A lot depends, of course, on just how “free market economics” is articulated and in what social and moral context it is placed. Jennifer Roback Morse’s “foundational” talk emphasized that at Acton, free market economics is ordered by Christian virtue. She had critical words for the idea that the consumer is always right and that the market should never be regulated by any standard beyond itself. For instance, she raised the question whether it ought to be legal to buy and sell babies in a free market.
Morse is heavily involved in activism on family, marriage, and sexual morality issues, and understands any form of surrogate parenting, buying sperm, etc., to be effectively a form of child-selling. (At least that’s my impression.) And this example illustrates a broader point–that people at Acton are typically most willing to endorse limits on capitalism when they conflict with social conservatism. Morse, due to her activism in these areas, is particularly sensitive to the ways in which a totally free market can undermine the family and traditional morality, but it’s a theme I heard more than once.
On the other hand, Lawrence Reed’s lecture on Austrian economics and Jeffrey Tucker’s on technology displayed a much more optimistic and much less restrained attitude to the market. Tucker, for instance, spoke of the market as a “wise teacher” at whose feet we should sit. Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, handed out a booklet he had written called “Rendering unto Caesar: Was Jesus a Socialist?”
This pamphlet makes the standard right-libertarian argument that “redistributive” taxation is theft and that Jesus would favor only voluntary means of helping the poor. Its arguments strike me as unconvincing attacks on straw men and don’t deal with the fundamental questions. For instance, Reed says that Jesus’ statement “render to Caesar” assumes private property and leaves open the question of what belongs to Caesar. But the coin Jesus was showed presumably belonged to one of the Jews Jesus was talking to. Jesus seems to assume that the coin belongs to Caesar just because it is a coin. Now that may well be a simplistic way to read the story, but Reed’s booklet doesn’t move the conversation deeper than that.
The lecture itself was a helpful introduction to “Austrian” economics. In particular, Reed stressed that the Austrian school is “methodologically individualistic.” That is to say, Austrians focus on how individuals make economic decisions rather than on large population blocs or abstract market forces. One of the other attendees asked whether this implied a radical philosophical individualism of the sort ascribed to Ayn Rand, and Reed responded that it did not. I didn’t think, though, that he addressed the question in much depth.
Again, the split between methodological and philosophical individualism reminds me of the split between methodological and philosophical naturalism in discussions of evolution. The problem I have with “methodological individualism,” as I understand it, is that it actually dehumanizes people by reducing them to “rational” incentive maximizers, actually gutting them of what makes them persons. Or in other words, I don’t see how you can study people economically as individuals, because individuals do all kinds of weird things for weird reasons. But it is quite possible that I misunderstand what Austrian economics means by “methodological individualism.”
Furthermore, I’m quite aware that not everyone at Acton would sign on to Austrian economics, or would be as hostile to any kind of state intervention in the market as Reed and Tucker are. After all, at least this year, it was Morse and not Reed or Tucker who gave the foundational lecture on economics. One of the things that I appreciate about Acton is its diversity of perspective. But I’m still seeking further understanding of just how the different approaches relate to each other, and particularly how the connection of economic thought and Christian faith is handled. More on this last point in the next post!
Edwin Woodruff Tait is a freelance writer, farmer, and consulting editor for Christian History magazine. He blogs at Ithilien and tweets as @Amandil3. (Extra points if you get the Tolkien reference.)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In