Given the season, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about politics and this weekend at Zap Your PRAM (more on that later) also brought a surprising number of political discussions. The train of thought continued on my travels home as I tried to finish N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. As he talks about the role the resurrection should have in our thoughts about our work here on earth, he mentions two specific issues: the cancellation of third world debts and ecological responsibility.
Now, if you know me fairly well, you know I have a general libertarian slant. This is partly rooted in my belief that man is fallen and therefore prone to selfishness and lust for power. A question occurred to me as I read Wright’s discussion of these issues, though: Why do I trust the “free market” (i.e. individuals and, largely, corporations) to protect or steward the environment more than I do the government? That is sort of the implicit statement I’m making by leaning libertarian, right? Of course, ultimately the answer is that I should trust neither one, but practically speaking, what difference does it make to choose one over against the other? This, then, broadens the question to other arenas as well…
I have more questions than answers tonight about politics.
In related blogging, check out Brett McCracken on “Green Christianity”
4 comments ↓
You are that rare (in these parts, or some might argue so) thinking Christian — a believer who isn’t afraid to question.
One thing that struck me about this post is that part of your basis for accepting a libertarian philosophy — that “man…is prone to selfishness” — is precisely some people’s justification for rejecting libertarianism. They see libertarian ideals as futile, Utopian pipe dreams, since the greed they perceive informs them that, for example, the needy won’t actually be taken care of by charitable, wealthy individuals, but be left to starve and freeze, absent benevolent collectivist mechanisms.
It just fascinates me that equally good-hearted people can reach essentially opposite conclusions from the same starting point, without compromising their “good” motives in either case.
Anyway, how this contrast plays into a discussion of the environment is another matter, but you have framed the starting point well, and you’ve provided some fodder for more thoughts.
Great point, Joe. I can see how one could start in the same place (man is selfish) and come to reject libertarian ideas. Part of what sent me in the other direction is that I hold a balancing position — that we’re also capable of reflecting the image of God and that we can be redeemed from our selfish nature.
That still, however, leaves a lot of room for the questions of how best to work towards good goals.
Well, that’s one hell of a question for sure. Though my mind could change in a heartbeat, I would say that the environment issue (climate change, waste disposal, pollution, etc.) is largely framed as a moral imperative, and not an economic one. And I consider the free market to be an amoral instrument whose chief aim is to move capital and turn profit (and for the record, that’s not a damning sentiment on my part).
On its own, the free market has no reason or motivation to solve environmental issues on the scale to which they really exist. But thus far, government has done a piss poor job of effectively tackling the issue.
Also a good point, David. The free markets are amoral, although a case can be made that it is in our economic self-interest to protect the environment (aka natural resources). It is also becoming clear that there’s money to be made in the green movement, but much of that is through marketing hype rather than real breakthroughs.
Leave a Comment