Blog of A Plodding Visionary
Archive for April, 2011
Socialism and Poverty Alleviation, Part 8 (Spiritual Aspect and Concluding Thoughts)
010 months ago
Previously: All this goes to show how much more complicated economic systems are than they might at first sound. Someone might say, “socialism helps the poor” by doing things like ensuring basic services, mandating low prices and higher wages, and providing welfare. In a test environment, economic theorists may be able to demonstrate that it works. But it requires that all humans be standardized – behavior, too. And the ramifications of that are too great for us to even consider going there.
Finally, we need to consider the overall spiritual ramifications of systems. What impact do beliefs and worldview have on our spiritual walk?
With free market economics, we must ensure that we do not use our liberty as license. We need to not disregard God’s law. We need to not act in a way that exercising our rights tramples another’s. Justice plus love will go a long way, prohibiting things like pride, greed, stinginess, and so on. As with Christian liberty, the possibility is there that one could use freedom to cause great harm. As is the case within Christianity, people can see others abusing freedoms, which is sin, and taking others down. They then craft rules that people must follow in order to stay far away from such traps, and eventually the rules become an end in themselves. It’s no different in economics. In fact, some have said that when a free economy transitions to socialism, it may be God’s judgment. Remember that one of the early excuses for socialism was a corrective backlash to abuses in factories. But as a study of the book of Galatians will show, the correction to licentious excess is not a host of new laws, but just getting back to what already exists – God’s commandments. Honor God. Love your neighbor.
But while capitalism can have a serious blind spot issue with greed, with socialism, it seems it encourages blind spots of covetousness and envy. As we talked about earlier in the topic of justice, Scripture does not support the idea of conditional equality – this is a Marxist notion, part of the goal of flattening society under the hammer of the central power. For example, consider the following: “Do you see a man skillful in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men.” (Proverbs 22:29 ESV) Skilled work elevates a person. Those who are not in the same role, whether it’s because of different stations in life, different abilities, or, laziness – wanting to have someone set them on a higher pedestal rather than climbing there themselves – get jealous. “Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense. Whoever is wicked covets the spoil of evildoers, but the root of the righteous bears fruit.” (Proverbs 12:11–12 ESV) Jealousy becomes envy. Envy becomes a brooding hatred for those who have more, and a desire to see them fall at any cost. Socialism not only attracts, but encourages, this behavior, and so those who already struggle with the sin of covetousness may be attracted to socialism because it provides a system where this sin can be gratified. Contrast that to a statement by JRR Tolkien that “In God’s kingdom the presence of the greatest does not depress the small.”
A booklet entitled “10 Truths About Socialism” by Coral Ridge Ministries was used as the source for the next few paragraphs.
Sociologists have studied the impact of envy and noted that these days, one’s personal happiness is connected more to one’s relative income disparity rather than one’s actual belongings. In other words, how you compare to your neighbor affects you more than what you actually have.
Dorothy Sayers, who translated Dante’s classic work, Inferno, into English, noted in the section where pride and envy were punished in the bowels of hell that envy is the great leveler. At its worst, it is a destroyer – rather than have anyone happier than itself, it would see all of us miserable together.
Joseph Epstein wrote that envy is a cold-blooded deadly sin, perhaps the cruelest sin of all. He said, “when I say that Marxism is based on envy, I mean that the glorious revolution of the proletariat that it promised was really a promise to put a final end to all the conditions that make for envy. The great class struggle is about nothing less than the enviable advantages that the upper classes have over the lower – advantages that, even at the cost of bloody revolution, must be eliminated.”
But it seems clear that in modern politics, just as some representing a powerful corporate interest have been quoted as saying ‘greed is good’ – wasn’t that a buzzword in the 80s – many on the American left seem to say that envy is good. Author Tommy Newberry says that President Obama stokes envy, especially class envy. “In Obama’s eyes, America is divided between the evil rich and the virtuous exploited, and the only solution is to take from the former group and give to the latter. In fact, Obama demonizes not only the “rich,” but the very act of engaging in business and making money. For him, financial success is a dishonorable goal – perversely, money is something to be taken from others, not earned for oneself.”
In fact, over the last few years, the predominant view we have heard in the news media is that that people have the right to resent others’ good fortune, hard work, or income. Redistributive policies are not just about helping the have-nots; almost more important is punish those who have.
Economist Walter Williams notes that “it’s a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads, and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control of our lives.”
Seen within the socialistic system, it appears if we all are so worked up about the wealthy and how much more they have than we do, we might see it as preferable to just hand over power to the virtuous state, as better they have it than the wealthy. Remembering that in totalitarian systems a powerful state is essential, this is probably no coincidence.
In 1985, Joseph Sobran wrote an essay demonstrating that compassion for the poor is not really what socialism is about. “Nothing is more obviously characteristic of the socialist impulse than the desire to redistribute wealth. However, the end – “social justice” – is less important than the means – the power to control an entire economy. In its raw, wholesale form, socialism confiscates outright. Land is seized, major landowners are shot, farming is collectivized under state supervision. The produce is taken by the state, which unilaterally sets farm workers’ wages at a considerable profit to itself. Since there are no competing employers to bid for the workers’ services, the workers have no choice but to accept what they are given. This, of course, is enslavement. Trotsky appreciated this practical advantage of socialism. When the state is the sole employer, he remarked, disobedience means death by slow starvation. The Soviet Union actually starved about seven million Ukrainian farmers during the early thirties in order to implement what Stalin blandly called his “collective-farm policy” against recalcitrant elements. Those who seek power have a natural interest in creating dependency on themselves. Where limited government and the rule of law prevail, politicians can only do this to a limited extent, through appointments and a certain amount of patronage. In this regard, socialism has opened new vistas: where the state can command a whole economy, it can make millions dependent on it for life itself. It is in this sense that socialism “works”, and the socialist ruler isn’t necessarily inconvenienced by the scarcity the system causes: the more desperate the people, the more they are at his mercy.”
And Karen Gushta notes that our founders recognized that, given human nature, envy could become a driving force in politics, and so designed the Constitution to protect God-given property rights. But if a loophole can be found to justify redistribution, modern politicians will. In fact, ‘President Obama doesn’t call it a loophole, but rather a blind spot.’ “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and the framers had that same blind spot… The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” What Obama calls a blind spot seems to instead have been an intentional protection, reflecting the founders’ understanding of rights and justice.
–End of material based on the Coral Ridge booklet.–
Also, envy also has drastic consequences on us as individuals. The person who is envious believes that someone else is to blame for the fact that you don’t have. This can lead people to become habitual angry blamers, not just in the area of money. If you couple envy and entitlement, which tend to go together as it is, it can produce an especially ugly monster, as every calamity that happens can be seen as a personal injustice and someone else’s fault. Eventually, this venom ultimately gets directed at God. “It’s your fault I was made this way, given this condition in life, placed around these people.”
This also goes hand-in-hand with socialism’s worldview, as we’ll recall that historically, socialism has been an anti-God position. I have heard of situations where individuals began with genuine concern for the poor, but believed that only socialism provided the cure. After a steady diet of exclusively left-leaning opinions these individuals have chosen to distance themselves from Christianity, instead preferring the term “Jesus follower” because “Christians [are] greedy, hypocritical, and anti-progress”. This in some cases as even led to lashing out with criticism on fellow believers for things like opposing abortion or gay marriage, calling such stances fundamentalist and backwards. Is this a just a coincidence?
Socialism also poses a problem for Christians because of the cycle of fear it perpetuates. Let me explain. As already stated, socialism really feeds on two things – getting people to look around them and see inequalities and then covet, and like all totalitarian systems, it uses fear and apprehension to get people to willingly give more of their freedoms, more power, to the central authority. This central authority basically becomes like God. People then trust it for their provision – for their daily bread. When they have a need, they look to the government. If sick, they look to the government. You get the picture. If the government needs more power, it can dig up a crisis to get people scared – or manufacture one, if need be. As people get alarmed as stories sweep the news (protect yourself from the coming meltdown! terror watch is higher today! bird flu is coming! swine flu is coming! the food supply might not be safe! food prices are rising!) people panic. Then somewhere in the news, you find it… “Government proposes solution.” And like Big Brother of the novel 1984, people begin to trust it more…and love it. Is it just me or does it seem awfully convenient that there are more things out there that we’re supposed to be scared of now that socialism is gaining more acceptance?
Ultimately, this transcends socialism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism, any ism and any system out there. Satan wants us to be fearful, to lose sleep, to feel like we can’t just rest. He wants us to bicker with one another, control one another, mistrust one another. He wants us to make work an end in itself, working longer, and busier, storing up for whatever might come, and then keep working. He wants us to have more, more, and more, no matter what the cost, especially at the cost of family, friends, church, and God-given relationships. He wants us to do anything to keep us from loving one another and trusting God for provisions.
In contrast, pay attention to Christ’s words found in Matthew 6:
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
(Where you focus your time and energy is #1. Is it politics? Work? Economics? Saving? Money? Family? God?)
“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
What constitutes serving money? One element is using money as a form of security.
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”
(Matthew 6:19–34 ESV)
As I pointed out in the remainder of the Sunday School class that this material was a component of, discipleship is at the heart of the concept of poverty alleviation. It takes time…relationships…instruction. Understanding economics is vital to this discipleship, as is addressing the sins of greed and envy. Another is to be responsible about training the next generation, as you can be sure they’ll be getting a lot of it in school. These days, it sounds like the indoctrination begins at a very early age. Another thing we need to do is to emphasize the future over present hedonism. Yet another is to clearly emphasize a work ethic. Hard work is the method God has given us to be good stewards of his creation, ourselves, and our families, but not as an end in itself – as a means of glorifying God – do all things as to the Lord, not to men. And finally, discipleship efforts must focus on the true source of security and peace. If we as Christians act fearful in the area of economics, what does that say to others?
I propose that for anyone who is really concerned about politics, the economy, money, etc. that the best way to counter the efforts of the enemy in this area is to meditate on these words of Christ. Read this before picking up the paper. Maybe take a week off of even following what’s going on in the world and instead focus on this. The world doesn’t get it. They think we need a God-like government because this life is all there is, and this world is a scary place. But we know better. We need to be wise and discerning to not be deceived by the fear and despair that is all that those without God know.
The End
Socialism and Poverty Alleviation, Part 7 (Responsible Free Market Economics)
010 months ago
What would a real free market system – one that understands the sinfulness of man, the danger of unchecked power, and promotes true justice rather than favoritism, giving all an opportunity to be who they were created to be – look like?
1. It would recognize the importance of hard work. Next to redefining justice, which we’ve already looked at, another area where socialism has a great ability to cause hurt in the name of helping is in the area of work. Work is essential to reducing poverty and increasing wealth. To think that you can become richer by not working, just because of who you know, or get out of poverty without working, because the government will cover for you, is to believe an error and to take advantage of a perversion of justice. However, there are people across the political spectrum that at least seem to think just this.
Ease is not something we are entitled to. A steady job where we can just relax and go with the flow is not a right, privilege, or even something we can expect in this world. As a result of the fall, work is hard. And for life. Though it’s a nice perk of society, retiring from work while still able-bodied, or for that matter having paid time off, and similar benefits, are also privileges, not rights. Work itself it not a curse, but a blessing and a means of glorifying God. But since the fall, work has been difficult. The ground on which we work has been cursed. That said, as humans serve as good stewards of God’s creation, we learn things about God’s world that we can then apply and alleviate some of the difficulty. This is the science of technology in a nutshell. It enables efficiency, which maximizes production and minimizes costs.
The principle of hard work means that in order to move up – higher wealth, rank, privilege – you have to out-work others. See Proverbs 12:24 and Proverbs 21:5. Not look for shortcuts and loopholes to get something that you have not earned, as that violates Biblical justice. It also requires wisdom. Not just business-smarts, but God-given wisdom. Knowing right from wrong. Being a person of justice – right character. See Psalm 25:12,13 & Prov. 22:4.
Some criticize profits from work, citing a difference between perceived needs – wants – and real needs. Scripture does specifically list the basic needs of each person – food, clothing, and shelter. There are a lot of things not on this list. But it doesn’t mean that people can’t enjoy things that are beyond that list. In a free economy, people are free to meet their perceived needs – get what they want – real need or not, so long as it does not violate right and wrong. In a free economy people are free to pursue wants, so long as it does not violate right and wrong (one difference between free markets and total anarchy!). This is a stewardship issue that the church is best equipped to address. Societal altering of wants (forced austerity measures) will not have a good end.
Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul notes that there are four causes of poverty: sloth, calamity, exploitation, and personal sacrifice. The poor by calamity are appropriate recipients of charity, but the goal is to get them self-supporting again – not to become continuing welfare recipients. The poor by exploitation need charity for immediate needs and then true justice in the form of restitution – what was stolen must be repaid. The poor by personal choice, such as those who take a vow of poverty, have chosen their lot and as such should not ask for relief. And then there is sloth. Simply put, the reason we do not reward sloth is because the Bible says “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” One type of sloth is simply refusal to work. Work is too hard, too challenging, or just not seen as necessary. But there are other less noticeable forms of sloth. Working, but choosing the easy road when working, is still a form of sloth that will prevent people from advancing. Economic growth almost always requires risk. You invest capital in new ventures and do well if the venture succeeds, but could lose a lot if it fails. Innovation requires testing new ideas, and while some will work, others will fail and be a lot of spent time. Learning new skills – absolutely required in the fast-changing systems that technology has brought – often require trying repeatedly without success until you get it. Keeping up and working hard takes risk, but the diligent are rewarded by rising above the rest. But the lazy – who may prefer ease, and fear risk – will not do what it takes. The risk is just too great. (Refer to Proverbs 26:13-14: ”The sluggard says, “There is a lion in the road! There is a lion in the streets!” As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed.”) Security is just more valuable, like in the parable of the talents where the servant with one kept it because he was fearful, while the servants with two and five invested and doubled them. (Incidentally, some commentators have written, tongue-in-cheek, that if the Bible endorsed socialism then the parable would have ended with the wise investors having to give their earnings to the lazy servant, rather than vice versa. Sort of funny but there’s a point to be made there!)
Also, a sense of entitlement — belief that who you are means you inherently deserve something — will also lead to poverty. Basically, “You deserve a free lunch whether you worked for it or not.” How is that just to the people who worked hard to reach their current economic state?
Sir Richard Acland, a British author with socialistic leanings said a number of years ago that one of the greatest advantages to his entitlement ideas were a relief from responsibility. In his proposed new order, the community would say to the individual, “Don’t you bother about the business of getting your own living.”
Thomas Jefferson, referring to the early form of socialism that was beginning to gain acceptance in his day, wrote, “ To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
If a person feels they are entitled to something, such as the story that was in the news not too long ago of the college grad who sued the university for the $70,000 she spent in tuition because she didn’t get a high enough paying job soon enough out of college, then they are not going to work hard to one day earn it. They’ll look around them and just say “but he… but she…” like a child that’s too focused on what everyone else is doing and getting to even complete his own work. Socialism not only enables but also panders to this behavior. While a blind spot of the free market system is its susceptibility to greed, which the left is very, very eager to point out, a blind spot of the socialist system is its endorsement of covetousness and envy.
But again, on greed – this is not something we can just brush under the rug. As we discussed a few weeks ago, greed is a result of poverties of being, poverties of community, and so on. People find their fulfillment in money, prestige, power, and want to be fulfilled at the expense of others. The human rights violations in the factories of the industrial era, and beyond, were almost certainly a product of greed – the ability to produce and earn wealth became an end in itself, so that the factories kept going non-stop no matter what the human toll was.
The sin of greed can also lead people to abuse the free market system to underhandedly take power, essentially undermining the system if peers do not enforce checks and balances, and just take, take, take to no end. Or to freely allow the market price of wages to be bid down, but then to attempt through consolidation or collusion to control one industry so as to then bid prices up. If enough people do this, free markets turn into fascism as the horizontal balance of power starts to get stacked and vertical. All suffer, but the poor take it the worst. Now, this will come back to bite, for example, when a business owner has pocketed so much profit that he has not turned around and spent on innovation to stay competitive, or kept up with market trends in paying his employees, so that they decide to work for a competitor. (See Pr. 22:16; Prov. 13:22) Sin will find one out, but sin can also leave a lot of damage in its wake.
Still, in the end, a system that focuses on the importance of hard work, and the receiving the full reward of that hard work, will go a lot farther in alleviating poverty than a system that is centered around redistributing wealth that is not connected to earnings.
2. Second, a just and free system would, obviously, recognize the importance of God-given freedoms. One such freedom is that government ought not forbid what God requires of men. This is also described as not calling evil good and good evil. When human laws make it okay to murder one’s child, but illegal for someone to block entrance to the abortion mill, something’s wrong. When we see that God’s law protects private property, laws that then permit seizing private property for so-called societal good are in violation of the created order. Likewise, systems ought to not be endorsing of practices that force people to dishonor a God-given day of rest.
Also, with the right to private property comes the right to use private property as the owner sees fit, so long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s life, liberty, or property. Scripture seems to be very much supportive of this principle. From this comes the principle of economics that there is no such thing as an unjust economic exchange if two have willingly agreed to enter into it, without fraud, theft, deceit, or coercion.
3. Directly related to this is that a proper system, and a responsible government, must administer right justice – not create rights or standards, but enforce what exists. Government exists to protect rights, enforce laws, and punish violations. This means not picking favorites, not using power as a means of trying to push a social plan.
This means not letting off the hook those who have committed injustices, and not punishing those who have not. Remember from Romans 13, there is a place for government, even for taxation. This one’s tough for me this spring as I got a notice that a better-than-projected year in business resulted in a four digit underpayment and interest, which resulted in the government’s taking over a third of last year’s surplus. But that aside, enforcing justice still means that government can, for example, enforce antitrust and anti-monopoly laws, prohibit things like collusion and market fixing, and so on. While I’ve pointed out that it’s wrong for government to act unjustly, so is it wrong for private individuals, and also huge structured corporations that almost act like mini-governments, to do the same thing. This is a key mistake that is often made today – we can get so focused on government’s wrongs that we may turn a blind eye to private organizations that do the same thing. Again, just because it’s a private organization doesn’t mean that it’s free market.
But there are some more complicated systemic issues that should also be considered in light of poverty alleviation. Government financial policy not only can, but does, directly impact the poor. For example, inflationary policies cause what money someone does have to be worth less. Simply put, this is caused by creating more money (QE/QE2/etc.). This is done by printing it, or as is popular now, basically making some accounting changes such as having one government agency buy bonds and notes from another government agency, and is as fraudulent as it sounds. Government does this because it takes a little bit of time for the markets to respond, so for a brief window of time it looks like people have more buying power – but then the markets adjust, prices go up, and people may have just spent more than they ought – in the meantime. As I mentioned in earlier posts, this is another thing that is considered to be part of the road to serfdom. Inflationary policies ultimately lead to poverty, albeit a rather manufactured form of poverty. But the end result is again a nation of serfs, or peasants, working the government’s property with little to no potential for moving up.
Government can also manipulate markets by fixing prices. This sounds good, at first – setting maximum prices for services, and setting minimum permissible wages paid – but how can they possibly keep up with all the various transactions out there and the various trends that determine actual values in the first place? Value is set by what someone is willing to pay for an item or a service, so if that’s been artificially set, you can see how easily it is to get out of touch with reality. If prices – set by basic supply and demand – do not reflect what people actually want, then some items get scarcer and more expensive and others get plentiful and cheaper. Often, it seems that it’s necessary items that get scarcer and more valuable and luxury items that get cheaper. While this hurts everyone, it hurts the poor most of all. True competition – where businesses compete against one another for customers as well as laborers – has the greatest potential to help the poor because it provides a venue for hard work, a way of bringing the fruit of people’s labors to market, and, again, if operating freely, keeps goods plentiful and as low in price as economically feasible.
All this goes to show how much more complicated economic systems are than they might at first sound. Someone might say, “socialism helps the poor” by doing things like ensuring basic services, mandating low prices and higher wages, and providing welfare. In a test environment, economic theorists may be able to demonstrate that it works. But it requires that all humans be standardized – behavior, too. And the ramifications of that are too great for us to even consider going there.
Up next: Spiritual ramifications of worldviews.
Socialism and Poverty Alleviation, Part 6 (American fascism?)
010 months ago
The past few posts have focused almost exclusively on socialism’s handling of justice and compassion. Now I hope to turn the tables a bit and address some other concerns. One major one is the area of economic oppression. Another will be the impact systems have on our worldviews, and even our own spiritual lives.
I hope the previous posts have made it clear that command systems that forcibly take from one to give to another are unjust and oppressive, wherein oppression is taking by force what someone else has fully earned. This is generally done by the powerful to the less powerful. Sometimes it’s simply taking by force, by believing that you know better than they do who ought to have what. But oppression is also when someone in control of another violates the principle of just weights and measures, such as by giving someone a bad deal because they have little choice but to accept it. While even the wealthy can be victims of oppression under a powerful government, the poor are most vulnerable. Part of being poor, as per When Helping Hurts, is the feeling of being caught in a web, so any attempt to exercise freedom or improve just results in getting stuck somewhere else.
We can even see examples of this here in Omaha, if you consider the plethora of check cashing services, pawn shops, and so on, that take advantage of people with bad or no credit, no bank accounts, or immediate pressing needs that cause people to take an emergency bad deal because they see no way out. Or, say, Tobacco and Phones 4 Less, which you can find on many major corners in Omaha, and which has a predominantly poor clientele, where one can get a relatively expensive pack of cigarettes, maybe some liquor, and a more or less disposable cell phone with a high cost per minute but with no credit check, which is a prerequisite for some of the better value postpaid plans. Now I’m not saying such places should be forcibly shut down or anything, but keep these examples in mind as ways where even within free systems people can be taken advantage of. Yet then again, bad credit does mean a higher risk of repayment, so there is also a legitimate business and financial reason for the higher rates and prices. There’s a fine line. In When Helping Hurts, they refer to examples like these as well as things such as predatory lending by loan sharks, which is not justifiable, and especially in other countries such as China, continuation of sweat shop factories where workers who essentially have nowhere else to go are paid a far-below-market wage, but – if given a choice, which isn’t always the case – the workers might reason that accepting that wage is still better than nothing.
With this in mind, as well as the examples we hear about all the time of multilevel corporations that have become famous for mass layoffs that don’t make economic sense, or greed at the top resulting in the company being plundered so its executive can retire early, people often decide that capitalism is a failure and socialism, then, is the answer. But I believe that what often poses as the capitalistic free market system really isn’t. Remember the list of the ten steps to socialism? America, which is at least said to be a capitalistic, free market country, already has adopted many if not all of them in at least some form. We have various “czars” and commissions that really regulate pretty much every aspect of life. We have an educational system that often cares more about teaching children how they ought to think as cogs in the system than teaching them valuable knowledge. We have huge businesses that can corner the markets and fix prices and wages as they see fit, with little regard to public demand. As it is now, freedom is becoming narrower.
I’m becoming convinced that the direction we are going here is not, in its current state, a battle between socialism and free market economics, but rather a much more narrow battle – a battle between socialism and fascism. Fascism, remember, is a form of totalitarianism – top-down, heavy handed authority rule – like socialism. The only difference is instead of government ownership of everything, it permits private ownership under heavy regulation. Not free market private ownership as government is very much involved, but almost like the government and business are two heads of the same creature (maybe add in organized labor as a third head), that sometimes appear to war with each other but down deep are connected and very much in control. Now, for almost a century, despite being very similar in terms of heavy-handedness, authority, and soaking up power like a sponge soaks up water, socialists and fascists have passionately hated each other based on differences in who should hold absolute power… who should be “God”. Which is funny because it’s basically an intramural battle or a family feud – at the center are the same totalitarian ideas. Socialism pretends to help the poor, by really just impoverishing everyone. Fascism doesn’t make a pretense of helping the poor – but still works to destroy the individual and family in favor of power. It uses corporatism – big business interests – believing basically that the only purpose of a corporation is to provide increasing value to the shareholders. Everything else is sacrificed to that one end. The media usually calls that free market capitalism in order to make socialism look good, but it is not so.
Coming up: What real free-market capitalism might look like.
Socialism and Poverty Alleviation, Part 5 (Ten Planks and Serfdom)
010 months ago
In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels put the “abolition of property” first in a ten-step program for implementing communism. They themselves called the next three “despotic inroads on the rights of property.”
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
One of the modern dictionary definitions of socialism is “a system in which there is no private property”. But as a French writer, Frederic Bastiat pointed out in the early 1800s, socialism could also be called a form of legalized theft that can be carried out in an infinite number of ways, including tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on.
Bastiat also wrote, on the topic of determing whether or not a law is just, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
I think from this we can see pretty clearly that here in the U.S., like it or not, we’ve at least seen some if not all of these steps at least suggested, if not actually put into practice – and some make the case that all ten are underway. Yet even so, some may make the argument – why does it matter, if it is a system that cares for the poor?
But does it? Socialists will be quick to point out that capitalism’s permission of greed hurts the poor too, and in worse ways – so even if it can be demonstrated that socialism hurts, capitalism hurts worse. I would disagree with this statement on two grounds. First, capitalism is not necessarily greed. Greed is a sin; I don’t believe capitalism is inherently greedy. Does it at least allow for it? Yes, and we’ll talk about this more later when we discuss some economic liberty/license issues. Second, there seems to be little evidence that in the long run socialism really helps anything. It may temporarily reduce material poverty, but there are other forms of poverty, such as relational poverty. It does nothing to alleviate these other forms of poverty; in fact, it often just makes them worse. Second, even the material alleviation is temporary and dependence-inducing. Socialism is not a system designed to be weaned from. It’s a one-way street, deeper and deeper in. Once you’re hooked, you’re not going to get back out without a lot of pain. So in that regard we could view it as more of a predatory system, which is what socialists like to say capitalism is!
Socialism is predatory in that it seeks out the weak members of society and makes a promise of empowering them so that they will have a lot in life other than being serfs in a capitalistic system, wherein being a serf is being a worker bound to work someone else’s land. But ironically, by fostering dependency by program after program, it has made the poor feel a little more comfortable by raising the bottom line, but also provided no way out. Not only the poor, but even the middle and upper classes, are on the way to serfdom. As if socialists have their way, more and more will be government-owned rather than privately-owned, and so even more people would actually just be laborers on another’s property, completely at the mercy of the owner. Outright socialism would require a tax of almost everything, or everything, that anyone “earns”. Yet this is actually also a definition of slavery, wherein 100% of the fruits of one’s labor are taken by another.
The socialistic argument that government is benevolent and a good master, while private owners are cruel, bad masters, even if it were true, would not change that the socialistic system is still a road to serfdom, as F.A. Hayek put it almost 70 years ago. But it’s not the only road to serfdom. Any system that puts power in the hands of a few, giving them power to make decisions that affect many, and ultimately making many depend on them, whether it be business monopoly, corporatism, fascism, communism, or socialism, will have the same end.
Up next: “Then what is a responsible alternative?”
Socialism and Poverty Alleviation, Part 4 (Equality – Beisner)
010 months ago
“What about inequalities and the ‘wealth gap’ between rich and poor?”
(As with the previous post, the concepts in this post are predominantly from the writings of Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, a Reformed author and economist.)
The previous post on justice isn’t going to be enough to convince those who believe that the Bible really does support the view of using whatever measures are necessary to equalize income and wealth. Often, at least in Christian circles, this starts out by saying it should be voluntary. A case could be made for this, with emphasis on voluntary. But it doesn’t usually end there. For those whose intent is set on equalization, force often enters the equation as there’s always going to be someone who doesn’t comply and voluntarily (i.e. without resistance) hand it over. (Incidentally, this is also why so-called Christian communist utopian communities have popped up and then vanished just as soon). Today within evangelical and Catholic circles, the resurgent view that justice demands conditional equality often appeals to four specific passages in Scripture. Let’s now look at those.
The first instance that the Christian Left commonly refers to in order to try to prove that Scripture supports socialism is the concept of the Sabbatical year.
““At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD’s release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release.”
(Deuteronomy 15:1–3 ESV) And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD’s release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release.”
Christian Left author Ronald Sider writes, “it is crucial to note that the Scripture prescribes justice rather than mere charity. The sabbatical release of debts was an institutionalized mechanism for preventing an ever-growing gap between rich and poor.” Three things here. “Mere charity”? What does he mean by that? That forced action is superior than voluntary giving? Contrary to that, F.A. Hayek wrote that “morality exists in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide and called on voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to observe a moral rule.” Next, the only way one is even going to see anything about preventing a wealth gap is if they start with that as a presupposition and read it into the text. If you’re looking to read something into Scripture, you’ll probably find a place where you can do it. Third, Scripture does not address a wealth gap. This is a Marxist concern.
What was the purpose of this provision pertaining to the Sabbatical year? It was to allow the poor to participate in God-ordained rest. Every seventh year the people of Israel were instructed to take a year off of work so they as well as the land could rest.
““For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.”(Exodus 23:10–11 ESV)
But for those in debt, if they were to be expected to pay their debts over the course of that year, they would have to work. They couldn’t take the year off. So God gave them this provision – that for the duration of the Sabbatical year, lenders would not collect on debts so that the indebted, also, could enjoy a period of rest. But just like the farmers would, at the end of the year, return to working the land, so the indebted would again have to resume working to pay off their debts. Also, notice that lenders could still collect from foreigners. If it were a permanent release of debts, it would mean that the Hebrews did not owe foreigners the same treatment which would immediately create major problems for racial and national justice. No, this is just because the foreigners were not taking the Sabbatical year. They were not under the civil law.
So again, this is not a matter of conditional equality, or the way the Left likes to define social justice. This provision was so all God’s people, regardless of status, could participate in the Sabbatical year and obey the command to not work the land. Only because those on the Left assume that justice demands conditional equality – narrowing the wealth gap – as opposed to impartiality, so that all could obey God’s command of rest, does this come up as a factor in the suggestion that the Bible supports socialism. In reality if it were the case, it would be neither just nor charitable. The lender would not receive his due, as required by justice, the debtor would not be making his payments, as required by justice, and the cancellation would be forced, making it not charitable.
Another example folks on the Left are fond of citing as an example of supposed endorsement of socialism in Scripture is the year of Jubilee, which occurred every fifty years or after every seventh Sabbatical year. (Lev. 25). The year of Jubilee made special provisions for the poor, bringing an end to debt and indentured servitude and restoring both personal and economic liberty. But not, as the left likes to say, conditional equality. As background to this, when God brought Israel into the land, He gave each tribe land, and each family a plot of land which was theirs to be stewards of and to hand down to descendants. Because of personal differences, differences in ability, resources, talent, and so on, it was inevitable that economic inequalities would arise. In order to preserve family possession of land, as well as family unity, and to prevent any one person from squandering all the family’s wealth and inheritance, God provided the year of Jubilee.
So what did it really entail? Leviticus 25:23 shows us that land could not be sold permanently, as it was God’s. But Leviticus 25:26,27 shows that it could be presented as collateral for an emergency loan. The loans were only to be made for a period not exceeding the number of years until the next jubilee. The loan value was determined by the number of years of working the land, and collecting the harvests. (Lev. 25:13-16). The income from the land would be the repayment of the loan. Or, a person could sell himself into indentured servitude. He was then the human collateral, and would himself work to pay down the debt. When jubilee came, total repayment would have been made and so the collateral was returned. (Of course, early payoffs were also permissible without penalty, like some mortgages today.)
Author Ronald Sider, however, misses this, in saying that Leviticus 25 is one of the most radical texts in all Scripture. “Every 50 years, God said all land was to return to the original owners – without compensation.” In saying this, he neglected the process by which the loan value was set! No compensation was needed; the loan had been paid in full. The jubilee regulation set a maximum for debts; it did not require cancellation of unpaid debts, which would be charitable but not just.
Author Ronald Sider, however, misses this, in saying that Leviticus 25 is one of the most radical texts in all Scripture. “Every 50 years, God said all land was to return to the original owners – without compensation.” In saying this, he neglected the process by which the loan value was set! No compensation was needed; the loan had been paid in full. The jubilee regulation set a maximum for debts; it did not require cancellation of unpaid debts, which would be charitable but not just.
Sider continues, “Physical handicaps, death of a breadwinner, or lack of natural ability may lead some people to become poorer than others. Bud God does not want such disadvantages to lead to greater and greater divergence of wealth and poverty. God therefore gave his people a law which would equalize land ownership every fifty years.” WOW! I guess you really can make a text say whatever you want it to say. Leviticus 25 is radical, but not at all for this reason. It is radical because it puts strict requirements for collateral on all loans and put a maximum limit on duration of loans, keeping families from going deeply into debt so that it would pass to the next generation. So as an economic principle, it seems it would be safe to say that the wisdom here is not in forced redistribution, but in staying out of debt, and especially, not being so foolish as to make the next generation pay for your excesses. Incidentally, a couple months ago (Feb. 2011) one of the news outlets did a piece on understanding the magnitude of the national debt of the United States, and said that while it was so radical it would never happen, one way to understand it or even pay it off would be for creditors to manage various states for a period of time, collecting the gross domestic product of each state, and thus be able to pay off the debt. Yes, it’ll never happen, and it sounds radical, but it is in effect almost precisely a modern equivalent of what Leviticus 25 says!
Ironically, a literal reading of Leviticus 25 is also radical for communists, because instead of requiring communal property, it actually defends the property rights of both lenders and borrowers by ensuring repayment of the debt as well as return of collateral.
So again, the jubilee year was not a radical provision for redistributing wealth. It was actually almost the opposite – a protection of private property and inheritance passed down from generation to generation. But it did in fact help the poor, by permitting loans, setting an upper limit on the loan, fixing the value of a loan, and ensuring the loan would be paid in full and the collateral returned. It wasn’t free or easy, by any means, but it was just.
The third thing that Christian fans of socialism tend to bring up is the sharing of property among the New Testament church in Jerusalem.
“And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”(Acts 2:44–45 ESV)
“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:34–35 ESV)
One left-wing writer says that “while selling and giving were voluntary, and some private property was retained, it was made subservient to the needs of the community – that is, they were free from the selfish assertion of property rights.”
Here, the author has used this text as a means of stating that the Bible supports his Marxist idea that private property is selfish. If this is the case, then why is “you shall not steal” one of the Ten Commandments? Why does Scripture require restitution, in case of theft, even if making restitution requires selling oneself into slavery? (Exodus 22:1). Why does the law permit use of force – even lethal force – to protect one’s property if broken into at night? (Exodus 22:2,3). Why does the Law require respect even for enemies’ property, to the point of finding owners of lost goods, returning lost animals, and helping overburdened animals? (Ex. 23:4)
So it seems like a stretch to say that God condemns assertion of private property rights as selfish. However, the Left more or less has to go there, in order to fit with the leftist belief that personal property is to be abolished! Another author writes, specifically, that “Communal life with its white-hot love began in the Jerusalem church. In its heat, property was melted away to the very foundations. The icy substructures of age-old glaciers melt before God’s Sun. The only way to abolish private property and personal assets is through the radiant power of the life-creating Spirit.” You heard that, abolish private property. Total Marxist buzzword there. Again, if you want to see something in a text, I guess this proves you can make it happen.
Instead, what we have here with the community in Jerusalem is a great example of sacrificial love. Voluntary sacrificial love. Not as an economic equalizer, but as a free action out of love for one another to meet their needs. Some have suggested that Ananias and Sapphira might have had a mistaken notion that it was mandatory, or more likely, were caught up in pride, wanting to be recognized for being more generous than they were, which led to them selling land and only giving Peter part of the money but lying and saying it was all. It was their right to keep part if they so desired, as Peter said – “while it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” The issue was that they lied and deceived.
Finally, some also point to the collection of gifts from churches in Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor in order to meet the needs of hungry Christians in Jerusalem as examples supporting the need for redistribution of wealth in order to feed the hungry.
“For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.””(2 Corinthians 8:13–15 ESV)
Sider, the author I’ve quoted from a few times, says that not only was this application of the jubilee – which we’ve already determined to be a false conclusion, he says Paul mentions this to show God’s desire for economic equality.
The only way this could pertain to the jubilee – at all – is if what was being given to Jerusalem was collateral on loans the Corinthians had made – not the case! Second, this interpretation would be disastrous for charitable giving. If true, Paul would in effect be saying, “Give to your brothers in Jerusalem so that if you’re in the same condition later then they’ll help you.” I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine. This would make charitable giving selfish, while charitable giving is supposed to be giving while expecting nothing in return – Luke 6:27-35. John Calvin noted that the equality in this passage is not of economic equalization but rather of proportionate giving – giving in proportion to what one has, and needs being met. (Also, note that this is voluntary, not mandatory, so regardless of one’s views on tax policy it would be hard to use this as a case for that.)ut also, there was mutual giving going on. See 2 Cor. 8:13-15 again, and 2 Cor. 9:6-11. Yes, there was an exchange going on. But the exchange seems to be physical for spiritual, as the Jerusalem believers did not have material excess to send back or they would not have been in need in the first place. The very act of giving to the poor would be a means of spiritual growth for the Corinthians.
These examples illustrate the difficulty of reconciling the socialistic system with the Bible. Though these arguments will not sway anyone who’s mind is made up that the Bible does support socialism, it should at least give the undecided something to consider. Even Friedrich Engels, co-author of The Communist Manifesto, wrote that “if some few passages of the Bible may be favourable to communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it.” Now some may point out here that Engels is referring to communism, not socialism, but the differences between the two are not as major as some say. Both are totalitarian systems of control, both emphasize group over individual, and both supposedly are favorable toward the poor. For the most part, socialism could be seen as one of the steps in the path to communism. The two go hand-in-hand, and with fascism are all examples of authoritarian command economies. So again, regarding Engels, he was once asked who he hated most. One answer. Spurgeon. Why Spurgeon? Because English preacher Charles Spurgeon’s sermons were reaching up to 20,000 at a time, among the urban working class in England, and as Engels put it, “diverting England’s urban working class away from atheist revolutionary socialism to Christian parliamentary reformism.” And Karl Marx made it clear that he esteemed the French revolutionaries who proclaimed, “Our enemy is God. Hatred of God is the beginning of wisdom.” What’s that tell you about the relationship between socialism and Christianity?
Up next: The “Ten Planks” and Property Rights
Socialism and Poverty Alleviation, Part 3 (Biblical Justice – Beisner)
010 months ago
…[Many in the "Christian Left" believe that] socialism best represents the Biblical law (including, perhaps, even the civil law) and provides the most efficient means for civil authorities to execute justice.
But then what is justice? What is biblical justice? If you have different camps both saying they represent biblical justice, doesn’t it make sense to see what the Bible has to say about justice? This next section is predominantly from the writings of Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, a Reformed author and economist.
“Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.” (Isaiah 30:18 ESV)
“For I the LORD love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.” (Isaiah 61:8 ESV)
“O house of David! Thus says the LORD: “ ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’”” (Jeremiah 21:12 ESV)
“Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)
What is justice? There are two chief images of justice in Scripture. Conformity with a right standard, and rendering to each his due.
Conformity with a right standard refers to integrity and truth in human relationships. Biblical laws on weights and measures come from this aspect of justice.
““You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:35–36 ESV)
“Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights?” (Micah 6:11 ESV)
This is also of particular relevance to any discussion on economics. Standards of measurement must be just and true. They must not vary. But justice does not stop at just truthfulness in transactions. These standards of rightness apply also in human interaction, in relationships – really, across the board. Truth matters. Deceit, dishonesty, lying – these things are prohibited.
The other image of justice in scripture is rendering to each his due. This means that whatever is owed will be paid; whatever is earned will be received.
““Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong. For according to the work of a man he will repay him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him. Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.” (Job 34:10–12 ESV)
Building on this, there are also two domains of justice – personal justice and social justice. The personal domain of justice is just that – personal. It is demonstrated by the upright living of what we might call “just men”. They can’t be swayed by other interests, and are self-controlled and honest. Borrowing from When Helping Hurts, it is a man who understands his proper relationship with God, self, others, and the rest of creation.
Now the next one, social justice, is where things get a little dicey because different groups assign a different definition to the term. It has definitely been co-opted by different people for different purposes. So what does it mean in a biblical context? Philosopher Russell Kirk says it is the communal equivalent of that right proportion and government of reason, will, and appetite which the just man displays in his private character. Or, as much earlier Socrates said, “And is not the creation of justice the institution of a natural order and government of one faculty by another in the parts of the soul? And is not the creation of injustice the production of a state of things at variance with the natural order?” Though we might prefer to use the term “Created order” instead of “natural order”, this basically means that societal or social justice ought to conform to the order God has created. Or basically, societal conformity with the standards of rightness. This doesn’t mean it gets into any particular distribution of goods, privileges, or powers to particular people. Just that social justice ensures that goods, privileges, and powers are distributed in conformity with the standards of rightness. Whatever distribution results from conformity to the standards of rightness is just, regardless of how far it strays from conditional equality, which is what the modern term “social justice” is usually getting at. It basically means that factors determining one’s station in life ought to be equalized, so that any person has an equal chance at anything.
But is this the way the created order works? It seems that the Bible recognizes that there are differences among people, differences in their stations in life, differences in giftings, differences in abilities, differences in rank, and so on. Classical philosophy held the same position. According to Kirk, borrowing from the work of Socrates, “The happy man is the just man, and the happy society is the just society. It is the society in which every man minds his own business, and receives always the rewards which are his due. The division of labor is part of this social justice, for true justice requires the carpenter and the shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to do each his own business, and not another’s. Injustice in society comes when men try to undertake roles for which they are not fitted, and claim rewards for which they are not entitled, and deny other men what really belongs to them.”
So, then, the varying gifts God has given people fit them for varying roles in society. Social justice is when people fill the roles for which God has fit them. Social injustice is when people are forced into roles for which God has not equipped them. Though justice requires equality – integrity, truth, fair measures, and each receiving his due – it does not mean that all roles are equal. So, then, the reward for those roles, may not be equal as well. The Bible recognizes such societal differences, even position, privilege, power, wealth, relationships. The one thing binding all men together is that they all bear the image of their creator and are therefore morally accountable and entitled to respect for their lives, liberties, and properties consistent with their behavior toward themselves and others. In all other significant ways, men differ. This is perhaps most notably depicted in the Body of Christ.
“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith.” (Romans 12:3–6 ESV)
“For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.” (1 Corinthians 12:14–18 ESV)
So, now that we’ve seen examples of the domains of justice – the areas of life justice addresses, we can proceed to the next question. What forms do Biblical justice take? Again, primarily referring to the work of E. Calvin Beisner, closely related to the two domains of justice – personal and social – are two forms of justice, commutative and distributive.
Commutative justice refers to exchanges between individuals. It’s the relationship wherein one man gives his goods or services to another man and receives an equivalent benefit, to the betterment of both. As stated earlier in the in that justice is the conformity with a right standard, here again we see that one of the major elements of conformity with a right standard is equal weights and measures. It is imperative that in an economic transaction, the quantity and quality of what is being exchanged be truthfully known. Things like removing a cup of grain from a basket, or clipping the edges off a coin so as to retain some precious metal, or otherwise adjusting or falsely representing the value of goods or money, is dishonest and prohibited.
“Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place that you see, but at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.
“However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.” (Deuteronomy 12:13–16 ESV)
Also, just as personal justice relates to social justice, so does commutative justice relate to distributive justice. Beisner notes that this very term can cause some misunderstanding, as depending on how people are predisposed it could lead some to immediately picture a central authority that distributes goods or services, or privileges and power. But distributive justice just refers to the societal inter-relationship between all individuals. What does distributive justice come back to? “Render all their dues”. This doesn’t mean “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – the Marxist saying that not only assumes, but requires, a central authority. This just means that each man must obtain what his nature and his labor entitle him to, without either oppression (taking by force) or evasion (refusing to pay in full). While commutative justice is honest dealings between individuals, distributive justice is honest dealings in society. Each person receiving what is rightfully his. Again, it doesn’t mean that one central authority is doing the distributing. Actually, in a way it does – but not as socialism would have you think. Where do rights come from? (God) So who is the authority over distributive justice – and all justice? (God.)
Building on this, it is Beisner’s opinion that distributive justice doesn’t demand some ideal distribution, subject to human whims and preferences. We’ll look into this in more detail later when we look specifically at what equality means. It also doesn’t mean someone can claim a privilege as a right and then say that all are entitled to equal things in the name of justice. Edmund Burke saw distributed justice this way: “All men have equal rights, but not to equal things.” A man’s due is in proportion to his investment, not his status. Reward is not for race, sex, handicap, or class. Reward should be directly proportional to what it is for and not adjusted, which would be use of an unjust measure, to attempt to equalize.
Ultimately, then, true social justice, and thus true distributive justice, is that each person’s role in society – basically, his contribution to society – determines his share in the benefits. Also, Beisner notes that the distributor in distributive justice really needs to be the individual, acting under the Biblical prohibitions against fraud, theft, and violence – as producer of services and provider of his own labor – as opposed to handing it over to a distributing authority, who pretends to know who ought to have what, and proudly forgets that it is not God.
Using “When Helping Hurts” as context, we can also understand another benefit to this method – if someone else has the authority to decide on behalf of another what is best for them, let alone on a large scale basis, it tends to elevate them. The prideful feelings that come from being like God – being able to give and take, affect well-being, and so on, is not a good thing for the spiritual condition of individuals to whom society gives that authority, feeding a prideful God complex.
Continuing the theme of justice, there are two other important functions of justice – remedial and retributive. Both are prescribed in Scripture and have been practiced throughout history.
Remedial justice deals with malicious injury to life, liberty, or property. It demands that when life, liberty, or property has been taken unjustly – without consent unless being punished for a crime – what has been taken must be returned. The Bible requires the exercise of remedial justice, and even contains explicit instructions regarding restitution. While these codes are part of the civil law, they are certainly influenced by the moral law and reflect God’s character in the area of justice.
““If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.
“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.
“If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.
“If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.” (Exodus 22:1–9 ESV)
But not only is the offended party to receive back whatever was taken from him, or compensation if whatever was taken can’t be returned in the same state; justice also demands that the offender be punished in a manner consistent with the injustice he committed. This is called retributive justice. Contrary to the opinions that some hold on this, God has in fact ordained civil government to enforce justice, including inflicting punishment and taxation. (See Romans 13:1-7). We’ll return to the topic of governmental policy later, but for now, it’s enough to note two things: Government has a role in administering justice, and anarchy is not an option.
Another obvious aspect of justice is impartiality. This is why classical personifications of justice are wearing a blindfold and holding scales. Justice does not have favorites. There are no exemptions from the standards of morality. No one is above the moral law. Right and wrong is not subject to who a person is or what his or her rank or status is. God shows no partiality – either to the rich or the poor. God is not on the side of the poor, or the rich. This is an error that some on the Left make, by saying that God takes the side of the poor against the rich. No, He is on the side of righteousness and against wickedness. He demands justice. The view that God is inherently on the side of the poor or shows favoritism to the poor comes from the Marxist view that if wealthy, therefore guilty.
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” (Romans 2:9–11 ESV)
“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.” “You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit.”(Exodus 23:2–3, 6 ESV)
“For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.” (Colossians 3:25 ESV)
“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”” (Psalms 82:1–4 ESV)
“And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’” (Deuteronomy 1:16–17 ESV)
““You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:15 ESV)
Thus, in the sphere of economics, any law that gives advantage, or any predetermined favor toward anyone, rich or poor, violates justice. Anything that causes one in a position of executing justice to immediately tip the scales of justice one way or the other is unjust and a violation of Biblical social justice. Yes, this includes things like race and economic standing – but it is not a one way street. Affirmative action laws, for example, may have been written or at least supported with the intent on giving people equal rights for the sake of justice. But instead what it actually does is create a favored group at the expense of another. If you must give priority to one group in hiring practices, bidding for contracts, and so on, it’s unjust. If a system is crafted to by default hurt one for the benefit of another, it’s unjust. Justice demands impartiality. People differ in interests, gifts, capacities, stations, and so on – these will result in conditional equality, or some having more than others – but justice must be impartial.
Economic justice requires that people not be restricted from exchanging and using what they own – including their time, intellect, skills, and material objects – unless doing so violates another’s rights. This last part – unless doing so violates another’s rights – is very important and we’ll consider it more later. Socialists and other fans of central planning advocate policy that basically amounts to behavior modification through coercion, such as taxing some items and not others in order to achieve the desired result, or permitting some transactions and prohibiting others to achieve a desired result. This is not just. Also, the belief that justice somehow means that conditions all be equalized – no matter how much work one does, or how much one is owed, all receive the same thing – would appear to be a serious perversion of biblical justice. In fact, it stems from Enlightenment ideas that were the predecessor to socialism. This view denies different gifts, talents, interests, and abilities – all things that Scripture recognizes. The outcome of a view that justice demands equalization will result instead in having to actually neutralize gifts, talents, interests, and abilities, or attempt to change who people are. Left free, people would exercise their gifts in different ways and with different results, including different economic results. The only way to arrive at equal economic output is to equalize input, or people’s choices and behavior.
To again quote Russell Kirk, the 20th century philosopher, “The great classical philosophers of politics argued that justice amounts to this: “To each his own”. Every man, ideally, ought to be able to obtain the things which best suit his own nature; he ought to do the work for which he is fitted, and to receive the rewards of that work. Men’s talents and desires vary conspicuously from individual to individual; therefore, a society is unjust which treats all men as if they were all identical, or which allots to one sort of nature the rights and duties which properly belong to other sorts of human beings.”
Note again, though, that this refers to economic input and output – using of one’s abilities, skills, etc. This ought not be used to make a case for things such as racial superiority, which violates justice on the grounds of being predisposed against another simply for who they are.
Coming up next: ”What about inequalities and the wealth gap between rich and poor?”
