Why I am not a Libertarian - Part III

Idolatry of Mammon

Finally, I am not a libertarian because I do not belief in the inherent “magic” of the market. Now, I would describe myself as a capitalist in the sense that I believe that the capitalist system is the most efficient economic system available. Yet, economic efficiency is not always the most desirable thing, especially when it comes at the expense of other important aspects of society. To this extent, I believe the “free market” should be chastened by two things; morality and law. For morality, I naturally believe that the Christian religion is most useful here. I believe that the libertarian faith that the market is inherently self-correcting and will, by itself, create a just social and economic situation is unfounded. Capitalism, by itself, is not perfect. The problem is that too many people (economists especially) have a “Cold War framework” where they polarize all economic theories into two opposing camps; the free and the centrally planned or, in more abstract terms, the “socialist” and the “capitalist.” It leads to a sort of fatalism among libertarians who admit that capitalism is perfect yet resort to say that its “the best we got.” Yet I believe that there is another option, one that has pure capitalism chastened by faith and justice.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Christian groups worked very hard to alleviate poverty and Christians today to keep up with that tradition. Unfortunately, it seems that many Christians today have the attitude that the poor, especially those on welfare, are lazy and immoral and therefore do not deserve our charity. Libertarianism, at times, almost takes on a Social Darwinian aspect where inefficient businesses or workers must wither and die for the betterment of society. Yet, charity, by its very definition, is something that is not deserved. In all Christian economic thought, as in all Christian thought, the model of Christ should be at the fore. For Christ did not come to those who deserved him but to those that did not and he came to them (us) give grace. Perhaps the poor do deserve their poverty (though I think we must be very careful about generalizing) but those who have been successful, who have accumulated “merit” as Christ did, ought to give to economically poor just as Christ gave to the spiritually poor. Perhaps through this ministry of grace those who are poor because of their lifestyle may become overwhelmed by charity and may be transformed. I do not mean this simply in the sense of soup kitchens. It is true that during the early industrial revolution that the workers were receiving “fair” wages in that based on the supply of labor and the productivity of the worker they were fair. Yet there were far from ideal. The Victorian factory owner that prided himself in his faith ought to have given parts of his income to improve the income of his workers. This would have been the Christ-like thing to do. Instead, they held to Social Darwinian ideas and the “Iron Law of Wages” that helped to perpetuate Marxism and socialism after mid century. Marx became so popular because, while his theories about improving society were off the mark, his sympathy with the worker and the indictment of bourgeois society was spot on. The Christian must always chose charity in his disposable income instead of luxury to feed his prideful greed. Always bear in mind the proverb: “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me.”

Also, I personally reject the mysticism that the far left and the far right have attributed to business and economics. To the left, business is the greedy and all-corrupting facet of society that poisons the government and exploits the worker. Business is therefore controlled by the state or the "vanguard of the proletariat." To the far right (or libertarians) the market and business is a pure and perfect institution that, magically, transforms greed and vice into virtue. So holy is it that the sinful hands of government bureaucracy cannot even touch it. I do not see the realm of business as any different from any of the other areas of society and government involvement in it should be the same as in any other facet of society; enough to secure justice. In the wake of the recent economic collapse, caused in part by the scams of corporate executives, I believe that tougher regulation is definitely needed to ensure that there more oversight to catch fraudulent businessmen and harsher penalties to discourage fraud to begin with. It is true that people who do business with banks and other financial institutions do so voluntarily but they do so under the assumption that the law will force these institutions to act honestly and responsibly. Moreover, the actions of these institutions affect more people than those who voluntarily do business therefore they need to especially be watched to ensure that they are conducting business honorably and responsibly. I also, unlike some libertarians, believe that certain reforms from the Progressive era (the FDA, laws regulating working conditions, safety regulations, environmental regulation, etc.) are very necessary because they are concerned with justice. Again, this all builds on my first principle that justice is the primary function of governments and not “securing rights.” As a final remark, I want to distinguish between regulation and control. I do not believe that government should control businesses. Their involvement in regulating business should be on the same level that governments regulate aspects in society to ensure justice is upheld. The economy is a complex system and cannot be run by any central planning committee or jobs czar.