A Libertarian Approach to Poverty:
“The Poor will Always be With You?” _____________________________________________________WWJD/BL? What would Jesus Do?/ Be Libertarian?
Disclaimer: Any religious references in this article are not intended by the author to promote one faith over another faith or over no-faith. They are used in the sense that they illustrate universal truth even when considered outside the context of the faith-tradition from which they originated.
Note: This article was originally published for the e-zine
cybrcaf.net, hence the more universal appeal and the libertarian disclosure.
“From each according to (her) abilities, to each according to his needs.” -Karl Marx-
“If you want to inherit the Kingdom of God, go and sell all you have and give to the poor.” -Jesus of Nazareth to the “Rich Young Ruler”-
“If you took all the money away from the rich and gave it all to the poor, within ten years the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor.” -Unknown-
“Go shopping!” President George W. Bush to America after 9/11
“If you have two coats, give one to he who has none.” -Jesus of Nazareth-
“If you give someone a fish you feed them for a day; if you teach them to fish you feed them for a lifetime.” -Unknown-
“The poor will always be with you.” -Jesus of Nazareth-
The quotes listed above represent a typical cross section of our society’s thinking and beliefs about poverty: its nature, and its solutions. This thinking spans the spectrum of political ideology and economic theory. At first glance it appears to be a dialectic between socialism and capitalism or between faith and materialism, but a deeper analysis reveals more complexity than that. Is it possible that all of these statements, when taken in context are equally true?
The problem with economics and finance is that it’s not about math. I’ve written that before. Why do I repeat myself? Because it bears repeating. People don’t get it. Financial success is not about math. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That’s not about math either. Is it possible that neither the chicken nor the egg came first? How could it be? It is very possible if we forget about math for a moment.
Do you find it interesting that almost all credible economists, from the right to the left are in essential agreement that the solution to our current economic crisis is for the government to spend its way out? Now think about that. The crisis is a result, most people would agree, of excessive debt, excessive spending with no regard for how the bill would be paid, and yet the only solution we’re given by our wise men and women is to spend more and take on even more debt (as a nation, at least; as a government). How can that be? How can that work?
It works by recognizing that simple arithmetic is a box and can be a prison. Have you heard the expression “Figures lie and liars figure?” That is true. If you want to prove something with numbers there is a way to do it. The opposite is also true. If you want to achieve something that is quantitatively measurable, strict adherence to quantity can prevent the achievement.
In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. How did he do that? Was it simple magic? The ancient equivalent of pulling rabbits out of hats? Not likely. Most likely he did it by inspiring faith among the crowd, that there would be enough to feed everyone if everyone shared what they had, and suddenly people who had not previously acknowledged that they had any food with them, pulled bread and fish out of their sleeves, pockets and satchels, and once all had contributed, there was more than enough for everyone. There were thirteen bushels of leftovers!
Many people might say that story supports the concept of socialism: “from each according to her ability, to each according to his needs.” Possibly. But what’s the key difference between the way socialism works and what happened in the story? Force. Control.
Socialism in any of its permutations utilizes force and control. It is administered by an authoritarian state. It creates a planned economy. It commands everyone to “share.” It (the government, a central authority) presumes to determine what people need and who should give what and how much to supply that need. And with socialism, there is never any surplus. Instead there are shortages. Remember the long lines at Soviet or Eastern Block stores during the Cold War? People inside the “Iron Curtain” spent most of their free time standing in lines. And as bad as that must have been, once they reached the front of the line it was even worse, since there was little or no choice.
How can humanity, whose greatest strength is creativity, ever thrive in such a system? Any truly creative impulse is stifled. Imagination, innovation, or deviation is considered “decadent.” Yet it is imagination, innovation, and deviation from the norm that produces invention. Without invention, the economy stagnates. Without individual freedom to dream, to act to break the mold, there is no passion, no joy, no energy to produce even the basics of an economy.
Back to the story of the loaves and fish. Did Jesus tell the disciples, “There are people in that crowd who are hoarding food. Go search each one at knife-point and confiscate everything you find?” You know the answer. The “miracle” began when one person-- significantly for the story, a child—chose to share what he had to help others. He chose to share. Once he made that choice and his act was celebrated and blessed, suddenly loaves and fish appeared out of the woodwork.
The capitalist moral of this story is that in an environment of absolute liberty, some will choose to be generous. The energy and goodwill that is generated by that example will inspire so much more of the same, that there will be more than enough, not just to stave off hunger, but to satisfy appetites with plenty to spare.
“Okay,” you say, “but what if we’re all hungry?” What if we all invested our life-savings with Bernie Madoff? Who is left to be generous, and how will whatever small amount these few may have, relative to everything that has been lost, make a difference? Exactly. Isn’t that the question the disciples asked Jesus? “But Master, we only have one small boy and he has only five loaves and two fish. How do we feed these thousands with that?”
Jesus replied, “When will you guys get it through your thick skulls that it’s not about the math?
“Now as long as you’re quoting Jesus,” you say, “what about his advice to ‘The Rich Young Ruler’ to sell all he had and give to the poor? And what about his statement that those who had two coats should give away one?”
And I say, “Yes, but he also said, ‘The poor will always be with you,’ to rebuke the disciples who were complaining about the “waste” of valuable perfume Mary Magdalene was using to wash Jesus’ feet.” And the point is that Jesus said a lot of things, and like most holy men and women, you can’t make his pronouncements add up. It really isn’t about the math. The truth is embedded in irony. Jesus said things that might support a complete disavowal of materialism, personal property, certainly any sort of indulgence in luxury, and then he turned around and celebrated the extravagance of the woman who washed his feet with perfume as valuable as an average person’s life savings. He celebrated the woman who had a “pearl of great price,” and affirmed her attachment to it. And he chastised the steward who buried his treasure in the ground for fear of market risk, and celebrated the one who took the greatest investment risk and received the highest rate of return.
So how do you break this down to fiscal and economic policy in the current American moment? What is the solution to the current economic crisis? Do we spend our way out or do we save every penny? Do we give all we have to those who’ve been wiped out or are unemployed? And is there a difference between what the government does and what we as private businesses or individuals do?
Let’s think about this for a moment. Is the government known for doing things ethically, efficiently, or effectively? How much of every government dollar spent actually goes to its original purpose and how much is eaten up by bloated administration, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence? And if the government compels you to pay taxes and tells you how those taxes will be spent, even if to benefit the poor or to stimulate the economy, is that any different from what happens in a socialist or Communist society? Isn’t it the forced redistribution of wealth? On the other hand, can any of us print money?
So the hard-line free-marketers (though perhaps an endangered species in the current crisis) oppose all government bail-outs, stimulus packages, interference in markets, etc. The hard-line big government people (currently the majority position of the moment) demand strict regulation and extensive government intervention.
In the spirit of full-disclosure I am a libertarian (by philosophy) and a Libertarian (by party affiliation) which puts me close to the far end of the no-to-low government intervention continuum. That being said, even I cannot say with absolute confidence that there is no place for government to act in the current crisis. It is possible that it is absolutely essential that the government act. The question is, how should the government act, and for the benefit (directly) of whom?
I will come back to that question in a moment, but I also need to declare that regardless of the answer to the first question, the second question is equally if not more important: what should the private sector be doing, as businesses and as individual consumers?
Again, I return to Jesus. The world at the time of Jesus was a zero-sum economy. Those who had money, kept it and passed it on to their heirs. Those who had no money, had no means of upward mobility. Many were poor due to disability and were unable to do anything other than beg. In that kind of world, Jesus was revolutionary in telling his followers, “Don’t just give them a pittance—put a coin in the cup, and congratulate yourself for doing your duty. Give them your extra coat. Or—as he said to the “Rich Young Ruler,” give them everything.
What would Jesus say in today’s economy? Today, I believe he would be more on the side of teaching someone to fish rather than giving them a fish. Our economy is the opposite of a zero-sum. It is an infinite-sum economy. Today I believe Jesus would say, “Those of you who have two coats, buy five more and create jobs for the unemployed. Take everything you own and expand your business, creating as many jobs as you can. Buy a new car every two years, upgrade your house. Go out to eat more. Keep your closet up to date. Pay someone to clean your house or mow your lawn. Take your car to the full-service wash. Spend your money in ways that make your life better and give other people jobs.”
Before dismissing this as quickly as many dismissed George Bush’s “Go shopping,” advice, think about something. It is not about the math. The economy is a living, dynamic organism. Think of money as food for the organism.
I grew up on a farm. That is certainly not a zero-sum economy. The cow produces milk, cheese, butter, and meat far beyond the amount or value of hay and oats fed to the cow. But if the farmer were to begin to fear that he might not have a good crop year next year and started cutting back on feeding his cows, there would be a disproportionate effect in the opposite direction.
Therefore, we need to understand that even counting money is not about math. I’ve heard many people say that because the economy is “bad” and they don’t know what might happen to them in the future, they are cutting back. People who have the same jobs or incomes they have always had, with no explicit reason to fear they’re at risk, are cutting back just in case. Money we choose to hoard out of fear of what might happen later is like starving the cow that feeds us. And we all know we can’t hoard food forever. Food that is not consumed on a timely basis will spoil. To save defensively is to waste. To take money out of the economy is a lose/lose proposition. The economy needs us to shop, to buy, to invest, to continue feeding the cow. Wealth trickles down. The best way to help the poor in the current economy is to continue to consume—obviously within our means, but with faith in the future.
What if the future doesn’t warrant faith? Where the future is concerned there are only two options. We can have faith in the future—which is essentially faith in ourselves, in our ability to survive, adapt, thrive, no matter what happens because we always have and because we know how. Or, we have no faith in our ability to cope with change should it occur, and therefore we withdraw from the economy out of fear and begin what will eventually be a slow death if everyone else does likewise. Unless we are wealthy enough to live the rest of our lives on the money we currently have on-hand. Only by spending it, by feeding the proverbial cow, can we create our future meals.
Therefore we help the poor and keep ourselves from becoming poor by spending, even by borrowing responsibly in order to spend more. But what about the government?
Where helping the poor is concerned, the government tends to favor the distribution of fish rather than fishing education. Elected officials have short term jobs they are trying to preserve. It takes to long to teach someone to fish. Elections can be lost in less time. The government prefers temporary quick-fixes to quiet the crowds, solidify the votes. Money in private hands is almost always better spent.
Money in the hands of those who know how to make more money, is more effectively spent than money in the hands of those who have never had money. This is why the trickle down theory (supply side economics) is correct. Even those who are poor benefit when the wealthy use their money freely in the private sector to feed the cow of the economy. On the other hand, if money is forcibly redistributed from the wealthy to the poor, it is like starving the cow while fertilizing the hayfield. If the cow is not well fed, it doesn’t matter how well the hay or the oats are cared for. If the cow is well fed, there will be more for everyone who depends on the cow.
At the same time, the magnitude of the current problem and the psychological factor of down-market pessimism is so pervasive right now, I believe the government does need to act. I trust the economists who say that a trillion dollars may be required as a stimulus to get us out of this. So let the government print money if they have to. Let them rebuild our infrastructure if they will. God knows it is needed. But the best solution would be for the government to return a trillion dollars worth of taxes taken from the economy directly to the taxpayers and let them use their own imagination as to how and where it should be spent. If the money went directly back to the taxpayers, the economy would be booming again in a matter of days. Private companies would be investing in infrastructure. People would be buying cars and the auto crisis would be over. Shoppers would return to stores, mortgages would be paid, new businesses would be cropping up all over. Yes, there would always be some poor among us, but not for lack of opportunity, and hopefully for most of them, not for long.