The second myth Richards discusses in his book, Money, Greed, and God is what he calls The Piety Myth, which focuses upon the intentions of policies or law, rather than on the (unintended) consequences. Now, when it comes to economic laws and property rights, most Christians focus upon motivations such as love and a desire to do justice and goodness. Many do so superficially and naively. They assume that if the intent of a law or policy is to help the poor, or remove injustices, then virtually any legal philosophy or government action is thereby justified.
However, while the Bible clearly speaks a great deal about motives and intent, it also speaks equally authoritatively about statutes and law (that is, the rules under which our motivations are to be worked out). It also authoritatively speaks about the end results which are to be achieved. To be faithfully biblical, then, is to be subject consistently and comprehensively to Scripture's rules for motives, law, and goals, without cutting off any one leg of the stool. In Scripture, the end never justifies the means; moreover, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In particular, Richards is concerned to re-establish the importance of the goals actually accomplished. He argues that the consequences or effects of our beliefs and actions concerning personal property rights must be consistent with Scripture. Often these consequences are not immediately obvious when there is an overemphasis upon motives.
Economics is not so much concerned about motives, but outcomes.
Economically, though, only what you dois important, whatever your reason. Buying a bunch of bananas at Costco will have the same economic effect, no matter why you buy them. (p.35. Emphasis, ours.)What he means by this is that if we buy bananas with bad motives, the impact upon personal property rights and the surrounding legal and justice framework for the community at large will not be affected one way or the other. However, any bad motives we may have in buying a banana may impact positively or negatively on our families, our souls, our walk with God and so forth.
But if what we do affects others in such a way that it weakens or undermines their personal property rights (that is, the stewardship and ownership bestowed upon their property under the eighth and tenth commandments) then, even if our motives were absolutely pure, the actions themselves would be wrong. For example, if out of genuine compassion upon the impecunious beggar in the street, I walk into a shop and lift a banana to feed the beggar, the action would be clearly wrong, regardless of my true motive. If, however, I am moved with compassion for the beggar, enter the shop and purchase a banana, and give it to him or her then both my actions and my motives could be in accordance with Scripture.
Henry Hazlitt, an economic journalist, thought this was so important that he defined economics in terms of consequences. “The art of economics,” he said, “consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”Richards gives some examples. The first is the minimum wage. While the intention of setting a minimum wage might be noble enough, the consequence more often than not is that it makes it harder for the poor, the young, and the vulnerable to get and keep a job. It takes away or devalues their personal property rights in their own labour which they can sell in the market place for gain.
This is one of those principles that are easy to get and even easier to forget. Unfortunately, Christians have supported all sorts of policies that were well motivated but made matters worse, not better. (p. 36)
A wage is a price on a commodity—labor. Different kinds of labor, such as dishwashing and retina surgery, are going to have different values economically, depending on the who, where, when, what, and how of the labour. A minimum wage fixed by law ignores that reality. It's a form of price fixing that tries to distribute wealth before it's been created. (p.38)Let's say economic times are tough. I have just left school and am trying to get a job. The government increases the minimum wage rate. The costs of labour rise; businesses already cutting costs due to recession, freeze all new hiring unless absolutely essential. The personal property rights of businesses and all those looking for a job have been compromised and weakened.
The people most likely to suffer from these laws are those at the bottom: the unskilled, young inarticulate, and handicapped workers, who need to grab the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Raise it too high, and the rung is out of reach. In a diverse economy, remember, low-paying jobs are entry-level jobs. Like it or not, some people need entry-level jobs very close to the ground floor. Few people stay in these jobs forever. The experience and connections that such jobs provide can be more valuable than the salary itself. Minimum-wage laws favor vocal and visible workers over the vulnerable workers who can least afford to be unemployed. Good intentions don't change that. (p.39)Another example is foreign aid. The record of its effects is dismal, to say the least. Personal property is exacted through the tax system and governments send money to undeveloped, poor countries.
More often than not, the money has either been wasted or helped prop up corrupt dictators who keep their countries poor. In one sad case, a group of refugees had to flee from an African dictator who was supported by foreign aid. To balance the scales, the refugees were awarded aid as well. Guns and butter for everyone, just to be fair? (p.46)Those who have bothered to research the issue tell us that foreign aid does little more than generate an enervating cargo-cult mentality amongst the recipients, or a sense of victimisation. Those controlling the flow of aid usually become fabulously wealthy through theft and corrupt practices. Oftentimes, when foreign aid has been applied directly to infrastructure such as dams or power stations, massive wasteful white elephants have been created.
We recall hearing just one example of extravagant waste. A poor area in Uganda was persuaded by the local foreign aid workers that huge health benefits could be achieved by sinking wells in every village. It was proposed that crude, but functional wells be dug. But the foreign-aiders said this was not good enough. More could be done. They roared into villages, using mechanical well borers to sink deep wells and fitted each with a gasoline engine-driven pump. Then they roared off again into the sunset, having overlooked the fact that there was no available fuel for the pumps. The outcome was useless.
Government welfare is fraught with all sorts of bad consequences—mainly, increasing rates of permanent intergenerational welfare dependency. But it also is intrinsically evil, in that it requires the state expropriation of personal property and bestowing it upon others. This is what is otherwise known as theft. Thus, government welfare fails in terms of the bad consequences it produces, and because it is an evil act.
Using the state to redistribute wealth from one citizen to another is different from general taxation for legitimate governmental functions . . . . Rather than promoting general welfare, redistribution schemes involve a group of citizens voting to have the government take property from others and give it to them. Rather than celebrating such schemes, Christians should be holding them up to the light of moral scrutiny. . . .The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Good work must be done God's way. Those who do not follow His prescriptions and requirements as to correct goals, standards, and motives end up doing far more long-term damage than the ills they seek to combat. The fact that the damage can take decades, even generations to be wrought does not mitigate or lessen the evil in any way. It actually makes it worse because when bad consequences are not immediate the wicked tend to double down on their evil deeds.
When government takes the property of one person and gives it to another, it sets up a lose-lose game disguised as a win-win game. One group is coerced; the other is degraded. (p. 53,54)
No comments:
Post a Comment