Is Redistributive Taxation Really "Theft"? (Pt. 2)

April 9, 2010

(See the first part in the previous post)

...Third, and most significantly in my mind, this narrative requires that we can legitimately regard the money that has been taken from us as “our money”--as in the Margaret Thatcher quote, “you run out of other people’s money.”  Now, I have already pointed out one sense in which this is oversimplistic--simply by being members of a society, some of our resources have to be pooled, and the decision over how to use them will not belong to us alone.  Nevertheless, it could still be argued that there are some uses of money by a society that are inherently unjust, that simply no society has any business using its members’ money for.  This, perhaps, is how to take statements like Wilson’s: with the implied distinction that while there are certain uses to which our government may justly put our tax money, uses that we should accept even when we think they are ill-managed, there are others which it cannot.  In the latter cases, since it is levying money from us for unjust purposes, one could make the case that it is unjust in levying the money, and thus the money still justly belongs to us.  To take what justly belongs to another is “theft” or “robbery” and so, in such cases, perhaps the accusation holds.  

In fact, Aquinas says as much: “If princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them according to justice for the preservation of the common good, this is not robbery even if they employ violence in doing so.  But if princes extort by violence something which is not due to them, they commit robbery just as much as the bandit does.” (ST II-II Q. 66 a. 8 ad 3; notice, by the way, that Aquinas uses the word “robbery” rather than “theft”--this points to another sense in which our modern critics have been careless, though I had not mentioned it so as not to seem petty: “theft” properly speaking refers to property taken in secret; “robbery” to property taken openly and by force.)

So the question here is whether there is any justice in taxation for things like welfare, healthcare, social security, etc.  Of course, these are all somewhat distinct phenomena, and so we might have to have an argument about justice in each case.  But I’ll try to simplify the matter into the single question: is it ever legitimate for laws to require that resources be taken from those who have surplus to help supply the needs of those who, for whatever reason, do not have enough?

Now, interestingly enough, on this point, the general consensus of the Christian tradition seems to be resoundingly “yes”!  Pope John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens says, speaking of society’s obligations to workers, says, “The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty spring from the fundamental principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in another and still simpler way, the right to life and subsistence” (par. 18; I will come back to this “principle of the common use of goods” in a bit).  

Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno states, “Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them” (par. 49).  

Martin Bucer, in his De Regno Christi, among many other suggested economic regulations, went so far as to say that the king ought to take land from the wealthy wool farmers and give it to subsistence farmers, that all might be able to provide for themselves and that the land might be better managed and populated.  

Thomas Aquinas, as I have recently posted about, argued that, as property was given first and foremost for common use, and only secondarily for private possession, insomuch as that served common use, it was a duty of justice that the property of those with surplus be used to meet the needs of those who were lacking.  Indeed, for Aquinas this meant that the man in great and pressing need could take from the one with surplus without it being considered theft.  (In case we should think Aquinas a radical in this, we should note with relief that he hesitated to go so far as the Church Fathers and say that the man with surplus who held onto his surplus was guilty of theft or robbery.)  Aquinas does not specifically treat of redistributive taxation, but renowned Aquinas scholar John Finnis connects the dots for us:

“He teaches that rulers have a responsibility to provide, for each of their subjects, whatever they would otherwise lack to sustain them in their respective conditions and status in life. [II-II q. 77 a.4c]  More clearly, he goes along with Aristotle’s clear and repeated teaching that it is appropriate for the state’s rulers and laws to make provision for the fair distribution of goods for use in consumption, so that that use be truly ‘common’. [I-II q. 10 a. 1 ad 1, q. 105 a. 2c and ad 3)  In Aquinas’ own theory this amounts to saying that the distribution by owners of their superflua is an appropriate subject for legislation to avoid backsliding, arbitrariness, and inequity.  So payment of taxes imposed for redistributive purposes will be a primary way in which owners discharge their duty of distribution.”  

(By the way, I think Finnis’s points here help to preempt any “Robin Hood” objections, along the lines of “Well, if Aquinas is right, then why can’t just anybody take from the rich to give to the poor?”  God calls different people to different responsibilities, and if you aren’t a total anarchist, you believe that he calls some people to positions of governance, responsible for overseeing justice and the common good.  These people may have a responsibility to ensure the common use of resources that any old private citizen does not have.)

The principle of the priority of common use articulated by Aquinas became a standard of Catholic moral theology, and, so far as I can tell, was long shared by most of Protestant moral theology (though I will defer to the expertise of others here); it is this to which John Paul II and Pius XI are appealing.  The idea is that since God only ordained private property in order to serve the common good, it naturally follows that someone cannot legitimately cling to their private property to the detriment of the common good, but should let the governors of society put it to use where it is most needed (e.g., giving it to someone who cannot afford healthcare).  There is no injustice in this reallocation; on the contrary, there is injustice when some members of their society cling to resources that others may be desperately in need of.  

Of course, I do not pretend that the Christian tradition has been unanimous on this point, any more than it has been unanimous on any other point.  Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, and Anthony Rosmini’s 1840s treatise Society and Its Purposes, for example, seem to regard such reallocations as matters of charity, not justice, and hence not the government’s business (see my previous post).  However, the grounds upon which both of them put forth their philosophies of property and politics are essentially Lockean, leading many subsequent Catholic thinkers to doubt them on these points.  

The crucial standard for us, of course, is the Bible.  For my part, at least, it is hard to see how the Old Testament laws did not require that resources be taken from those who have surplus to help supply the needs of those who, for whatever reason, do not have enough.  I have recently posted about this, of course, but so this post will be complete in itself, I will briefly reiterate some of the same points.  The gleaning laws seem like they would meet the modern conservative definition of “theft”--private property owners being required by law to let others have part of their resources.  The triennial tithe, and the requirement that the produce of the sabbath year be shared with all, seem like the same sort of thing.  The Jubilee law states that land must be taken from the current owner and given to the original owner.  And I could go on.

Of course, we cannot make simple one-to-one applications from the OT laws to welfare laws today; far from it.  Gleaning may not prove to be a legitimate basis for Social Security, for instance.  Indeed, some may even argue that none of these OT laws could be used in any such way because these weren’t really “laws,” simply moral decrees, binding on the individual conscience, but no more.  I confess that after six months researching this issue, that argument doesn’t make any sense to me, but I know it has been made.  So, I don’t mean to say, “Ah look!  The Old Testament requires us to impose Obamacare and all the rest”; but I do mean to say that one has to reckon with such texts, and with the strong consensus testimony of the Christian moral tradition, before one could begin to make an accusation like “Taxation for these purposes is theft.”  Such an accusation does not have any prima facie plausibility or force, as most of those making it seem to blithely assume; it may have some force after careful and patient argument, but not otherwise.  

And of course, this does not mean that there may not be many other grounds for objecting to much of this legislation, including Obamacare.  One might say, for instance, that it is inefficient, or ill-conceived, that it will not succeed in helping the common good, but will make problems worse, that certain particulars of it are unjust, that there was a failure of due process of law, etc.  But to say that it is straightforwardly “theft” is to declare any supporter of it, including many a Christian brother, an accomplice to a crime.  As a practical matter, this is hardly going to be helpful in moving the discussion forward, and, in any case, it seems that we ought to think twice before leveling such an accusation.  In light of the points I’ve raised here, it seems that we need to ask ourselves, are we OK with saying that Aquinas and Bucer advocated theft?  What about Moses?  If what we are now facing is something quite different from what Aquinas, Bucer, and Moses advocated, we need to spell out rather precisely what the difference and what the problem is, instead of simply assuming that, because some resources are being redistributed, they’re being stolen.

Is Redistributive Taxation Really "Theft"? (Pt. 1)

Way back near the beginning of this school year, I remember Prof. Northcott recounting to our class a recent debate in Durham, NC, that he’d been invited to participate in, a debate with Calvin Beisner, whom he aptly termed “a cornucopian dominionist.”  With humored incredulity, he shared with us the astonishing fact that Beisner thought it was “theft” for the government to take people’s money through taxes and distribute them to others through programs like Social Security or the debated healthcare initiative.  Could we believe he said such a thing? he asked.  I timidly answered that almost everyone I’d grown up around would’ve employed that rhetoric.  And I’ve been thinking about it ever since--is this really a rational criticism?  If it is rational, it certainly isn’t self-evident.  And not being self-evident, and being a rather harsh and provocative accusation, it seems that, if there’s any weight to it, it ought to be carefully argued, not casually thrown around without a shred of argumentation, as it often has been, particularly during the healthcare debate and in its aftermath.

The “taxation is theft” claim is of course a commonplace, and I’m sure you have all heard it in many settings, but I’ll mention briefly here two examples of it that I happened to come across and bookmark when I was thinking about writing this essay.

On Lewrockwell.com, you can find an interview with Shawn Ritenour, a Christian Libertarian who has written yet another “Look!  The Bible is a manifesto for free market economics!” book, called God, Socialism, and the Free Market.

The sycophantic interviewer, Kengor, begins: “I like the way you turn the religious left’s thinking on private property on its head. You note that “God prohibits our coveting the property of others.” With that being the case, isn’t it wrong for the government to use the mighty arm of the state to forcibly remove property from one person to give it to another?

Ritenour: I see no other way around that conclusion, especially when we realize that, in our day of mass democracy, the state usually accomplishes policies of wealth redistribution by inciting envy and covetousness among the populace.”

Later, Kengor asks, “On a separate point, near the end of your book, you make a statement that’s especially appropriate right now, given the prevailing view by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. You write, “We simply cannot grow the economy into prosperity by resorting to government spending. It cannot be done.” Are you arguing from a strictly economic standpoint or also biblically?

Ritenour: Both. Forcibly taking money from someone to give to another in an attempt to “grow the economy” is a violation of Christian ethics. It also fails to achieve the explicit goal of its advocates.”

Recently, discussing Obamacare, Douglas Wilson states the accusation still more clearly:

“The Bible says not to steal. I have quoted Margaret Thatcher on this before. As she put it, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money, and this aphorism highlights two of the problems. But the moral problem is foremost, the part that sees that this racket depends on "other people's money." No benefit can be given to one person without it being first removed from another person. What is the basis of the removal? We threaten that other person with jail time in order to extract a sufficient amount of money from him. It is not a "contribution." In order to defend Obamacare, you have to be in favor of raw extortion at raw levels. This is a moral failure, and the difficulty that many professed Christians have in seeing it as a moral failure represents an even deeper level of moral failure.”

In both cases, of course, the Bible is appealed to, because, of course, the Bible says not to steal.  On this, I think all parties will agree.  But we are not shown enough (nor do I feel like I have ever shown enough) in the Bible to show that this prohibition applies to the question at hand.  Margaret Thatcher may believe it does, but on what basis?

This claim seems to be based on a narrative involving three basic actors: first, “the government,” an independent, power-hungry entity; second, a group of innocent victims who have their money taken from them at gunpoint; third, a group of well-fed beneficiaries, who happily receive the largess of the second group, given to them by the first.  Now, I admit that this sounds like a bit of a caricature, but it really is often stated that simplistically.  Let’s evaluate the basic elements of this narrative.  

First, this narrative depends on the presupposition that we can isolate these actors.  Is that really true?  I don’t think so, for two main reasons: a) the second and third groups are not so easily distinguished; b) the first is not so easily distinguished from the second and third.  Let’s look at a) for a minute.  There are some people who are almost entirely on the receiving end (the third actor) and some people who are almost entirely on the paying end (the second actor), but almost all of us are somewhere in between, both paying in to the government and receiving a number of things back.  This is not a trivial point, because it raises the question, “When do we make the ‘theft‘ accusation?”  Is Social Security theft, because some people get more than they pay in, and others get less?  Is the new healthcare bill theft?  After all, we’re all getting healthcare out of it, even if some people are getting it subsidized at the expense of others.  But regular businesses often sell some people an item at a much lower price than they sell it to others; in this case, we may speak of getting ripped off, but “theft” seems a little strong.  Is it theft when our tax money is used to pay for roads or utilities, or is it simply paying for a service?  Purist libertarians will offer a resounding, “Yes, it is theft.”  For them, it is theft simply by virtue of the fact that it is a compelled transaction, rather than a voluntary one.  This leads us on to consideration of b) .  

In older societies, where the ruler really did stand over against the ruled as an independent actor, ruling perpetually and by divine right, the narrative of the first party extorting from the second to give to the third might have made some sense.  But does that really make sense in a modern representative democracy?  (Now don’t get me wrong; I’d be the first to say that modern representative democracies fail to be truly representative or truly democratic, but that is our own fault.)  In the United States, however huge and bureaucratic the government, however impenetrable it seems and however much inertia it has, in the end it derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and it operates by means of men that we have voted into office, and whose ideas we have shaped by the kind of education and religious values we have promoted.  Like it or not, the people there in Washington are acting in our place, and so we are all responsible for the decisions they make.  We may accuse them of exercising bad stewardship, of betraying our misplaced trust, of acting against the better reason of those who elected them, etc., but to treat them simply as an independent actor preying upon us as independent victims does not seem to me very coherent.  

And this raises a larger point.  While we may think that the current condition of American society is inordinately and dangerously prone to a tyranny of the majority, the fact remains that, unless you are a radical individualist, one must always accept the fact that certain segments of a society will have to make decisions that are binding upon the whole, even if the whole do not agree.  If the shareholders of a corporation vote to agree to a merger, in which their stock of, say, Cingular Wireless, is replaced by the stock of, AT&T, and 20% of the shareholders vote against the merger, do those 20% get to opt out of the deal?  Do they remain as shareholders of a now 80% smaller Cingular Wireless, while the rest are bought out by AT&T?  No.  Can they then claim that their stock, their company was “stolen”?  Not generally!  Or how about this?  A town referendum agrees on a levy to cover the town’s expenses in a number of different areas.  The town council, which has the responsibility for allocating the funds, then looks at the situation and decides it needs to spend, say, more on education and less on infrastructure than many of the townspeople would have liked.  Can the latter complain of “theft” since they’ve now had “their money” taken to pay for things they haven’t agreed to?  

In any society, decisions about how to dispose of resources amongst various needs of different portions of the society will have to be taken, without, except in very rare cases, the consent of every member of the society.  This means that most members of a society will have some of their pooled resources used for purposes that they’d rather not; but this is simply part of the cost that comes with being a member of a society (and, not being a contractarian, I don’t believe that we have the choice to opt in or out of being a member of civil society, at least on some level).  

As John Medaille of The Distributist Review put it to me, 

Every society has some public and obligatory contributions to justice. The plain fact of the matter is that man is both individual and social, and there are social obligations which may be enforced by law. We live within a framework of institutions, and these institutions are always imperfect, and will imperfectly deliver justice to all the participants. Hence the needs for charity, both social and individual....Certain services must be socialized, and those who object to all forms of socialism should not pull that socialist lever in their homes, the one that carries away their wastes into the socialized sewage system.

So, by all means let’s complain that our society’s values are screwed up, that it’s structured in such a way that the will of the members is easily disregarded, that a lot of people are getting a raw deal, but let’s not talk as if we were just sitting in our homes, minding our own business, and along came a tax man with a gun and took our money.  I should add one more example, that seems most akin to the question under consideration.  In the years leading up to World War II, a tremendous percentage of US defense spending was budgeted to protecting the Hawaiian Islands and other US Pacific territories from potential Japanese attack, even those these were not actually part of the United States and very few Americans lived in these places.  Should Americans in Missouri or North Dakota have complained that they, who were perfectly safe from Japanese attack, were having tax money extorted from them in order to pay for the defense of a few Americans chilling on Waikiki Beach?  I don’t know...but for whatever reason, while conservatives always cry “theft” over liberal causes, they never do when it comes to defense spending. 

Second, the narrative requires that we can characterize taxes as the result of “coercion” or “raw extortion,” which just doesn’t seem accurate, based on the discussion above.  In general, societies, even our American society, prefer not to resort to violence, but seek to establish consensus that the money is being used for a good cause and to establish a sense of social responsibility that everyone ought to pay up, and only use coercion as a last resort.  Our society’s laws would not work if they depended simply on coercion, and taxes would not be collected if they really had to be “extorted”; rather, the majority of the people either willingly obey, or else conclude that, as members of society, it’s their duty to obey whether they want to or not.  Only with that minority who will only obey under compulsion is compulsion truly exercised.  At least, that’s how I analyze coercion’s role in civil societies, but this is a fairly incidental point, if you be disposed to disagree.

(See Part 2 for “Third, and most significantly in my mind...”)

Follow-up on Beck, Converting, Prayers, Socialism

First of all, while I'm not exactly apologizing for the Glenn Beck posts, and I agree with everything I said in them, the style was rather more ranty than what I generally try to put up here, and they probably should've stayed on Facebook. I intend to try to maintain this blog as a place for level-headed discourse that is not unnecessarily antagonistic.
On the Why Christians Convert to Rome and the East, I got some thoughtful answers from my friend Brad Belschner. Unfortunately, he has stopped maintaining his own blog (which still sits, forlornly, on my "General Staff" list), so I have to blog his thoughts for him. He suggested that for many, the problem is that, for many of us in the Reformed world, we've not been exposed to the weight of tradition and Church history before, so when we discover it, we go a little overboard. It becomes a bit of an obsession, the object of much of our research and reading. Meanwhile, we read our Bibles very little. Tradition, slowly but surely, becomes our #1 epistemological authority, and the Bible takes second place. From here, it then becomes only natural to leave and cleave to Tradition. This, I think, is an accurate account of my own mental struggles on this issue, and of others I have witnessed.
This is not intended as an accusation against Catholics and Orthodox--"See, you guys just don't read your Bibles enough--if you did, you would never be Catholic"--only as an observation about the imbalanced way in which many stumble into those traditions. Whether or not the conclusion is right, the road by which many of us Reformed folk get there is often unsound.
Brad Belschner also offered some good thoughts on Prayers to the Saints, and I am now much more skeptical of them again (although I will not be judgmental again, having once haad that epiphany). There seem to be manifold problems in accounting for how the dead could hear our prayers--can they read minds? Can they read them from a distance? Can they hear thousands--yea, sometimes millions--of prayers at once? It seems that to attribute these powers to them is to attribute very superhuman powers, and it's hard to see theologically why unglorified souls in the intermediate state would be as gods. I'm sure some Catholic theologians have good answers for these questions, though, and I'll certainly try to look into them when I have a chance.

On Socialism, I had tried to direct folks to the follow-up discussion, but it only worked if you were my friend on Facebook. So I'll just post it all here:
Chris Aberle
WB, maybe your choice of the word "absolute" qualifies property rights in a way more subtle than I understand, but for the record, see Rerum Novarum 14-17 (and ff. if you've got the time) for Catholic Social Teaching's derivation and formulation of personal property. You'll note 17 finishes up with some Bible, and note also that the argumentation preceding derives from nearly ubiquitous biblical maxims.

That being said, I think we mostly agree, and we definitely agree on the important things. There are some things that - by their very nature - belong to the community and not the individual. I believe that there are other resources that history suggests *should* belong to the community.

You make a good point with tithe. I also think the whole Jubilee system is very challenging to the anti-socialist or capitalist, but not because it somehow abrogates personal property. In fact, Jubilee law establishes private property so absolutely that markets are powerless to direct its distribution.

I see little nitpicky things all over your post I'd love to comment on, but I feel like this conversation is best had outside of Facebook comboxes and their oppressive word limits. Needless to say, way to strip the name off of a thing (socialism), look at the thing itself (people living in society), and realize that life, humanity, love and charity can never be fully contained by our silly ideas of economics.
August 14 at 12:00am • Delete

Josiah Scott Talbert Truax
Yes, absolutely yes. (and this is why I label myself as one part capitalist, one part socialist.) I am not incredibly well versed in political terms, so pardon me if I am completely off the mark: but won't the new heavens and the new earth be a socialist society? I have this feeling that it will be.

There is nothing wrong with utopia... except for the fact that it will not work in this life. The pursuit of it could perhaps be good, but in INSTITUTION of it almost always leads to very bad things...
August 14 at 12:32am • Delete

Jess R. Monnette
"Church is a socialist organization, a community which tells us that we do not have sole claim over our goods, but which demands that we each sacrifice our goods for a common good, that we give up some of our money for the Church to redistribute to the needy, and which threatens us with far worse punishment than imprisonment if we do not do so."

Bread - What do you mean by the church demands that we sacrifice our goods and how is that different from God making those demands?
August 14 at 1:33am • Delete

Craig Beaton
Alright, a couple questions: First, I agree with you that we shouldn't be forced to choose between the social contracts of Locke and Hobbes. Second, I agree with you (and the most of the Fathers) the poor do have a legitimate claim upon our time, talents, treasures. Third, however, I wonder about the mechanism by which this claim is worked out. I can see how a decision can be both constrained (by this legitimate claim) and free, but I wonder about the role of the State in all this. I guess I just don't buy your analogy between the Church and the State because the Church is covenantally "bound together" in a way that the State is not. It thus strikes me that the State's role in this is ambiguous. The role of the Church is decidely unambiguous b/c the statements of the OT and NT are clear w/ respect to caring for the poor. The role of the State in this concerns me b/c how the Church be embodying the economics of the kingdom if the State is infringing on this territory? FWIW
August 14 at 1:51am • Delete

Adam Naranjo
Brad,

You said: "But a community of people bound together seeking the common good can decide that some of their resources should be shared, with the most-privileged sacrificing for the least-privileged, and in this decision, the givers are both free and constrained"

You seem to believe that this is, at least in some way, a novel thought, while it is actually the very premise of both democratic capitalist, fascist, and Marxist states. The one thing that all modern humanist theories of government agree on is that this balance of freedom and constraint can be achieved through democracy.

The Church has almost always been able to achieve - to one degree or another- this balance between freedom and constraint. And most traditional free market theories provide for this fact. Yes, your typical modern "conservative" American rails against socialism by use of broad generalizations that do not take into account the traditional nuances of free market systems (like the fact that they depended on the Church for Charity), but lets not get bogged down in arguments over rhetoric.

Democracy, which seems to be the only method for government to determine what are the 'common goods' that will require theft, is perhaps the most subtle and yet violent forms of tyranny. (Democracy often devolves into autocracy/oligarchy, as in the case of most modern dictators...)

I have to go to work, but I have more to say. I like where you're going, since I'm kind of an ecclesio-anarcho-syndicalist-socialist-something-like-that.
August 14 at 2:25pm • Delete

Daniel Foucachon
Haven't read through all your comments, but let me just throw this in. I think you're touching on something, but perhaps from the wrong angle? Socialism is not evil - it's where the socialism is. What I mean is this. The family is socialistic, and I'm so glad ("no son, I worked for this food - you make your own money"). But that doesn't mean the society at large is supposed to be socialistic. To put it somewhat simplistically, the more "local" it is, the more socialistic it should be, and the less local, the less socialistic. I'm almost a libertarian when it comes to the Federal Government. I think its task should be very limited. But I'm more and more socialistic the more local it gets, culminating in the family (though the church doesn't lag far behind). In a Christian nation/community, the Church functions on at least as somewhat socialistic foundation (though...it really shouldn't be called that...but rather simply - "The Church", but they'll be doing similar things).

My 2 cents
August 14 at 3:17pm • Delete

Brad Littlejohn
This generated some good discussion (why is it that you have to go to Facebook these days for that? oh well), though not really any outrage, surprisingly.

Chris: Thanks for the kudos...I think I see nitpicky things all over the post as well....I must confess I have not read hardly any Catholic Social Teaching, which is tragic, since I'm a big fan of it (yes, that's supposed to sound absurd). I need to fix that in the coming month.

Josiah: True to a point. However, I really don’t like eschatological positions that say something like “Well, this is how it will be then, but it’s not that way now, and never will be in this world, so we have to act by very different rules now.” To me, that’s not very postmillennialist. There is continuity between the now and the eschaton. The Church is the eschatological kingdom in seed form. We do not sit passively by, living lives according to the rules of this age, and waiting for God to plop the next age down in our laps; rather, we are called to be part of God’s work of ushering in the new age, by living it now. Living by faith means acting on the basis of the future in the present. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to be discerning, and, at times, healthily cynical, but it means that we do not dismiss the promised future as utopia—“nowhere.”

Jess: Thanks for such a direct question, although “Bread” is a new nickname. In some ways, it’s completely good and accurate to say that “God demands it.” But I think that if this is all that we say, we risk missing or distorting some important points. For one thing, how do God’s demands come to us? Through the Church. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth and the voice through which God speaks to us (not always as clearly as we would like, but nevertheless, with authority). The Church makes known to us, applies to us, and enforces upon us God’s demands. More fundamentally, though, I want to avoid any way of putting it that encourages individualism. God does not address (or at least, does not merely address) us each as autonomous individuals and say, “I require you to make such-and-such sacrifice”; rather, he forms us into a community and this community requires certain things from us. The economic demands our faith makes upon us come to us not as isolated individuals, but as always already bound together in community. I hope I’m conveying what I want to here.

Craig: I’m not endorsing state socialism here. But we need to recognize what state socialism arises from. It arises out of a genuine desire to create a community based on pursuit of shared goods and charity. But in trying to realize that community in the wrong place and the wrong way, it falls short of its purpose, and often creates more problems than it solves. The problem with the modern nationa-state is that it becomes a substitute for a real community that doesn’t exist, rather than the outgrowth of a real community, as I think I told you when we last chatted. The last line of my post is important for understanding my purpose. If we disagree with something the State is doing, it makes a lot of difference whether we object to the thing in itself, or simply to who’s doing it. I don’t want 10-year-olds driving buses, but I’m a big fan of buses. A lot of conservative Christian rhetoric seems to act as if buses themselves are bad; that is, socialism itself is bad. And if we take that approach, we won’t get very far. I would add, though, that I have some gut feeling, perhaps inspired by Milbank, that there ought to be more socialistic social entities besides the Church, though I certainly wouldn’t say that the State, or anything of nearly that scale.

Adam: Just one remark. I wouldn’t say that a community of people seeking the common good is a novel idea, but I would contest that it is the idea underlying modern liberal democracy. Modern liberal democracies, rather, are founded upon the presupposition that people will have violently competing individual interests, and that the purpose of the State is to regulate these divergent interests by letting them all have a voice and balance each other out (and then, when a dose of extra unity is required, declaring war or rousing nationalistic fervour in some other way). This is quite the opposite, I think, of the balance of freedom and constraint that the Church strives for, a balance in which freedom is not sacrificed to constraint, but is made possible through it.

Daniel: I’m mostly in agreement there, actually. Some of my comments to Craig apply here.
August 14 at 6:06pm • Delete

Adam Naranjo
Brad,

"Modern liberal democracies, rather, are founded upon the presupposition that people will have violently competing individual interests, and that the purpose of the State is to regulate these divergent interests."

We may just be speaking passed each other. Utilitarianism is the single most referred to concept in all major political, and sociological and political philosophical writings. The notion that the government exists for the 'greater/common good'.

Concern with the 'common good' is appropriate, but civil government ought not be the mechanism for providing for the common good.

"This is quite the opposite, I think, of the balance of freedom and constraint that the Church strives for, a balance in which freedom is not sacrificed to constraint, but is made possible through it."

Amen!
August 14 at 7:36pm • Delete

Jay Hershberger
Brad, you give me a lot to think about. The air in Edinburgh must have something in it. Or the scotch...
August 14 at 9:14pm • Delete

Jess R. Monnette
Brad,

Mea Culpa on the bread. Although I do hope the nickname sticks.

You make the statement that the church is a socialist community.

My next question is this: You use the word "socialism" in a way that seems antithetical to the "socialism" that we see around us in other countries (that you rightly attribute to government coercion and theft) as well as our own. What, therefore, is your definition of "socialism" and why is your definition more appropriate to that word than the definition that we generally know and love? It seems that the crux of this discussion hinges on how you are defining socialism. This criticism/question is also geared to all of the commenters that used the word as well.

Brad,

Also. When you say that individuals do not have "sole claim" on their own goods (as the Church demands) it implies that others have some sort of claim on his goods. Is that what you mean? If so do you mean that the other person can take the individual's property if he wants to? If it is expedient? How far does such a "claim" go? The word "claim" seems very loaded and loaded in many ways that give credence to liberal socialism whose mantra is "rob from the rich to give and give it to others."

So - what do you mean by your statement that individuals do not have sole claim on his goods?
August 15 at 9:29pm • Delete

Luke Nieuwsma
A couple thoughts, Bradford:
Even the church doesn't distribute everything evenly - it only distributes to those who have need. That's not really socialism - it's simply helping the poor.

Also, there's a difference between free donations and extortion. I think Moses and Paul both would have called mandatory, European socialism theft. Even Annanias and Saphira were fully allowed to give part of the proceeds of their land and keep the rest of it, if they had been honest about it.

Two of the ten commandments make it pretty clear that we don't have claims to other people's stuff: do not steal, and do not covet. Also, socialism broadly applied squelches a good work ethics. If people still get health benefits, living quarters, and food regardless of how much work they do, they're not motivated to work harder.

But if Christians joined together and voluntarily had a Poor Folk fund and a Visitor/Alien fund, then of course that's not bad. But forcing it from others...?
August 16 at 5:23am • Delete

Brad Littlejohn
Adam: We are somewhat talking past each other. But I would argue that utilitarianism does not seek "the common good" but "the greatest good of the greatest number," having given up on the possibility of a genuinely common good. The two, I think, are very different. But that's a bigger and more complicated discussion than I want to try to pursue here.

Jess: First, defining socialism...how's this: "a social organization in which a community is oriented first of all toward achieving the economic good and social flourishing of the whole community, rather than of individual members, and in which, therefore, those with greater economic means put them at the disposal of those with less."
The family, as Daniel pointed out, is a good example--the family is organized to promote the total good of the whole, rather than of any individual within it, and those with greater resources and gifts are expected to share them with, or use them for, the well-being of the others.

I would not say that this is “antithetical” to the conception socialism that we see around us today; however, because the socialism we see around us is based on a false gospel, it fails altogether to achieve those goals.

Second, well of course I mean that others have some claim on those goods! As to how far it goes, I’m not quite sure yet. I do know that Aquinas, a stodgy conservative and no Communist (or Franciscan) radical, said that property is communal to the extent that if someone is destitute to the point of lacking basic necessities, that it is not theft, but rather, taking that to which they have a legitimate claim, if they take enough to satisfy their needs from those who have some to spare. But that is dodging the question. To dodge it slightly less, I would say that I take it just as far as Scripture does, which seems to be pretty far. In the Torah, the debtors have a claim on the lenders’ money to the extent that their debt is cancelled after seven year; those who have sold land have a claim on it still to the extent that they get it back after fifty years, and those in need have a claim on the money of the wealthy to the extent that the wealthy are required to lend to them even if the debts are about to be cancelled. In the New Covenant, Jesus and the apostles require that the wealthy put their resources at the disposal of the poor, or even that they sell all and give it to the poor—they do not have sole claim on those resources.
That much, I think, is indisputable, and I think we are called to the same standard in our church communities today, but beyond that, as I say, I am not sure.

Luke: First, socialism does not mean distributing everything evenly; it means that resources are put at the disposal of those in the community that have need of them. See the definition I gave in response to Jess.

There is a difference between free donations and extortion, but there is an important alternative that is neither, and thatunderlies this "socialism" that I am talking about. Is the tithe a free donation? Well, not exactly...it's mandated. Who's going to enforce it? The Church is; God is. That's serious enforcement. Ideally we give the tithe, and the other gifts that God requires of us, willingly; or else we may give them because we fear the consequences. Taxation, I think, is the same sort of thing. It's money that we're expected to give, commanded to give, that we give, ideally, willingly, because we think it will do good; or, if not, that we give because we fear the consequences. Neither of these is quite free or quite extortion.

As far as "Do not steal" and "do not covet," that is simply begging the question--if the whole question is "to whom does property belong" then saying, "The Bible says don't take property from those to whom it belongs" doesn't answer the question at all. In the specific applications of those commandments that we see in the Torah, we find that failing to give is a kind of stealing! Thus, resources are not the property simply of those to whom they happen to belong, but of those to whom they are due; if I withhold resources from those to whom they are due (say, the poor), then I am, in effect, stealing. That certainly seems to be the spirit of the Deuteronomic laws.

Before invoking Ananias and Saphira so readily, I would beware of the passage immediately preceding: "And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them." Excellent proof-text for me.
August 16 at 7:18pm • Delete

Alan Handermann
Hello Brad, Just a question. Are you an advocate of sphere sovereignty?
August 17 at 1:00am • Delete

Jess R. Monnette
Brad,

In your version of socialism do individuals own property or does the community own all property? On what do you base your definition and how does that relate to traditional definitions within this academic discussion. (I ask this because I am ignorant of this field and expect that you have studied it.)

Secondly, your definition of socialism states that "those with greater means put them at the disposal of those with less." Thus in your definition individuals are choosing to "give" their property to another. It does not follow, however, that because a person chooses to "give" his property that the receiver has a separate claim to it. e.x. your father may choose to give you $100 but if he does not you do not automatically create a claim in you even though you are family. The key here is the giver volitionally "gives" his property not that he is forced to do so in response to the claim of another.

This giving may be based on his obligations to others (e.x. the church, obeying Christ, government) but this does not create a claim in a third party.

I believe that this distinction is very important because it is on such "claims" that the "evil socialist" governments base their redistribution schemes.

When you say "claim" do you mean that the individual can enforce his claim against another as Aquinas allows for a destitute individual who lacks the necessities of life? If does have that right in the property does he have to pay the individual restitution?
August 17 at 6:16am • Delete

Austin Storm
Thanks very much for airing these thoughts on facebook - I found them very edifying.
August 17 at 7:29pm • Delete

Brad Littlejohn
Hey Jess (sorry for the delayed response--we were traveling),
I think we're running into a terminological impasse here. You are a law student, and are translating what I'm saying here into legal terminology--that's precisely what I don't want to do. There is, I insist, an important but almost forgotten realm that lies between the pure coercion of law and the pure voluntarism of charity as we usually understand it. I'm trying to put some teeth on charity--the demands of charity go further than "it would be a nice thing to do such and such" and go so far as, "you have an absolute duty to do such and such," they go further than, "this is your stuff but you should consider sharing some," to "do not even consider this stuff yours."
Because charity governs all this, the duties are reciprocal, unlike in law. In law, if I have a claim to $1,000 of your money, then you by definition do not have a claim to it. In charity, you say, "Here's $1,000--I realize that this belongs not to me but to you." I should respond with the same measure of charity, treating it not as mine by right, for which I don't need to be thankful, but as yours which you have graciously given. This is a paradox, perhaps, but it makes sense--neither of us considers that we have a claim on it because we know that ultimately God has a claim on it. That isBiblical economics.
Thus, I am not using the word "claim" in the kind of legal sense that you want to, but I think that language is important, for helping us see that charity is not an option, and for helping the giver understand that the gift really does, in an important sense, justly belong to the receiver.
Because of the call to charity, I think that usually, the needy person should not enforce his "claim" against another, except in cases of absolute necessity, as Aquinas says. I don't remember for sure, but I think Aquinas would say that the taker should, (acting on charity, not legal compulsion), repay what he took if he were later able

Mr. Handermann--no, I don't really anymore. If the Church is the new polis, then the Church does not occupy merely one social sphere of human life, but penetrates all of them. Not completely, of course--the Church penetrates the family sphere, but that does not mean families dissolve--but enough that I don't think sphere sovereignty is a helpful model for conceiving the relationships.

Austin: You aren't being facetious, are you?
August 22 at 9:11am • Delete

Austin Storm
Blerg, I always have this problem online. I was being sincere.
August 22 at 3:39pm • Delete

Alan Handermann
Brad,

I understand how you could come to your conclusions, but would respectfully disagree. I could appeal to scripture where Jesus and Paul clearly distinguish between the church, the state and the family- in terms of their functional work in the present age.

I think your main idea may well be true in the millennial age, but until then we are dealing with unregenerate men and mixed bag christians in this world - something I think the NT clearly recognizes & addresses.

If I may so, your idea that the church threatens some type of punishment worse than imprisonment to those you don't offer money for redistribution is completely off the mark!

I think some of the ideas you express here are dangerously close to mistakes which, when in full blossom, led to the grevious errors of the medieval church.

As final note, there is nothing wrong with exploring new applications of scripture, just be careful not to stumble into the "been there, done that, and it doesn't work" weeds.
August 22 at 6:56pm • Delete

Nick Heid
"To be sure, socialism can become theft, but to criticize it as theft by definition is like being outraged that some women become whores and so considering all women whores—a solution that is likely to worsen the problem."

Brad - I enjoyed this post and agree with you partly. However, I think this is more of a problem of semantics and linguistics than people "criticizing it by definition." I would liken it to the use of the word "dude." If you called someone a dude in the late 1800's, they would think you were calling them a wealthy, well dressed city-man. However, not a single person would think you were calling them that today, especially since Larson calls Bethany dude. Similarly, if you say socialism today, you are referring to a nationalistic, one-world government, welfare based Robin-Hood system. You arent referring to a Church-based theory of charity and giving. Don't you think we can just ditch the word socialism and call the system you refer to - Christian charity?

I mean, socialism has really only meant one thing for the last 70 years, hasnt it?
August 23 at 3:54am • Delete

Alan Handermann
Socialism - "Unless you do something good for me, I'll do something bad to you" - (Dr. James Gill & Dr. Ronald Nash)

Capitalism - "If you do something good for me, then I'll do something good for you" - (Dr. James Gill & Dr. Ronald Nash)

Christianity - "I will do something good for you, whether or not you do something good for me" - ACHAugust 26 at 3:29am • Delete

Jess R. Monnette
Brad,

Apologies for the tardiness of this post as I too have been vacationing.

Although it is true that I may be translating words into "legal terminology," I do so because it is precisely here that the rubber meets the road. When the poor man sits outside of my house hungry how far does his claim go? Can he wave down a police officer who will come and raid my refrigerator? Can he walk in himself? What if I only have enough food to feed my own family 1 meager meal a day until payday. What if I am working 80 hours a week just trying to put that food on my table and he has turned down 3 jobs this week in favor of eating my food that he doesn't have to work for? Herein the definition of "claim" becomes very important. If he has a claim then he can take my food. If he does not then my family gets to eat. This example is very common in mainline "socialism" where entitlements becomes rights and the government redistributes the wealth.
As Christians we must always remain cognizant that all of our property (indeed everything that we have) is a gift from God. The tithe and charitable giving are both intended to be constant reminders of this for the Christian. I argue that although we have been commanded to give by God (and therefore don't have a choice) we must. But the mere fact that we are "giving" means that we have some claim to the property that is given. If the receiver has claim on the gift then it is not a gift at all, it is payment. But in the Word we are called to give.

I define terms legally because that is where the enforcement is and it is usually in the enforcement that Socialism becomes evil.
August 26 at 4:30pm • Delete

Brad Littlejohn
Nick--A couple of things. First, we should not ditch a term as soon as a term starts being distorted in popular usage; we should seek to correct popular usage, by using the term carefully and thoughtfully ourselves, rather than encouraging sloppiness by saying things like "socialism=theft." In the last century, socialism did not mean what we often mean by it, and I think for many, aspects of older understanding have continued within the last 70 years. And I suspect that many even now who support it do so because to them it means something at least partially different than "a nationalistic, one-world government, welfare based Robin-Hood system."
Second, my concern is that we understand that we critique modern socialism as a good social concept gone awry, rather than as an intrinsically bad social concept. Many Christians I know are so convinced that anything socialist must be intrinsically bad that they want to criticize the church in Acts as well.

Mr. Handermann--I could appeal to the New Testament, where the roles of the state and the family are radically relativized in light of the church's role. For example, Jesus's insistence that family loyalties have to be broken down for allegiance to the kingdom, which was a complete slap in the face to traditional Jewish ways of thinking. And Paul's insistence that Christians do not go to the civil magistrate to resolve legal disputes, but take care of them within the Church. There remain distinct extra-ecclesial roles for family and state, but I think that the Church has so punctured their "spheres" that it doesn't work well to still call them "spheres."

As far as the millenial age, I mentioned to Josiah that I think there is a danger in overemphasizing the discontinuity, so that we are relieved of the responsibility of beginning to enact the future in the present. That is exactly how New Testament ethics is structured--this is what you are to become through Christ, so begin to act that way now, since Christ has already made it possible.
Of course, the Church does not normally operate by threats...(but in fact, the State often doesn't either--it tries to persuade us that giving our tax money for some purpose is to achieve some good; it doesn't just say, "pay your taxes for this or go to jail")...but there is nevertheless the threat, quite clear in the New Testament, that Christ will turn a blind eye to those who turn a blind eye to their brothers in need. The Church reminds us of this threat, and, if necessary, enforces it in serious cases with church discipline.

Could you clarify what medieval errors this leads to? I'm not sure I see what you're getting at.

I do like your Socialism vs. Capitalism vs. Christianity though, with the caveat that, while the socialism we know operates mainly through threats like that, that is not true of many understandings of socialism.

Jess,
You sound a lot like Pastor Wilson. :-)
But this is why I have said that there's a paradox of reciprocality. As a Christian, I am supposed to give not because I have a claim to what I have and a right to keep it if I want or give it if I want, but I give because I consider it not mine--otherwise, the giving can become a cause for self-righteousness. The giver should consider that the receiver has a claim to it. However, the receiver ought to consider, "This is not mine to which I can lay claim--this comes to me as a gift from you, for which I should be grateful. And I shall try to give to you what I have to give." Perhaps the language of "claim" seems too much like the political language of "entitlements" that we now know so well. But I use it to try and emphasize both the absolute non-negotiability of generosity to all in need, and also to undermine the sanctity of private property rights...because property belongs first to God, it belongs to an individual and/or to a
community depending on the duties that God has given us in that community. We are so afraid of infringing upon private property rights, because we are afraid, as you say, that people are just going to come along and take advantage: “Ah, this is mine…I’ll take that from you…you don’t need your car, really, do you? I’ll borrow that too.” But I would say that first, if we are developing a community understanding based on Christian charity, people in need would understand that charity requires that they act with more courtesy and gratitude than that. And second, I think that Jesus would say that our first concern is not supposed to be how someone responds to our charity—we are supposed to show it, even to an enemy who takes advantage of us, and trust God to use that charity for their good. (The Bishop’s candlesticks in Les Miserables is a great example) Of course, prudence issues have to be weighed here, when making specific applications, but that central point stands.
August 26 at 11:37pm • Delete

Alan Handermann
Regarding “an ideal of absolute private property rights that has no basis whatsoever in Scripture.”
Leaving aside your "an ideal of absolute" predicate, can you explain these verses in terms of "private property rights".
Acts 5:4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?”
II Cor. 9:7 “Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Matt. 6:3-4a “But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your alms may be in secret...”
II Cor. 8:3 “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord.”
I Cor. 13:3 “And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor...but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”

"roles of the state and the family are radically relativized" - agreed...as long as we are talking about believers. But Paul says " submit...to the governing authorities...for he does not bear the sword for nothing." (Rom 13) Are you advocating that the Church should bear the sword against evildoers?
Could not find "Christ will turn a blind eye to those who turn a blind eye to their brothers in need"; unless you mean "But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (1 John 3:17).

However, this is regarding whether one truly possesses the love of God - and is not a statement that a believer has lost Christ's attention. In fact, I could make the case (I think it's an exaggeration) that Christ goes ESPECIALLY after the lost sheep, leaving the obedient unattended!
"millenial age...I think there is a danger in overemphasizing the discontinuity" - understand where your coming from - scriptures about the Kingdom of God growing (mustard seed to tree, rock into mountain, etc.) However, scripture also makes a clear distinction between the "last days" (this first heaven and the first earth will passed away) and "the new heaven and a new earth". Always something to muddy the water :)

My point about "medieval errors" was not clear, my fault. What I was trying to indicate was a perception that your essay could lead one to think that direct Church involvement (i.e. Sessions, church officials, etc.) in all aspects of state governance is scriptural. I'm not an authority, but at its root, I believe this was one of the main errors of the medieval church, which ultimately led to a lot of corruption and heresy.
August 27 at 12:55am • Delete

Brad Littlejohn
Hey, sorry I kinda dropped out of this...I forgot it wasn't necessarily finished.
In reply to your first point: The first, second, and fourth verses I take to be emphasizing that Christian charity should not bound by physical compulsion...should not be something dragged out of people by coercion, but ought to be the overflow of a grateful heart that has been set free by Christ to love its neighbors. That is why I resisted Jess's attempts to force the conversation into legal terminology. The claims of charity are different than the claims of the law. Biblically, though, there are all sorts of things that we are left "free" to do, but which we are obliged to do...we are to love Christ freely, not at sword-point (thus the medieval error), but that does not mean that we are not obligated to love Him, and that there aren't consequences for failing.
Your third and fifth verses, I think, are making different points, which I am in no way denying.

The Biblical model, I think, is best summarized as "normally individual stewardship of communal property" or perhaps "normally individual stewardship of God's property on behalf of the community," though neither completely captures it...the latter, in particular, sounds too domesticated. And of course, there is an important place for communal stewardship as well, as we see in early Acts, where the church leaders act as stewards of the resources for everyone. I see this model all over the place, but particularly, as I said, in Deuteronomy, and, more vividly, in Acts 4:32-37.

Regarding your second comment, not at all. I am suggesting that the Church use the more powerful weapons of charity against evildoers, and encourage the State to do the same. I don't know how you could read what I'm saying as the Church bearing the sword--as you do also in your fifth comment

Your third comment--sorry, I thought the text I was alluding to was clear--Matt. 25:31-46 (and there are others along these lines, of course).

Your fourth comment: Yes, these are muddy waters, always and unavoidably. But I think the difference between the last days and the new heavens is less a difference of how the Church ought to conduct itself than a difference of what response the Church should expect to its conduct...though that is of course an oversimplification.

Your fifth comment: you seem to quite misunderstand me. The problem with the medieval Church was that the Church was adopting the methods and imitating the lifestyle of the State (or rather, of the civil authorities..."State" is an anachronism here). I am arguing for the opposite. Of course, I think the Church ought to be directly involved in many of the sorts of things that the State is currently involved in, but not using anything like the methods of the State. The error of the medieval Church was not in saying that the Church had something to say about trade, but in the Church using force motivated by greed when it addressed matters of trade.
September 2 at 1:24pm • Delete

Alan Handermann
Brad,

We have discussed details, now let's address the question you state in the title of your essay. This video addresses it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEFA4uOPnV8

In the video, the governmental systems of the last 100 years, are clearly explained. The last third of the video addresses the morality question of the type of gov't. the founding fathers crafted for us (a republic). It is an excellent video and clearly leads to a one word answer to your title's question - EVERYTHING.
September 3 at 12:51pm • Delete

Brad Littlejohn
Are you serious? That video is absurdly oversimplistic propaganda...even if there have only been two basic forms of government in the past 100 years, it's ridiculous to assert that there are only two basic forms of government.
In any case, what that video addresses does not really have hardly any relevance that I can see to the discussion here.
September 4 at 3:26pm • Delete

Alan Handermann
"Simplicity is complexity resolved" Constantin Brancusi
September 4 at 3:38pm • Delete

Follow-up on Socialism

Despite my disdain for Facebook, I find it tends to generate much more discussion than posts here do. When I put up my little "What's Wrong with Socialism?" post there, it led to some good questions and constructive discussion. You can read it here.

Socialism=Theft?

I hear something quite often which annoys me profoundly, all the more so because I used to find it persuasive. Nothing, it seems, is so irksome to the soul as the syllogism which, having once held one in awe, now seems empty and frivolous.

The claim goes something like this: Giving stuff to other people is good. But taking something from one person to give it to another person is by definition stealing, and that’s exactly what socialism is.

Now, of course, socialism can be that. Indeed, I daresay that all the forms of socialism with which we are familiar often look very much like a kind of theft—a third party using force to take money from one party and give it to another. But to claim that this is necessarily the case, that this is what the idea of socialism means, is absurdly to misunderstand what it means to be a society. Moreover, and more maddeningly, it requires allegiance to an ideal of absolute private property rights that has no basis whatsoever in Scripture.

The premise of this syllogism, of course, is that each individual (or perhaps family, though it is hard to see why we should allow community here when we forbid it elsewhere) is an entity unto itself, and has its own property over which it alone has absolute authority. Of course, this individual may transfer some of this property to another, but that decision rests solely with the individual as an individual, and if anyone else makes any claim as to how to dispose of his property, this is theft.

But, as my little parenthetical remark reveals, this premise is senseless—it ignores the fact that individuals must always function in communities of shared interest, working towards common goods. There is, you see, a possible option that is neither that of an autonomous individual choosing on his own to transfer property to another, or that of a third party seizing goods from that individual and transferring it to another. Both of these presume that there are no real ties that bind these separate individuals, and so only relationships of coercion can be forged between them. But a community of people bound together seeking the common good can decide that some of their resources should be shared, with the most-privileged sacrificing for the least-privileged, and in this decision, the givers are both free and constrained—they are not private decision-makers giving only when it suits their preferences, but neither are they under the compulsion of an alien agent. To reduce ourselves to just these two possibilities is to require that we choose between the social contract theory of Locke or Hobbes. I suggest we choose neither.

This syllogism also presupposes that only the autonomous property-owner has a claim on his property, and no one else can have a claim on it—not the poor, not the community as a whole, no one.

The questions here are important—must we always act as mere autonomous individuals, or can we act as communities working toward shared goods?
Do only I have a claim on my property, or do others have a claim on it as well?

I do not see how, if we answer “the former” to these questions, the Church makes sense. Because the Church is a socialist organization, a community which tells us that we do not have sole claim over our goods, but which demands that we each sacrifice our goods for a common good, that we give up some of our money for the Church to redistribute to the needy, and which threatens us with far worse punishment than imprisonment if we do not do so.

To be sure, socialism can become theft, but to criticize it as theft by definition is like being outraged that some women become whores and so considering all women whores—a solution that is likely to worsen the problem.