Social Justice and Libertarians

I'm helping a friend organise a seminar at a Christian "retreat" (for want of a better word) next weekend on Social Justice: God's heart for the poor. It's thought provoking.

It reminded me of how I usually look at Biblical passages: They seem to be the complaints of the poor and oppressed and although the oppressors are not necessarily made clear (other than often those that are oppressing David and others militarily), it has always struck me that it chimes with a lot of what the Left rails against profit maximising business.

The hope is that in this seminar we avoid a bit left vs right distinction, but I suspect it may well come up. I think those on the left are guilty of overdoing their aversion to the word profit - the motive to create money-making opportunities needn't always be bad, and often the alternative is worse - concentrate power in the hands of sinful politicians as opposed to corporation owners.

However, I think the right is equally guilty of a panacea-like view of markets: They are perfect, and should not be meddled with. For better or worse, I regularly look at the Cafe Hayek blog (which has the most irritating picture of a waiter - do all Libertarians look as annoying as that?!), which is generally a succession of letters written by Don Boudreaux to various US newspapers. This one in particular is consistent with the general feel: Bill Gates has no more power over my life than I do over his.

Libertarians, to make a sweeping statement, are unable to accept the proposition of market power in the absence of government intervention. They won't accept that in local areas companies are able to act as effective monopolies. They won't accept that companies are creative and manufacture ways to manipulate customers in the name of higher profits and returns; for them, the market activity of the company is entirely benign, because the market will always correct for nasty players (e.g. Microsoft) by nicer, more innovative players (e.g. Apple - for a naive take).

I find it hard to support either viewpoint and I guess that's why I'm pretty near the centre. Markets are far from perfect and basic economic theory talks about how the disparity between a socially optimal market outcome and a privately optimal one can be stark. But also, just the existence of that externality, in economics jargon, isn't necessarily enough to justify government failure on top of market failure. Railing against profits as the left do can be just as dangerous.

I think the Bible's passages on Social Justice make it clear: It's not ungodly to be rich - it's the mindset you have about it. If you place your entire being - hopes and all that - in your wealth as opposed to the Lord, then you'll be in trouble. But if you have put your trust in the Lord, as the book of James points out, this has to manifest itself in terms of actions - doing something about the poor and oppressed (and not just pontificating about whether they should or shouldn't exist - a trait of the right I think), who will always be with us in a fallen world.

Confusing

So it was announced that a terror suspect in the US was convicted on only one out of 281 offences he was tried for in a US civilian court, and that this is a problem for Obama because Republicans are criticising the policy to try these guys in civilian courts.

Criticising based on the fact that when challenged to prove the offences these guys are charged with, the US was unable to convince a judge and jury about the charges levelled against them. That is as opposed to trying them in a military court presumably where "secret" evidence, or evidence procured by illegal means, could be used.

The main reason I write about this is because I'm a little perplexed about this move by right-wing folk in the US - supposedly the home of the Christian right. I wonder which side they are on in this?

Fairly Typical

This Cramner chap is a strange one. I'll move past his sycophantic ravings about Thatcher (I don't quite get how venerating one person to that level of glory is consistent with being a Christian - but then I'm really not sure where this guy stands).

Anyhow, it seems to me he is guilty of, like a lot of right-wing Christians, of spotting the faults on the left without accepting the same happens on the right too. This article on a couple in Nottingham who can't adopt because they are Bible-believing Christians and hence have un-PC views on homosexuality makes me angry.

For a number of reasons. First that it has come to this, that perfectly good couples are persecuted for a belief they happen to air and be up front about, whereas gay couples can adopt and slander Christians. There is something up there. But doesn't the Bible teach us to expect persecution as Christians?

What also angers me is: The constant attribution of all the legislation and societal norms that have led to this situation to Labour. Really? It may have happened that Labour passed the bill, but I don't see the Tories running in to repeal it right now, particularly now they are in power. You can point me all you like to websites showing some prominent Tories voted against such legislation, but the fact is power corrupts, and I seriously doubt the Tories would have acted any different had they held power in that 13 year gap.

The other rather obvious fact is the PC brigade didn't suddenly start in 1997, and stop once Labour were voted out earlier on this year. It does seem funny to me that right after the election, Theresa May suddenly changed her public beliefs on homosexuality.

I'm not writing here in any way to post something necessarily constructive, that somehow the left is better. The left though, is just as full of sinners as the right is, and I think that's the point I'm at pains to make, a kind of point that it seems Cramner and a number of my right-wing friends would try and deny.