by Sandy » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:02 am
Interesting. Keith and I have been accused, on more than one occasion, of "cheap shots" when it comes to making statements related to the application of Biblical morality to economic principles, yet here's a list of conservative economic values that carries with it the implication, at least by insertion in the discussion, that it is Biblically centered because it is conservative. That's an inaccurate assumption. In fact, Keith asked the question before I had a chance, but essentially, in this list, where is the "Biblical" element, other than it is mentioned and assumed? The second inaccurate assumption is that this is generally the view of "conservative evangelicals." They may be a minority, but there are a lot of conservative evangelicals who are not economic or political conservatives, about 40% of them if you think the polling data is accurate.
My comments in italics.
...12 principles that generally drive the thinking of conservative evangelicals when it comes to economics:
1. Good intentions are often trumped by unintended consequences. "Often" is a subjective term. So is "sometimes" or "rarely" which are terms that I would use. If the fear of unintended consequences drives your thinking, then what are your principles worth?
2. Our current economic and historical context must be taken into account when applying Biblical principles. No. The historical context of the scripture must be taken into account when determining the principle. The principle, once determined, can be applied in any economic or historical context. This statement is the common cop out of Biblical conservatives, when a Biblical principle interferes with what they really want to do.
3. To exploit the poor, the rich need the help of the government. The rich need the government to be neutralized, which can be done by either a) buying politicians or b) pushing the philosophical view that "less government is better government." That removes the constitutional ability of the government to protect the people.
4. We love economic growth because we love babies. Then you must have really loved the Clinton administration.
5. The economy is not a zero sum game. Straw man. That's not a contention anywhere that I'm aware of.
6. Inequality and poverty in America is more often a matter of personal choice than structural injustice. History does not bear this out. Once again, it is a subjective statement "more often," that is an unsupportable contention, and requires a subjective judgment.
7. The best way to compensate for structural injustice is to increase individual freedom. If that were true, we would still have legally segregated schools.
8. Saddling future generations with crippling debt is immoral. O.K. So let's get the politics straight here. Reagan didn't believe that, and neither did either Bush, given their budgets. If you really believe this, then why didn't you hold your own politicians accountable?
9. Social mobility — specifically getting people out of poverty — is infinitely more important than income inequality. You cannot separate these issues. Income inequality keeps people in poverty.
10. Jobs that lead to human flourishing are the most important part of a moral economy. Vague enough, but I see nothing that conservatives do which contribute to this.
11. Free markets are information systems designed for virtuous people. How do you define "virtuous"? And from what Biblical principle is this derived?
12. Free markets are the best way to serve free people. That's an observation, though there are many places in the world where people are free from a political perspective, that are not involved in a free market. But I don't see any particular economic system endorsed by, or modeled in the scripture.