The Tension Between Economics and Religion
In his lecture, The Tension Between Economics and Religion, Robert Murphy, a academic economist at Hillsdale College and intelligent Christian layman, examines several issues and Bible passages that seem to indicate that Christianity is inconsistent with Anarcho-capitalism (free market economics). Murphy shows that they are not necessarily inconsistent.
Murphy examines issues such as interest, price gouging after natural disasters, and also discusses Bible passages such as The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), Jonah’s Anger and the Lord’s Compassion (Jonah 4), Lay Up Treasures in Heaven (Matthew 6:19-24), Retaliation (Matthew 5:38-42), The Rich Young Man (Mark 10:17-31), The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Solomon’s Prayer for Wisdom (1 Kings 3:3-14), and Robbing God (Malachi 3:6-15).
Murphy makes the point that Jesus does not denounce riches per se but trust in riches rather than trust in God. Murphy also outlines some analytical mistakes that libertarians (Christian and non-Christian) can make. For example, assuming that the state is the source of all that is wrong with the world. While it would be better to live in an anarcho-capitalist society, man is still a sinful being. Man’s sin nature is the source of all that is wrong, and (I would venture to guess that Murphy’s view would be) the state is a part of the manifestation of that sin nature.
Murphy also notes that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be plenty of activities that would be legal but still sinful. For example, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:22-30) would be legal but sinful. There is a distinction between the legality and the morality of an activity.
Robert Murphy concludes with a discussion of other relevant Bible passages: Submission to the Authorities (Romans 13:1-7), Marks of the True Christian (Romans 12:9-21), Paying Taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22), and The Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32).
The 51 minute audio lecture (mp3 file, 11.7 megabytes), was the Lou Church Memorial Lecture presented at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2006 held in Auburn, Alabama by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
© Danny Haynes
David G, 12 April 2006, 07:35:
I am unable to use audio files, but I am intrigued…
In response to your blog, I disagree that there is a distinction between morality and legality. That is how a statist thinks. Anarcho-capitalism is, I submit, founded on the idea of bringing what people consider to be legal in line with that which is objectively right.
Instead of saying that blasphemy is wrong but legal, we should say that both blasphemy and interferring with another’s property rights are wrong. And, just because a person commits blasphemy does not create circumstances in which it would be right to deprive them of their property. That is, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Pete, 13 April 2006, 10:34:
I’ll have to download it at some point.
Couldn’t ‘governance’ (government) be the act of a loving God toward his fallen creation in order to curtail the decay caused by sin? Not unlike the dispensations for divorce?
David G, 19 April 2006, 14:10:
No.
Phone, 20 April 2006, 08:50:
Well put!
Danny Haynes, 20 April 2006, 23:47:
David, I highly recommend getting into the audio. Try iTunes for starters. On the serious points, I agree that law based on Anarcho-capitalism is in line with what is objectively right. But this just, natural law only covers a subset of what is morally right. While it might be morally wrong to (for example) blaspheme the Holy Spirit, would it be right to force someone not to blaspheme? Could not this type of law lead to asking at the point of a sword, “Do you yield?” Blasphemy is morally wrong, but to use the law to disallow someone to blaspheme is interfering with their property right in their own body. Certainly if an individual doesn’t approve of the behaviour of another, he can refrain from dealing with that person.
Pete, an interesting point. I think that human government, or the state (monarchy or democracy), is a manifestation of sin, that is, a rejection of God’s rule (see 1 Samuel 8:4-7). The state is also, I think, closely related to the fall (see Genesis 3:5 & 22), that is, man knowing good and evil, determining what is good and evil, taking God’s place as determining what is good and evil, right and wrong, rejecting God’s rule and deciding to rule ourselves. God in a sense grants our desires and allows us to suffer the consequences. Given our rejection of God, perhaps the state is a concession, allowed because of our sinful desires, to bring something like justice in this present age. As always, God can and does work through human government to achieve His purposes.
David, I would be interested to hear and elaboration on your second comment.
David G, 21 April 2006, 08:04:
Danny,
You don’t appear to be substantiallly disagreeing with me on the blasphemy etc. point, so I’ll leave that alone.
My second comment was obviously written with my tongue planted in my cheek…
But seriously, Pete.
I don’t doubt that God brings about the well-being of his people even through the sinful things in this world. But, as to the question of an ideal state-of-affairs which God prefers, and which Christians would do well to work in accordance with, it is not enough to say ‘hey, it’s covered by grace.’ Such nominalism cannot justify a political system.
In relation to the analogy to divorce, insofar as divorce is wrong then, ideally, Christians will not divorce. The question becomes, is it always sinful to divorce? The fact that a Christian erring in this regard is covered by grace is not relevant to the question of righteousness.
In summary, righteousness as the proper expression of our relationship with God should be pursued at all costs… whether or not it is practico-politically expedient (though I think Danny would argue that social organisation without taxation/theft is not only possible but economically beneficial).
Pete, 10 May 2006, 00:25:
I agree Danny, that part of the fall is the usurping of the created order: animal over woman, woman over man, man over God. And that the meaning of the fruit is certainly centered around who gets to decide what is right and wrong.
However, it is not a dichotomy between God ruling us and us ruling us. As Two Ways to Live states, “He made us rulers of the world under him”. The problem with government and all life is that we forget that we must do and organise all things under God. “We all reject the ruler—God—by trying to run life our own way without him. But we fail to rule ourselves or society or the world.”
The crisis in 1 Samuel is not that the people want a ruler, God had been providing rulers for centuries. God goes on to use the monarchy to teach his people about his own character and foreshadow Jesus. I do not believe that the monarchy under David was inherently sinful, even though David may have been.
I also believe that human governance is inherent in creation. Quite clearly humans are to rule creation, and husband is to rule wife. I would contend that some style of governance/social organisation would have developed had the fall not occured, perhaps centred on familial relationships. I think the New Testament speaking of the new creation, attributes concepts of rule to the apostles and to the church as a whole.
I agree that we should strive after righteousness, and that we should trade away all to follow Christ. But I just don’t think that governance properly constituted under God is sinful.
Finally, I think the cry “freedom” from so much liberalism is as ‘fallish’ as human government. We desire to be free from all institutions and all authorities, “Let me chose what I do! It is evil to be compelled!” Isn’t that the lie of the serpent?
Danny Haynes, 21 May 2006, 12:14:
David, you are correct, I would argue that social organisation without taxation/theft is possible and economically beneficial.
Pete, When I was referring to monarchy, I was not referring to the Kingdom of David, but the various monarchies of human origin. I do believe the monarchy of Saul was a result of sin, rejecting God (1 Samuel 8:7).
I agree with your comments in the fourth paragraph of your last post. I agree that government is vital in creation, even without the fall. But what type of government? The type that serves others, respecting their life and property, being subject to the same laws to which they subject others, or government that exercises authority (lords it over) others. Should Christians lord it over their brothers, or people who are not Christians?
Regarding your final comment, while secular liberals (in the classical tradition) may want freedom to rule their own life (rejecting God’s rule), Christian liberals want freedom sanctified to God. I agree that this secular liberal view is sinful, but it is partly consistent with the Christian way of life (respecting life and property) and the consequences of any of this sin are limited to their own affairs and not spread across the entire nation.
Secular liberals would not want to be free of all institutions and authorities, they do respect the institution of private property and the wishes of the owner. God too allows us to choose what we do in many things. In the Garden of Eden, there was much freedom to choose, with certain limits ordered by God for our benefit.
Regarding the evil of being compelled, let me differentiate being compelled and compelling another. The question of being compelled is a question of resisting aggressive force. In some cases God calls us suffer. For example, in Matthew 5:38-41, Jesus commands us to go the extra mile; and in 1 Corinthians 6:7, Paul says it is better to suffer wrong, be defrauded, rather than take a brother to court. However, I don’t believe Jesus was a pacifist. I believe some cases may require resistance. Would you withdraw your arm if someone started to cut it off? More seriously, should a husband stand idly by while an attacker raped his wife, and murdered his children? What should the Good Samaritan have done if he came a little earlier when the robbers were beating him up? (Perhaps a recent news story (News / SMH) is a good example to follow.)
As for compelling another, I think this is easier to agree on. We would all agree that we should not murder (but value human life), we should not steal (but be generous). I think Jesus made his view on government and lording it over others clear in his response to The Request of James and John (Mark 10:42-45) Greatness is not lording it over others, but serving them. Also, in Matthew 5:38-41 (referenced above), the person initiating the attack is described as “the one who is evil”. Clearly while in certain cases we should not resist the evil one, we should not be the the source of the evil deed.
Pete, 23 May 2006, 15:40:
So let’s have government that serves.
David G, 2 June 2006, 13:39:
The issue for me is the point at which robbery becomes (legitimate) taxation.
When does the brigand who threatens punishment for not handing over one’s goods cease being a criminal and begin being the annointed secular ruler of the land?
If the difference can be objectively determined then I will stop leaning towards libertarianism.
Otherwise, I cannot see the compatibility between the command not to steal and the offices of princes except as the result of a specific decree of the Lord God, who owns the lot.
nicholas gray, 11 March 2007, 19:26:
I am a libertarian, and a Christian, and I often get into heated discussions with my friend, Nick, over the question of whether it is right to pay taxes. Some of my taxes support Medicare, which does abortions. I think this is a good reason to not pay, but he thinks that obeying the state is the duty of a Christian. Is there such a line?
Danny Haynes, 9 April 2007, 22:42:
Nick, this is a terrible thing that Medicare pays for abortions. However, it seems strange to me that Christians (rightfully) get all worked up over abortion, marriage, the family, but don’t think twice about the massive theft of income tax.
I don’t see anything wrong with paying taxes, but I think it is wrong to be an advocate for levying taxes. This again is the distinction between being compelled and compelling another.
Not only does income tax fund things that Christians don’t like, but also things that non-Christians don’t like. That is, non-Christians are also being injured as they are compelled to fund things that Christians like but that non-Christians do not. Should Christians be happy about injuring non-Christians in this way? No! It is not a question of what taxes are paying for, but one of envy and theft.
A more interesting line of enquiry for your friend would be, is he happy for ‘Christian/moral’ activities to be funded at the expense of others who do not want to fund these activities. Right after that, ask him to check his envy status. Is he desiring the property of his neighbour? Is he happy for another man’s property to be taken without his consent?
nicholas gray, 16 April 2007, 23:57:
Danny, I’m glad we’re communicating, and I am in sympathy with a lot of the ideas which you wrote, but I am still curious- Do Christians have a positive duty to obey the state? Is rebellion in any form (not paying taxes, etc.) justifiable? Didn’t Jesus advise us to obey the government of the day, as well as God? Where do we draw the line? (And where is Holroyd City? I can’t find it in my directory.)
Danny Haynes, 22 April 2007, 16:55:
Nick, Holroyd City is the council area that you are unlikely to find on any maps. I live in the suburb of Greystanes which you should be able to find.
I think Christian should obey the state up to a certain degree. I am not theologically trained, so I cannot expeditiously construct a comprehensive biblical argument. I tread carefully, but what I do say is considered. And what I say is this: I think it is right to disobey the state when the state starts to act like God, when the state starts to demand that you give your loyalty to it rather than God. (For this, I would refer you to Daniel 3 where King Nebuchadnezzar demands that the people fall down and worship the golden image he set up, and Daniel does not.) I think it would also be right to consider disobeying when the state demands that we do something contrary to Godly living. Regarding taxes, my view is that levying taxes is wrong, but paying taxes is not.
What does tax martyrdom achieve? Consider this, because the subjects of the state vastly out number the agents of the state, no state can oppress its subjects (by physical means) without those subjects seeing that oppression as legitimate. What the state requires is legitimacy. The problem is not that the state extracts taxes from its subjects, but that a critical mass of its subjects sees this activity as legitimate.
How can we combat this? Christians should appeal to other Christians that stealing is wrong, and not support the levying of tax. We can also appeal to all, and convince them of the merits of a civil society, of the benefits of a society based on private property. The answer is not so much in physical resistance but in changing the direction of the mind.
nicholas gray, 24 April 2007, 00:39:
Yes, but does the Christian have any right to rebel against a state, even if he claims to be setting up something better? Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things of Caesar, and unto God the things of God. Where is the right to disobey in that? At the moment I am called a Taxpayer, because the government takes money from me for its’ own purposes. It is not voluntary, but how could I stop paying (I work for the NSW State Govt.)?
I notice that you use the term Anarcho-Capitalist. Whilst I have read the Von-mises blog, that title still suggests a capitalist who sells weapons and bombs to anarchists! I am trying to popularise the term Pan-secessionist, as the ultimate aim is to have every property-owner as a monarch on one’s own property. Can you think of better names?
Danny Haynes, 10 June 2007, 22:22:
Nick, I’m not quite sure what you mean by the second half of your first question. I think I would have answered the first half of it in my previous comment. As for the question of how you could stop paying tax, I’m sure you could work that out yourself, but the tax office will eventually come after you and put you in jail. Again I ask, what is the benefit in becoming a tax martyr?
I have read and listened extensively to the material on the Mises Institute website, and I think your understanding of the term anarcho-capitalist is incorrect. I take the term to mean a person who believes in (lives by and promotes) private property in a totally voluntary society. The movement is not in any way aiming to achieve its ends by using weapons. In fact as I have found, there is a strong belief in the power of ideas to change the course of human history. That is why (in my previous comment) I emphasised that the answer is not in physical resistance but in changing the direction of the mind.
I too see secession as a great way to promote a free society. I would suggest you listen to a great lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this subject called The Economics of Political Centralization. The 68 minute audio lecture (mp3 file, 7.9 megabytes), was part of Mises University 2003, a program of the Mises Institute.