Naturally, the Occupy movements around the world are generating quite a bit of media attention, and not a little bit of right wing scorn, and some left wing support.
I wouldn't want to make sweeping statements about what one side or the other says, but I can't help noticing that the essential point being made by right wingers, once again, is that you can't be socialist, or have sympathy with non-business owners, and also be Christian.
The man imposing as Archbishop Cranmer is at it once again, with his last of the linked posts somehow comparing what Fraser did at St Pauls inversely to what Jesus did in throwing traders out of the Temple in John 2:12-25.
In the Torygraph, Tim Stanley writes that those who profess support for the protesters are "more socialist than Christian". What about saving souls, he writes? Well, what about the fact that currently there's a whole load of non-Christians camped at St Pauls? What about the fact that St Pauls isn't throwing them out but instead engaging with them? Stanley justifies his attack on Fraser in particular in the same way that "Cranmer" does - that Fraser is a liberal Christian, and of course once again we're into the internal bickering that goes on, rather than focussing on "saving souls" - it may be that Stanley needs to begin practicing a little more of what he preaches.
Nonetheless, the point of this post isn't so much to attack others as to set out my take, and probably along the way justify being slightly left of centre (I'd hesitate to call myself an outright socialist) and also a conservative Christian. My position I believe is based on basic economic theory which I've learnt over the years (and supposedly teach), but also on the Biblical principles also.
Of course, we must start with the Fall, and acknowledge the sinfulness of man. This gives us the context in which to study all human interaction, something which economics also attempts to do. Economics essentially splits up interaction into a spectrum, with what is often called the non-cooperative solution at one end, where we all individually go about out own interests in our own way, and the social planner solution at the other end, where some benevolent social planner decides what will happen. The latter is essentially unachievable since as any Christian knows, the possibility of a benevolent social planner (outside of God) is essentially zero in our sinful world, but nonetheless this possibility does bound the spectrum of possibilities.
Now, right leaning folk, including those of a Christian variety, are rightly suspicious of power concentrated in one person's hands - any dictator. Left leaning folk should also be wary too but for some reason aren't - the Bible tells us we are sinful, hence any system which concentrates power in the hands of one sinful person cannot be good. Hence we have the idea that capitalism, and markets, are good because they do not concentrate power in the hands of one particular individual.
The problem though, is that this conclusion is based on a number of conclusions in a simple theoretical model called perfect competition. The conclusions from perfect competition that we all like are bound up in the first and second theorems of welfare economics, notably that equilibria from such competition are Pareto optimal in that we cannot improve the resulting allocation of resources without reducing someone's welfare.
But moreover, these conclusions are based on a number of conditions holding, notably that there are no barriers to entry for firms, no barriers to trade, and an infinite number of traders hence no one of them can influence the price - not to mention perfect information, and an absence of any missing markets, or what economists sometimes call externalities (things that cost you but for which you aren't compensated - or vice versa).
As a result of one or most or all of these simple assumptions failing, usually the price mechanism fails to do its job, and this often concentrates power into the hands of a small number of individuals, those who can play the system to their advantage. There are plenty of results in economics which tell us about the adverse selection (the market selecting not the best producer of a product) that results, and the consequences of this. Peaches and lemons, anyone?
So, those of us who lean more to the left at this point say: Shouldn't something be done? Shouldn't we protect those that are the victims of abuses of power, misselling, etc?
Those on the right say, rightly, "not necessarily". There are market-based solutions. Car dealers that sell dodgy cars get a bad reputation and hence nobody buys from them in the future - better dealers offer warranties to send a signal to potential customers that says "I'm reputable".
However, there are decisions and markets in which bad reputation in the light of an unfortunate trade is no concolation. In healthcare, if you happen to pitch up to a shoddy disreputable provider (Nick Riviera in the Simpsons, for example), the cost to you could be death, or severely impaired health afterwards.
The principle is this: If the cost of information being provided to all in markets is high (it isn't, for example, in PC markets via PC magazines), if the cost of a bad decision is high and irreversible, then there is a case for intervention, and it is unlikely that the market can provide solutions.
Extreme right wingers at this point say "how do you quantify these costs" and still choose to ignore them at this stage, but we'll ignore them in the interests of getting along.
What we've established is a role for government. Not for a socialist dictatorship, which it would seem is what any right winger thinks all left-of-centre yearn for (see "Cranmer's quote: "The moment you rail against capitalism and economic liberty, you usher in tyranny, despotism, absolutism, totalitarianism and dictatorship." - utter dross when we have already identified here that the market system does not provide liberty for the person duped into the dodgy healthcare procedure that went wrong). Sure, we open up the possibility of cronyism since governments have their own incentives and are highly corruptable - but that cronyism is there anyway when businesses cosy up to governments - what's new here exactly?
What we've also established is that a fully free market system would likely lead to considerable inequality as those who can grab hold of the levers of power (appeal to the legal system is all well and good, but we all know that most people without scruples don't play by the law and get out while they can). Such situations can lead to great levels of social unrest, ordinary folk on the street with depressed incomes noticing those on much higher incomes seemingly benefitting from something unfair.
Now one response is to in a condescending manner tell people they shouldn't envy. I'd have loved to have seen these right wingers wandering around London in August telling the amassed hordes not to envy. Now, of course, we shouldn't - God doesn't permit us to covet our neighbours. But we are sinful and hence we do, and God also makes it clear it is not for us to judge others with haughty eyes.
As "Cranmer" rightly writes, "Caring for widows and orphans, feeding the starving, and clothing the naked, are at the very heart of the Christian vocation", and indeed he is correct. But the bottom line is this: the free market will underprovide charity because it has a positive externality. Should we just wait for Heaven and say "the government shouldn't force me to be charitable"? I believe the Bible is equally as scornful of those waiting for Heaven and doing nothing here as it is of those who lose sight of Heaven and think they can make it here somehow.
So my bottom line is this: The market system is the best system in a fallen world, but it is not perfect. Its imperfections should not be idly observed, they cause genuine pain and grievances and social unrest and most importantly for (Christian) right wingers, deprive people of their liberty, being made in God's image. Our job is not to judge thus those engaged in that, feeling that, but instead to think about what could be done about it. For sure, protest might not be the most effective way, and in particular protest in a church (!), but the bottom line is that those on the right sitting back and judging ("Cranmer" and Stanley amongst others) are just as wrong as the Pharisees were and any of the other many characters in the Bible for which God devotes his distaste.
