State Can Wage War, But Not Provide For The Poor?

We often hear that the state has little to no responsibility in providing for the needs of its people in need – especially the poor. The most basic responsibilities of the state, some have said, rest solely in enforcing contracts, protecting property rights, and providing security for its people.

Summa Contra Libertarians? Photo credit: Martin Beek via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

Besides the challenge we face in determining how we understand contractual agreements and what exactly – and how and why – one can claim something(s) as their property, we may consider another difficulty that is tied to the needs of the poor.

To the idea that poverty relief should be left primarily to the free will of the donor, that is, to the spark of mercy that leads an individual to charitable giving – without any room for the state if needs remain unmet – we recently replied in this post “Theft: Being Forced to Help the Poor“.

In the aforementioned post, we discussed the complaint many have about what they call “forced charity”, having to pay taxes in order to have goods distributed to the needy.

In this post, however, we are led to add to that conversation.

Aquinas allows for all individuals to act for the common good if the action does not cause harm¹. If harm is caused – this discussion taking place in his treatment of capital punishment – only the competent authority may consider the action at hand, and carry it out. Two questions later², Aquinas considers theft and need. If life-threatening need presents itself, a person may take from the excess of the rich in order to satisfy that need – because such need automatically makes what is needed the belonging of the person who needs it. Not only can the needy take, they can do so in secret. Moreover, a person may take – in proxy – for the need of a neighbor.

In the following article, Aquinas allows for the competent authority to take from the excesses of the wealthy to provide for the needs of the common good: “It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing…”.³ Does this mean the higher levels of social organization, those authorities responsible for safe-guarding the common good, can take from the wealthy to provide for the needy?

We can consider this question, in the minds of our – if we may – libertarian friends, in two ways

First, does Aquinas refer strictly to taxation – if we can call it that – for national defense⁴ in the above quote? We shouldn’t think so, as Aquinas treats the authorities as guardians as justice with the role of safe-guarding the common good. And as the previous article refers to, all in the same question, the goods of the earth are meant for all – therefore when need arises one cannot sin in taking what is needed because all becomes common.

Whatever one has in superabundance “is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.”⁵

If we can take what is needed for ourselves or for another, as doing so to satisfy that need would be good, it would only follow that, as not having basic needs met would be detrimental to the common good, the authorities responsible for the safeguarding of the common good could do so as well, using violence – that is, force – if necessary.⁶

Clearly we can see a connection here between protecting the common good in the case of providing for the needy, and other, less contested areas such as the state carrying out capital punishment and waging war. We also touched on the responsibility of the state in safeguarding the common good in the case of the suspected Planned Parenthood shooter, where we called for the death penalty to be removed from the options for punishment.⁷

That said, by looking at these questions on taking from the excesses of the wealthy to provide for the common good – on the part of the proper authorities – we can see one way Aquinas allows for wealth redistribution for those in need on the part of the State. Individuals and the Public Authority may do good, and giving what is needed to the poor from the excesses of the wealthy is good.

The second way we can see Aquinas acknowledging in the responsibility of the proper authorities the provision of the needs of the poor is by considering his article on waging war.

We know that Aquinas doesn’t allow for private individuals to wage war – only the proper public authority may do so, under the appropriate circumstances, for Aquinas.

It is in this very article that Aquinas notes that “as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them.”⁸ This includes protecting – with the sword – the population from internal disturbances and from external enemies, when the proper conditions are met, of course – along with other requirements for justice in war.

However, what interests our discussion here, is that in order to justify his claim that waging war is for public authorities alone, he also justifies the role of public authorities in providing for the poor. Quoting the Psalms as defending the role of the public authority, he writes, “Hence it is said to those who are in authority: ‘Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner,’.”⁹

The Psalm Aquinas pulls from is Psalm 82, verse 4. Let’s look at verses 3 and 4 together:

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.¹⁰

With this brief treatment on the question of relieving the poor of their misery and the role of the state, it seems that Aquinas not only accepts the state’s ability to provide for the poor using the excess wealth of the rich – and its right to use violence, that is force, when necessary – but that he grounds this position in Sacred Scripture. Let’s remember this – especially during election season – as we recall Archbishop Chaput’s “these are prudential judgments” line.

But as we said last time, let’s organize a system that diminishes any justification for state intervention. Let’s secure just wages, and engage in fair trade – and when this fails, let’s joyfully come to the aid of the poor. If we cannot do so efficiently, let’s work to make our political activity an efficient means of doing so. Otherwise, we give rise to the possibility of encountering the wrath of the poor – which would be the least of a non-materialists’s concern – and the judgement of God.

May we never find ourselves in the position of the wicked – and let us close with a portion of Matthew 22:

‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

Until next time,

Keith Michael Estrada

If you have found the content on Keith Michael Estrada’s “Proper Nomenclature” to be useful, kindly consider supporting the cause with a donation.
Use the button below to donate through PayPal: