Ideas that Build Our Case

 

SOME FALLACIES OF FREE MARKET
LIBERTARIAN MENTALITY

By Paul Hanson, Christian Philosopher

(5) “Using government as an instrument to enhance social and environmental accountability is just about demonizing and taxing the rich.”
This is an oversimplistic stereotype of what the so-called “religious left” stands for. On the contrary, those who advocate “creation care”—which includes theological conservatives as well as liberals—suggest that Christian stewardship entails honoring all life on which we ultimately depend, not just prenatal human life, and recognizing that neither “wealth creation” (as Calvin Beisner’s Globalist euphemism puts it), nor environmental improvement, will be brought about by the extension of Corporate power among the poor in so-called “emerging markets.” The belief that it will rests on two great myths: (1) that any market is truly “free” (meaning uncontrolled) in the laissez-faire sense; and (2) that therefore “free-market capitalism”—i.e., the forces of supply and demand—will somehow attain either economic “justice” or economic compassion for the poor whom God cares about.

Worldwide statistics prove that the “trickle down” theory is NOT working and that there is a widening gap between the profits of multi-national corporations (MNCs) and the poor. So-called “Free Trade” agreements are simply NOT the answer to all the world’s ills; they are an excuse for MNCs to escape accountability to their countries of origin, and they give corporations leverage in the global marketplace that (cheap) labor does not also have. The choices available to manufacturers and workers in a global economy under “free-trade” agreements are disparate. Unlike MNCs, workers do NOT have a commensurate ability to “pursue their interest as (or where) they see fit” (as buyers and sellers might in a local economy). Hence, the defense of free-trade agreements is founded on the false premise that management and labor each enjoy “equal opportunity” worldwide.

One need not be a Marxist to view society dialectically as a power struggle between Landlords vs. Tenants, Owners vs. Renters, Lenders vs. Borrowers, Management vs. Labor, and so forth. We sometimes tactily cherish the myth that we live in a classless society, but we don’t, and it isn’t. And we are constantly trying to attain the former status, not the latter in these dialectics. For instance, most Americans don’t really own their home; the bank owns most of it! As a society, Americans are “credit-rich, but cash poor.” And, of course, deferring debt to future generations will kill us.

Some evangelicals erroneously conflate Christianity with capitalism and seem to think that recycling a few aluminum cans (which few churches bother doing) can be a form of penance for an unbiblical lifestyle of overconsumption. The theology of many conservative Christians emphasizes individual moral responsibility and tends to neglect (or disdain) collective responsibility. You see this emphasis reflected in what I loosely call “the Amway mentality,” which touts “free enterprise” and “American individualism” so strongly as a kind of divine blueprint for society that it foments a fear of anything that smacks of Socialism or what Rousseau and enlightenment thinkers called “the Common Good” or “the General Welfare.” The Amway mentality, like economic neoliberalism (after Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Julian Simon), sees society as nothing but an aggregate of individuals with personal (and mainly hedonistic) preferences. Altruism gets consigned to the private sector as the role of “charities” and is considered anathema when either (1) the “welfare state” doles out help, or (2) non-human animals (other than domesticated pets) are treated as moral patients/beneficiaries.

A wise and prudent political stance, enlightened by a recognition that human nature is indeed fallen and imperfect, will always try to strike a balance between personal freedom and a concern for “the common good” (expressed by Rousseau and embodied in our Declaration of Independence), knowing that personal freedom must always be accompanied by public restraint and accountability. If such “social accountability” were neither necessary nor appropriate, then we should have no laws against crime and anarchy would be feasible (i.e., both Hobbes and Romans 3:23 are correct). (Caution: do not equate ‘Social accountability’ with ‘socialism,’ or a political virtue with an economic system.)

If real change is to come about in national stewardship practices, then not only must individual voters voice their opinions, but our national statesmen & stateswomen must be convinced that we need a fundamentally new paradigm or understanding of what constitutes unsustainable “economic growth.” Such a revolutionary paradigm was already suggested in the writings of John Stuart Mill in 1857 as the “stationary state” and has been resurrected by the pioneering work of economist Herman Daly in 1973 as the “steady-state economy.” The works of Herman Daly (Beyond Growth, 1996), Richard Douthwaite (The Growth Illusion, 1992 and 1999), and Brian Czech (Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train, 2000) deserve serious study.

(6) Calling global warming alarm a “hysteria” is totally inappropriate and logically begs the question.
An emotive term like “hysteria” adds nothing substantive to the discussion and should be avoided altogether, because the presumption of irrationality is built into its meaning. Moreover, the IPCC is hardly a hysterical body.

(7) Citing things like (alleged) death threats is also irrelevant to the veritistic question.
Just as citing thoughtless abortion clinic bombers has no bearing on the truth value of the Pro-Life position, so citing inexcusable death threats by wayward environmentalists has no bearing on the truth value of any global warming hypothesis.

(8) Asking “What motivates this alarmist position?” is an ad hominem tactic, because it implies that the contrary hypothesis is not also motivated. Both sides of the debate are motivated—hopefully to ascertain the truth about a scientific query. But if you’re going to cast doubt about one position based on motives rather than the merits of the arguments, then it cuts both ways: You should also ask, “What motivates the hysteria of opposition to the alarmist hypothesis?” If Christian Libertarians were merely seeking the truth, they ought to just “bow out” of the whole discussion and leave the problem to the climatologists. But they don’t bow out: They appear to be motivated by an economic paradigm that aims to defend “individual freedom” against any and all threats. It’s the same old Libertarian song: “Get government off our backs and out of the marketplace, because personal freedom is sacrosanct above all other values”—even though consideration for “the common good” (Rousseau’s principle of social accountability) was a core value in our country’s founding. (....MORE LATER)