morality or immorality of his exercise of that right. We will contend that it is a man's right to do whatever he wishes with his person; it is his right not to be molested or interfered with by violence from exercising that right. But what may be the moral or immoral ways of exercising that right is a question of personal ethics rather than of political philosophy-which is concerned solely with matters of right, and of the proper or improper exercise of physical violence in human relations. The importance of this crucial distinction cannot be overemphasized. Or, as Elisha Hurlbut concisely put it: "The exercise of a faculty by an individual is its only use. The manner of its exercise is one thing; that involves a question of morals. The right to its exercise is another thing" (p. 24)
I think Rothbard's distinction is unfounded, and though he says it cannot be overemphasized, he doesn't really emphasize it that much. This notion of a "personal ethics" on the one hand and a "political philosophy" on the other creates a line which I think does not exist. Surely, personal ethics involve questions about murder, theft, and trespassing. These are some very old moral problems. Was Christ formulating a political philosophy when he told his listeners not to murder, or was he telling them how to live rightly and in peace? How can Rothbard simply move these violent acts into a "political philosophy" category? This doesn't make sense. But, if his entire political philosophy as such is premised on setting apart acts of violence from other moral problems, and if this distinction is illusory, which I believe it to be, then there is no need for libertarianism, at least for the Christian. All of its ethical principles are bound up in Christianity. Ludwig von Mises lists property, freedom, and peace before anything else in his discussion of libertarianism, three concepts which I think are unquestionably Christian. Peace and property ownership have a strong place in the Christian tradition. Corinthians 6:12 reminds us that while all things may be permissible, not all things are profitable. This, I think, reinforces the concept of freedom. So, even in the Christian tradition, there is an understanding that people may use their property for any number of immoral purposes and that no one - save for God - is justified in interfering, provided of course that the actions are not violent. Perhaps I am making a mistake in this analysis, or perhaps I could stand to explain myself better, but I do think Rothbard has a problem when he removes murder, theft, and trespass from the "personal ethics" category.
Lord Acton, the great 19th century liberal historian, has this to say on libertarianism and Christianity. I can't disagree with him: "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means." Ethical double-standards for those in power and justifying the means of government action based on some highly touted end are absolutely anathema to Christian ethics. The fact that Lord Acton called himself a liberal and was at the same time devoutly Catholic makes me think that I'm missing something when I ask, "Is libertarianism necessary?" Nevertheless, I'll continue on.
C. S. Lewis's discussion about "Christianity And", which is found in The Screwtape Letters, specifically letters 7 and 25, is worth mentioning. Here is Lewis, speaking as Screwtape:
Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the "cause", in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more "religious" (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here[.] (p. 22)
I call myself a Christian and a libertarian, or at least I used to. I am a libertarian because I believe it follows from Christianity. Libertarianism, however, I know is in some ways more dear to me than Christianity. Not in my heart, but in my reading and thinking and writing. Of course, God doesn't ask to be just in our hearts. Matthew 22:37 says that we are to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Uncle Screwtape knows what he is talking about. Can you think of other social movements which begin with Christianity but seem to take on a life of their own as passions run high and the problems with post-Enlightenment moral discourse come to light? The pro-life movement is an obvious case of "Christianity And."
The last problem I want to talk about is whether or not an appreciation for market orders and the price system is possible without libertarian philosophy. If it is possible, then we again come a bit closer to answering the initial question. I want to argue, albeit very briefly, that it is possible, using the reason which God has given us to understand his created world.
Like physics or geometry, economics provides a way of understanding the world around us. It doesn't require ethical conclusions; it is a science, not a philosophy, though it does involve philosophy, like any science. Economics is not the sort of science which depends on experiments. It is much more like geometry than it is like physics. Economic theory can be expressed in "if-then" statements, much like geometry. Consider the Pythagorean Theorem: If you have a triangle with a 90 degree angle and you square each side, then the area of the largest square will equal the area of the other two smaller squares. No one goes around measuring triangles looking to disprove this claim. Now, consider this statement about minimum wages: If you raise the minimum wage, all other things being equal, then unemployment will increase. The similarity is not a coincidence. It is a product of method. Both fields depend on deductive logical reasoning, and both fields utilize axioms or proofs. Economics begins with the axiom that "humans act to achieve ends." From this single point the entire structure of economic theory is deduced. This is a method of learning as old as Aristotle and perhaps older.
Skipping several steps, and returning more explicitly to how one can appreciate market orders and the price system without libertarian philosophy, I want discuss Ludwig von Mises's "Socialist Calculation Problem." The reason why I took the time to write the above paragraph on method is because it makes clear that economics, as an independent field of inquiry, has nothing to do with libertarianism or ethics (outside of the idea that truth is desirable, which I suppose ties every field of study to ethics, but for the sake of not going down a rabbit trail I'm going to set that question aside). I am using Mises's critique, which is built using economic method - sometimes called praxeology - because it is a fatal blow to socialism and demonstrates that using reason one can come to the conclusion that private property ownership is an indispensable mechanism of human wellness, order, and prosperity. This is important because, to repeat, private property is the bedrock of libertarianism, and if one can dispense with libertarianism and yet still have arguments and reasons to support private property, libertarianism becomes unnecessary.
The critique is as follows: Let us suppose that the incentive problems of socialism are swept away and that well-meaning central planners are in power. Socialism would still fail to use finite resources in a way that would serve society and the common good; because under socialism, the government would own all capital resources, thus making market exchanges impossible, thus making rational pricing impossible. No money exchanges for tractors, trucks, land, oil, steel, copper, etc. would occur, and in that way the price mechanism would be completely silenced. Without prices, planners would have no way of making sense of their decisions in the face of innumerable alternatives. "What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark," Mises said. In a market economy, accountants use market prices to determine if a particular enterprise is profitable or operating at a loss. Profit and loss as measured by prices thereby serves as a signal, letting business men and entrepreneurs know if they are using resources in a way that benefits society. A profit indicates that they are, a loss indicates that they are not. The important point to understand is that prices make this entire process possible. Without exchange, you have no prices, and without property rights, you have no exchange. Hence the reason why countries with greater property rights protections typically enjoy higher living standards, while those countries with a greater degree of government intervention suffer lower living standards. In the context of this discussion, I want to point out two conclusions: (1) A value-free economic analysis can demonstrate the importance of property rights, and (2) the old idea that the State and its bureaus possess the ability to come to a conclusion on what the common good is and on how to achieve it is fundamentally mistaken.
To conclude, what I have tried to investigate here is whether or not libertarian philosophy is necessary for liberty. The reason I think this is a worthwhile project is because libertarian philosophy makes ethical claims, namely that it is wrong to initiate force against others. I believe that Christianity also makes this claim. Something has to give. Christians are, after all, instructed to follow one master. A Christian who lives under two ethical systems, while they may be compatible, still must wonder which one he is really following. I have written this because I value liberty, property, and peace, and at the same time would rather not have to ask that question of myself, or have that question posed to me one day before God.
Summary: Christianity provides all necessary ethical principles for liberty. Private property is included in the Christian tradition, as are peace and freedom. Economics provides a value-free way of understanding the beneficial role of property ownership in society. Therefore, economics and Christian teaching are all that is necessary to appreciate the fruits of liberty. Therefore, libertarianism is unnecessary, at least for the Christian. This helps the Christian avoid the pitfall of "Christianity And," and sets him apart in a post-Enlightenment world full of social movements.
Editorial note: This piece is part of a series on religion and politics. It has been reposted from Econobot.
The critique is as follows: Let us suppose that the incentive problems of socialism are swept away and that well-meaning central planners are in power. Socialism would still fail to use finite resources in a way that would serve society and the common good; because under socialism, the government would own all capital resources, thus making market exchanges impossible, thus making rational pricing impossible. No money exchanges for tractors, trucks, land, oil, steel, copper, etc. would occur, and in that way the price mechanism would be completely silenced. Without prices, planners would have no way of making sense of their decisions in the face of innumerable alternatives. "What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark," Mises said. In a market economy, accountants use market prices to determine if a particular enterprise is profitable or operating at a loss. Profit and loss as measured by prices thereby serves as a signal, letting business men and entrepreneurs know if they are using resources in a way that benefits society. A profit indicates that they are, a loss indicates that they are not. The important point to understand is that prices make this entire process possible. Without exchange, you have no prices, and without property rights, you have no exchange. Hence the reason why countries with greater property rights protections typically enjoy higher living standards, while those countries with a greater degree of government intervention suffer lower living standards. In the context of this discussion, I want to point out two conclusions: (1) A value-free economic analysis can demonstrate the importance of property rights, and (2) the old idea that the State and its bureaus possess the ability to come to a conclusion on what the common good is and on how to achieve it is fundamentally mistaken.
To conclude, what I have tried to investigate here is whether or not libertarian philosophy is necessary for liberty. The reason I think this is a worthwhile project is because libertarian philosophy makes ethical claims, namely that it is wrong to initiate force against others. I believe that Christianity also makes this claim. Something has to give. Christians are, after all, instructed to follow one master. A Christian who lives under two ethical systems, while they may be compatible, still must wonder which one he is really following. I have written this because I value liberty, property, and peace, and at the same time would rather not have to ask that question of myself, or have that question posed to me one day before God.
Summary: Christianity provides all necessary ethical principles for liberty. Private property is included in the Christian tradition, as are peace and freedom. Economics provides a value-free way of understanding the beneficial role of property ownership in society. Therefore, economics and Christian teaching are all that is necessary to appreciate the fruits of liberty. Therefore, libertarianism is unnecessary, at least for the Christian. This helps the Christian avoid the pitfall of "Christianity And," and sets him apart in a post-Enlightenment world full of social movements.
Editorial note: This piece is part of a series on religion and politics. It has been reposted from Econobot.
