Rebuttal 1 (cont.)

1. Aron says:

   June 10, 2013 at 9:00 am

   While I generally agree with the free-market perspective, it’s not because I’m some kind of Randian proponent of (internally) unchecked greed/self-interest. There are no easy answers here. The work and social conditions which provoked Marx’s criticisms were–as Mike points out–very real. Russell Kirk wrote, correctly I believe, that “Industrialism was a harder knock to conservatism than the books of the French egalitarians.” (The Conservative Mind, 7th Edition, Regnery. P. 228) Of course, what one means by conservatism must be informed by a far deeper study than the past few decades–what we call “conservatism” today would be almost unrecognizeable to an Edmund Burke (see Hart, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism). And, as Koyzis argues in his Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies, both the classical liberalism of a Mises or Hayek as well as the modern collectivist tendencies of today’s “liberals” are both sprung from the same root of individualism and egalitarian democracy (pp 42-71).

   Abolishing private property is certainly no answer to the woes of industrialism. No system will yield a utopia (since utopia, by definition, doesn’t exist), so we are in a situation of choosing the least of all evils. While the radical individualism of the classical liberal school is also not the best answer (the fundamental unit of society being not the individual, but the family), it may offer that least of all evils we’re looking for. Bastiat had it right in his masterful little essay, The Law: the real questions we’re dealing with here are those of liberty vs. coercion, and even though there evils consequent with liberty, they’re far better than those involved with coercion and tyranny. I’ll take a Rockefeller, Vanderbuilt, or Carnegie over a Hitler or a Pol Pot every time.
2. Mike says:

   June 11, 2013 at 8:20 pm

   Will,

   I guess I never thought I’d hear more on this comment of 4 years ago, but I’m always game when it comes to politics, culture, and religion. First, it seems as though you skated past some of the qualifying statements made in my post. I simply agree with some of the Marxist critique of 19th century capitalism. Namely, that working conditions and low wages led to alienation and suffering. With that being said I would heartily affirm along with you the individual right to own property. I’ve grown more and more fond of John Locke and his theory of natural rights. Private property and individual liberty are inextricably connected.

   However, I would argue that exploitation was very real, despite the common refrain from certain quarters that labor agreements are always, “mutually beneficial.” Working conditions in Britain during the industrial revolution were hardly “beneficial” to the worker, who, if injured, was simply replaced without compensation. If you are interested in challenging your own assumptions you should look into the primary sources from the era.

   As a quick side-note. I agree with unions in principle because I believe in a individuals right to freedom of association. Labor has a right to organize and bargain. This mitigates against the self-interest of those who would seek to exploit. However, I believe unions work best when they are local and apolitical (if that is possible). National unions are almost entirely political because they try to collectively organize grievance in order to advance a policy agenda. In this way they betray the basic function of a union by politicizing issues better solved at a lower level.

   Ultimately, I agree with Aron that the real threat is the coercive power of the State. The line that has always stuck with me from Bastiat was this, “it is a mistake to confuse government with society.” When we conflate government with society the government views its responsibility as guiding society, rather than protecting the natural rights of its citizens. The only way government can “guide” society is through coercion because individuals and groups will always act in diverse ways due to conscience and self-interest. Government that protects natural rights and leaves society to other institutions (like the Church) will thrive and prosper.
3. Aron says:

   June 12, 2013 at 7:45 am

   Well said, Mike! Especially this: “Government that protects natural rights and leaves society to other institutions (like the Church) will thrive and prosper.”

   Here’s Bastiat’s full quote, for any interested:

   Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

   (source)