Today I'm going to jump right into some of the big issues of today (the proper role of government in the economy), though of course I'm approaching it from much the same angle that I have all of these issues. Several of my posts have laid out some important principles for a philosophical approach to economic policy, as justice, liberty, and fairness are at the heart of the arguments on the extremes of the political spectrum.
To start, I just want to give you two conflicting ideas:
1. It is not just to take from one person that which he has justly earned and to give it to another.
2. It is not fair for some in society to have economic advantage over others due to circumstances beyond their control, such as disability, ancestry, or natural disasters.
Of course, on their face they are not conflicting, but their consequences are, for the first principle would suggest that it is not right for a government to redistribute wealth (except perhaps in consequence of the wealth having been unjustly earned, in which case it is reasonable to suppose that the wealth could be redistributed through fines paid for the laws broken), but the second principle suggests that society has an obligation to widows and orphans, to use the scriptural phrase. A society that fails to support those who cannot support themselves has failed in an essential moral obligation. A common way of fulfilling the second principle is for government to get involved and redistribute wealth... exactly contrary to the first principle!
As I suggested in the post on liberty, it is not always necessary for government to enforce moral principles, and so you might assert that, with this conflict, here is a case where we might leave it to God. After all, if government can't get involved without breaking another moral principle, then surely it should stay out. On top of that, there is always the possibility that individuals will act of their own free will through charitable donations, resolving the principle of fairness without interfering with the principle of justice. Well, I will agree that this free-will resolution is ideal, and I certainly agree that we ought to avoid anything that interferes with the principle of justice, but let us take an extreme case: Suppose that someone will starve to death because of something completely beyond his control, and that people do not provide for him of their own free will. Now we're involving death in the dilemma, and it's more than just fairness that we're worried about. Framed this way, the moral law that we are dealing with is extremely severe.
But we still have to deal with justice. You could argue that a law enforcing a redistribution is justified as a penalty for the failure of the rich to obey the moral law to care for the poor, but I am not fully satisfied with this argument. Schemes to redistribute wealth do not punish specific actions, and may take from those who have been satisfying their moral obligations as well as those who have not.
Next time I would like to propose at least one possible resolution to this conflict, but before doing so, I would like to leave you with one more thought to muddy the water even more. You see, I have implicated only two things in the discussion so far: justice and the moral law that we must care for those who cannot care for themselves. I have yet to say anything about liberty or fairness. In fact, I have yet to discuss or define my fairness (or my opinion on the subject, for that matter). That I will have to do this at a later time is evident; as is the fact that, whatever possible solutions I come up with for the conflict addressed in this post, I will also need to relate them to the principles and ideas of liberty and fairness.
