A Definition of Freedom

My newest FB post:

The definition of freedom is the absence of invasion against a man's person or property. This is the libertarian definition of freedom—not FDR's Second Bill of Rights, not a "right to healthcare," not fiscal conservatism/social liberalism (like some libertarians have mistakenly defined liberty, and not even lawlessness. 

The only limit on the liberty of mankind is that man doesn't initiate force/aggress against other person's life, liberty or property. 

Violence is only compatible with liberty in (1) self defense, (2) defense of other's person and property, (3) retribution proportionate to the crime committed (if someone stole something from you, you would have the right to forcibly take it back from them), and (4) resistance against entrenched aggression and exploitation. 

The libertarian definition of liberty is represented by the nonaggression principle/axiom (NAP), which means that no man has the right to commit aggression against the life, liberty and property of another person. 

The NAP is not so much a holistic guide on life (like Christianity, Epicureanism, Stoicism, etc.) as it is a political ethic dealing with the use of force in society. It is a basic human rule of which its violation would require special justification. 

As for "absolute" freedom, the libertarian definition doesn't necessarily allow for freedom from all rules; it argues for freedom from invasion and aggression. This negative freedom is and should be absolute.

I would also add that positive freedom—the right to something—doesn't count. Positive freedom usually includes a right to a job, a right not to be mocked, a right to healthcare, a right to a house, and such things. However, this would have to lead to the initiation of force through taxation and violence in order to grant these positive liberties. Negative liberty—libertarian freedom—avoids these problems. Negative liberty simply allows for the person to freely pursue whatever goals he desires provided that he doesn't initiate force and violate others' rights in the process of doing so. That doesn't mean his goals are entirely noble or worthy of emulation, but as long as those goals don't involve the initation of force/aggression, then the pursuit of such should not be punished with force.

This is not intended to be a scholarly post, but a little post describing the libertarian meaning of freedom in order to clarify why libertarians believe what they believe.

Feel free to leave your comments at the comment section. They are welcome.

Book Review: THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY by Murray N. Rothbard

The Ethics of Liberty (1982) by Murray Rothbard; with intro. by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
New York, New York; New York Univeristy Press; 1998 (republication); 1982 (Humanities Press)
308 pages; including bibliography and index
ISBN: 0-8147-7506-3
ISBN-10: 0814775594
ISBN-13: 978-0814775592
Dewey Decimal: 323.44'01--ddl
Library of Congress Classification: JC585 .R69 1982

*****/5

REVIEW: A Masterpiece of Thought and Political Philosophy

Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was an interesting figure, a polymath skilled in economic theory, political and ethical philosophy, and libertarianism. He defended the libertarian message so clearly and consistently, supported sound economics in the vein of the Austrian school of economics, and was basically the towering leader of the modern libertarian movement. Without Rothbard, the libertarian movement would be very different. He applied the libertarian message consistently, not shying away from the radical elements but embracing them and defending them. And not only that, he was all around a great man. He was no god, and he had faults like any other man, but he was a great philosopher and economist and historian. His work, along with the works of Ludwig von Mises and the classical-liberal and libertarian traditions, should be recognized more and appreciated.

After finishing Rothbard's 1973 classic For A New Liberty, a crystal-clear and beautiful apologia for the libertarian creed, I have decided to embark on his 1982 masterpiece The Ethics of Liberty, a systematic outline of libertarian law and theory, looking at it from the ethical and moral perspective, as well as from a philosophical and logical standpoint. While it is not a Christian work in that it does not refer to Christianity, it is definitely not only compatible with the Christian faith but in many ways harkens back to it in its profound principles, from its attacking of mere utilitarianism and defense of natural law to the defense of justice and liberty, applying libertarian principles radically and logically, all for the enrichment and the rewarding of the thoughtful reader. While most libertarians would accept the foundational principle of self-ownership on which Rothbard bases his political philosophy, few understand the power of radical application of this principle.

The first part of this book (Introduction to Natural Law) deals with the foundation of libertarian theory, and Rothbard chooses natural law theory and natural rights as his basis, seeing it as moral and ethical. He uses the principle to defend the right of self-ownership and the libertarian/natural rights of mankind. While his philosophy is not strictly religious, it is definitely compatible with the Scriptures in that, even while Rothbard doesn't acknowledge God, he does recognize the natural law that God reveals himself through (Romans 1:19-20). Even while his theory is rationalist in orientation, the theory is not anti-religious or anti-Christian but echoing of past Christian scholars and defenders of natural law and natural rights. He even shows that natural law is not "conservative" but rather radical and revolutionary, particularly in the libertarian forum.

The second part (A Theory of Liberty) applies the natural-law libertarian foundation to construct the libertarian theory, starting with the classical Crusoe model that was used by classical economists and showing how the libertarian principles of self-ownership, the homestead principle, and freedom would work with the case of Robinson Crusoe before going on to apply it to difficult and various situations. Rothbard says of man's needs and his desire to fulfill them:

Crusoe, then, has manifold wants which he tries to satisfy, ends
that he strives to attain. Some of these ends may be attained with minimal
ef-fort on his part; if the island is so structured, he may be able to pick
edible berries off nearby bushes. In such cases, his "consumption" of a
good or service may be obtained quickly and almost instantaneously.
But for almost all of his wants, Crusoe fids that the natural world about
him does not satisfy them immediately and instantaneously; he is not, inshort, in a Garden of Eden. To achieve his ends, he must, as quickly and
productively as he can, take the nature-given resources and transform
them into useful objects, shapes, and places most useful to him-so that
he can satisfy his wants. 

In short, he must (a) choose his goals; (b) learn how to achieve them
by using nature-given resources; and then (c) exert his labor energy to
transform these resources into more useful shapes and places: i-e., into
"capital goods,"and finally into "consumer goods" that he can directly
consume. Thus, Crusoe may build himself, out of the given natural raw
materials, an axe (capital good) with which to chop down trees, in order
to construct a cabin (consumer good). Or he may build a net (capital good)
with which to catch fish (consumer good). In each case, he employs his
learned technological knowledge to exert his labor effort in transforming
land into capital goods and eventually into consumer goods. This process
of transformation of land resources constitutes his "production." In short,
Crusoe must produce before he can consume, and so that he may consume. 

And by this process of production, of transformation, man shapes and
alters his nature-given environment to his own ends, instead of,
animal-like, being simply determined by that environment.
And so man, not having innate, instinctive, automatically acquired
knowledge of his proper ends, or of the means by which they can be
achieved, must learn them, and to learn them he must exercise his powers
of observation, abstraction, thought: in short, his reason. Reason is man's
instrument of knowledge and of his very survival; the use and expansion
of his mind, the acquisition of knowledge about what is best for him and
how he can achieve it, is the uniquely human method of existence and of
achievement. And this is uniquely man's nature; man, as Aristotle pointed
out, is the rational animal, or to be more precise, the rational being.
Through his reason, the individual man observes both the facts and ways
of the external world, and the facts of his own consciousness, including
his emotions: in short, he employs both extraspection and introspection. (pp. 29-30)

After giving a brilliant take on how the free society and freedom will work in Crusoe's situation, Rothbard goes on to apply the theory of libertarianism and self-ownership to develop a corpus of the libertarian system, first applying it to the theory of property rights and just homesteading and then going on to apply that to the other issues, ranging from property and criminality, land reform, land theft, self-defense and punishment theory to the issues of bribery, children's rights, and the problem of knowledge, as well as other issues. I didn't always agree with Rothbard, especially with the issue of abortion (though I believe that a true Christian can hold Rothbard's pro-choice view on abortion and the law), but I agree with everything else Rothbard defends and affirms, including the children's rights theory Rothbard defends (with some of my own reservations). Logic and natural law are part and parcel of Rothbard's defense of liberty and libertarianism.

The third part of the book (The State versus Liberty) goes on to deal with the problem of the State, and how libertarian theory applied consistently precludes the very existence of the State, which is originated in political means, the use of exploitation and initiation of force to exist and gain wealth. He not only refutes the statist myths but also refutes the objections of even limited-government libertarians who see a role for the State in society. Rothbard says:

But, above all, the crucial monopoly is the State's control of the use

of violence: of the police and armed services, and of the courts-the locus

of ultimate decision-making power in disputes over crimes and contracts.

Control of the police and the army is particularly important in enforcing

and assuring all of the State's other powers, including the all-important

power to extract its revenue by coercion.

For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of

the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for

acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers)

obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to

the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or

association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue

by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. 

That coercion is known as "taxation," although in less regularized

epochs it was often known as "tribute." Taxation is theft, purely and simply

even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged

criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the

property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects. (p. 162)

He also goes on to show that the State can't own property but only exploits and takes it from others and owns it outside the bounds of just property titles. And he shows how immoral the State is and why it can't exist within a just and proper society, the libertarian society. He even makes the argument that the services that the state provides can be provided in a more just and a more workable manner in the stateless libertarian society, reminiscent of his work For A New Liberty. Also worthwhile are his words on voting and foreign policy, in which he brings a consistent application of the libertarian principles to these tough issues. His perspective is worth considering and even worth embracing.

And the fourth and final parts of the book (Modern Alternative Theories of Liberty and Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty) are also valuable in that the fourth section refutes alternative theories that don't reflect natural rights and/or a consistent libertarianism. He critiques Isaiah Berlin for his anti-libertarian theories, attacks F. A. Hayek's faulty definition of coercion, and even critiques his great mentor Ludwig von Mises for adopting utilitarianism and attempting to apply a "value-free" perspective on political philosophy. And the final section is fair and balanced, keeping principles in mind while welcoming any goal, however mild, that defends the cause of liberty. He rejects both opportunism on the right-wing and sectarianism on the left-wing but prefers a moral-pragmatic strategy in which the moral ideal of a pure libertarian society is held up and the pragmatic strategy is allowed which does not contradict the goal.

Also encouraging is Rothbard's optimism and hope for a bright and free future, which, while I don't hold to as highly as Rothbard does, is very inspiring.

Overall, whether or not one agrees with this book's philosophy, The Ethics of Liberty is worth a read by all thoughtful people and all thoughtful libertarians, and I am glad that I spent my time doing so. I will be writing in the future on specific parts of this book, and I will be sure to revisit this book and re-read it, not only to catch what I may have missed when I first read it but also to learn more and to be even more enriched.

Happy Birthday, Web - Gary North

Happy Birthday, Web

by

Gary North

The original article was published on March 12, 2014 at GaryNorth.com and republished on March 13, 2014 at LewRockwell.com. The article celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Internet, one of the greatest innovations of all time ever invented by free men.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the most important invention that any individual ever came up with: the World Wide Web. Not even Gutenberg matched it. Korea had moveable type two centuries before he invented it.

Tim Berners-Lee invented the Web, all by himself, on March 12, 1989. Then he implemented it over the next two years.

He did not patent the idea. He gave it away. He changed the world, mostly for the better.

He converted an invention of the United States government's DARPA -- the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- into a decentralized, international institution that represents the greatest threat to political centralization in man's history.

The Web is the incarnation of what F. A. Hayek called the spontaneous order. Out of a decentralized system of communication comes a series of mini-orders created by individuals. There is no central planning committee. 

The Web is the antithesis of a planning committee. Yet there is order at our fingertips.

The Web gives the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency enormous power to spy on the world. It also gave one man, Edward Snowden, the power to expose the spies as no one ever had before. Never before in the history of the spooks has there been this much bad publicity. One man did it.

Today, the lead story on Google News was this: Feinstein shifts tone in calling out CIA search. Senator Feinstein had been the Senate's leading cheerleader in its use of the Web for snooping. Then she found out that she and her colleagues in Congress have been the targets. She is now on a rampage against the CIA. The story is all over the Web.

The head of the CIA insists that the CIA never spied on Congress. No one believes him, especially no one in Congress.

The Web has changed our world, and it will change it far more. That is because no one owns it as a whole. No one controls it. But its parts are privately owned. It is customer-centric. The users are in control.

PROFIT-SEEKING AND CREATIVITY

In an article in Britain's Left-wing Guardian, the author bewails these aspects of the Web. They are the reasons I cheer it. These are the reasons it has changed our lives for the better. They all boil down to this fact: The state does not control it.

His first observation is true, and he applauds it.

1 The importance of "permissionless innovation"

The thing that is most extraordinary about the internet is the way it enables permissionless innovation. This stems from two epoch-making design decisions made by its creators in the early 1970s: that there would be no central ownership or control; and that the network would not be optimised for any particular application: all it would do is take in data-packets from an application at one end, and do its best to deliver those packets to their destination.

It was entirely agnostic about the contents of those packets. If you had an idea for an application that could be realised using data-packets (and were smart enough to write the necessary software) then the network would do it for you with no questions asked. This had the effect of dramatically lowering the bar for innovation, and it resulted in an explosion of creativity.

What the designers of the internet created, in effect, was a global machine for springing surprises. The web was the first really big surprise and it came from an individual -- Tim Berners-Lee -- who, with a small group of helpers, wrote the necessary software and designed the protocols needed to implement the idea. And then he launched it on the world by putting it on the Cern internet server in 1991, without having to ask anybody's permission.

In short, it is the product of one man's creativity -- not a committee.

This bothers him: free men are using a government-invented system to make profits. The horror!

3 The importance of having a network that is free and open

The internet was created by government and runs on open source software. Nobody "owns" it. Yet on this "free" foundation, colossal enterprises and fortunes have been built -- a fact that the neoliberal fanatics who run internet companies often seem to forget. Berners-Lee could have been as rich as Croesus if he had viewed the web as a commercial opportunity.

I am such a fanatic. Whenever individuals can appropriate a government-funded project, profiting from it by removing it from government control, I'm in favor of it.

A free man gave something away. He took a government-funded operation, which was designed to overcome the threat of a nuclear bomb on a centralized military communications system -- and made it productive. In short, he made tax money productive. In doing so, he reduced government power. This horrifies our critic.

4 Many of the things that are built on the web are neither free nor open

Mark Zuckerberg was able to build Facebook because the web was free and open. But he hasn't returned the compliment: his creation is not a platform from which young innovators can freely spring the next set of surprises. The same holds for most of the others who have built fortunes from exploiting the facilities offered by the web. The only real exception is Wikipedia.

This has placed private ownership at the top of the benefits of the Web. Private ownership unleashed has enormous creativity. It has mobilized the spontaneous order, merely by making opportunities available to all comers.

7 Power laws rule

In many areas of life, the law of averages applies -- most things are statistically distributed in a pattern that looks like a bell. This pattern is called the "normal distribution". Take human height. Most people are of average height and there are relatively small number of very tall and very short people. But very few -- if any -- online phenomena follow a normal distribution. Instead they follow what statisticians call a power law distribution, which is why a very small number of the billions of websites in the world attract the overwhelming bulk of the traffic while the long tail of other websites has very little.

Pareto's 20-80 law governs the Web. Surprise, surprise! It dominates many things. It is an order that emerges out of an unplanned environment. Why should anyone complain? But this horrifies our critic. Why? Because of this:

8 The web is now dominated by corporations

Despite the fact that anybody can launch a website, the vast majority of the top 100 websites are run by corporations. The only real exception is Wikipedia.

Private enterprise has make the customer king of the Web, and therefore king of the Internet. This has passed control to individuals. The corporations must serve individuals. Individuals decide what they want the Web to do for them. The government does not.

This is the heart of liberty:

9 Web dominance gives companies awesome (and unregulated) powers 

Take Google, the dominant search engine. If a Google search doesn't find your site, then in effect you don't exist. And this will get worse as more of the world's business moves online. Every so often, Google tweaks its search algorithms in order to thwart those who are trying to "game" them in what's called search engine optimisation. Every time Google rolls out the new tweaks, however, entrepreneurs and organisations find that their online business or service suffers or disappears altogether. And there's no real comeback for them.

The public likes to use Google. Google makes money because it serves customers. Producers try to game the system; then Google takes away their advantage. This is exactly what I want as a consumer.

10 The web has become a memory prosthesis for the world 

Have you noticed how you no longer try to remember some things because you know that if you need to retrieve them you can do so just by Googling?

Plato made the same argument against writing. I remember this, because I read it somewhere. I don't know where. But I can find out on the Web. So can you. I won't bother. If you do not believe me, you can follow Casey Stengel's dictum. You can look it up.

Because of the profit-seeking nature of the decentralized Web, this is true:

12 The web has unleashed a wave of human creativity 

Before the web, "ordinary" people could publish their ideas and creations only if they could persuade media gatekeepers (editors, publishers, broadcasters) to give them prominence. But the web has given people a global publishing platform for their writing (Blogger, Wordpress, Typepad, Tumblr), photographs (Flickr, Picasa, Facebook), audio and video (YouTube, Vimeo); and people have leapt at the opportunity.

There are causes. There are effects. Our critic does not like the causes, but he likes the effect. That is, he is a Leftist. They have been the free market's free riders for over two centuries. They have been blessed by liberty, and they have used this liberty to attack the economic institution that gave them liberty: the free market.

He worries about the environment. He says no one knows what the Web is doing to the environment, but he is worried. That is because he is a Leftist. He worries about the environment, even though he does not understand cause and effect.

20 The web has an impact on the environment. We just don't know how big it is 

The web is largely powered by huge server farms located all over the world that need large quantities of electricity for computers and cooling. (Not to mention the carbon footprint and natural resource costs of the construction of these installations.) Nobody really knows what the overall environmental impact of the web is, but it's definitely non-trivial. A couple of years ago, Google claimed that its carbon footprint was on a par with that of Laos or the United Nations. The company now claims that each of its users is responsible for about eight grams of carbon dioxide emissions every day. Facebook claims that, despite its users' more intensive engagement with the service, it has a significantly lower carbon footprint than Google.

Keep those servers absorbing electricity! Keep those carbon footprints growing! As long as companies are keeping customers happy, the spontaneous order will continue to displace the governments' central planners. The free market's decentralized invisible hand will continue to place ever-tighter limits on the government's centralized visible hand. If this takes a little extra carbon -- or extra nuclear power -- so be it. It is a small price to pay.

CONCLUSION

The Web is overcoming the Left. It is delivering information to customers and their servants, profit-seeking corporations. It is making it difficult for the government's bureaucrats to hide. Even Diane Feinstein is slowly catching on.

The mainstream media are fading in importance. They are being pushed out into the "long tail." Matt Drudge has more leverage than any television network -- surely more than CNN and MSNBC combined. The public has spoken.

It will continue to speak.

Happy Birthday, Web. May you have many more! 

Why Christianity Is At Peace with Free Markets

At the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, Tomas Salamanca wrote a piece entitled "Why Christianity Will Never Be At Peace with Free Markets." It claims that there are certain things in Christianity that are clearly incompatible. I write this piece not only to refute some of these claims but also to clear up some things and show that Christianity is in harmony with the free and unfettered market (not the fascist order we live in today, which is falsely connected with the free market).

Let's look at his first claim:

1. Other-Worldly focus: Christianity holds that the world we currently inhabit is an imperfect place where our souls are sternly tested in the quest for paradise after death, where our complete fulfillment awaits. Other-worldly concerns, it is true, are now less emphasized than they were prior to the 17-18th century Enlightenment period.  Christians today talk more about the dignity of the person and social justice in the here and now than they do about preparing for eternal life. Still, a regard for the next world lies in the background with respect to the charge that free markets encourage people to falsely place their happiness in material goods rather than spiritual values.

I will address this strong concern that Salamanca seems to have; that since Christianity focuses more on spiritual concerns than the concerns of this world, this would be in contradiction to the free market, since it is "worldly." This is one of two extremes: the glorification of the free market because it is materialistic (as for me, my view is that the free market is neither purely spiritual nor purely materialistic; it is neutral in a sense). The world we inhabit is an imperfect place, and that is something that almost everyone agrees on, even libertarians. I don't see how this dissuades us from a support for free markets, for free markets can do a lot of good through their voluntarism, their supply-and-demand mechanisms, their price systems, their utter lack of coercion and top-down central planning, and other glories of free markets. And as to the lack of emphasis on other-worldly concerns in our society, I hold that it has done a great deal of harm. While we are rightly concerned with how to improve this world until Jesus comes back, the lack of spiritual clarity has led to much harm, sometimes even leading for people to create heaven on earth through offensive and interventionist warfare, laws criminalizing immoral actions (such as drug usage, prostitution, sexual immorality, etc.), minimum wage laws, central banking, militarism, welfare statism, and worse. In fact, a focus on spiritual matters should lead us to support a free market, for is not statism in all forms an attempt to create a utopia that is virtually impossible? The kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18:36), and thus we should not attempt to make out a kingdom of God (though this does not in any way discount evangelization or repeal of unjust laws).

2. Solicitude for the Poor: While not necessarily closed off to the rich, Christianity offers a belief system that is especially appealing to the poor. After all, its promise of bliss in the next life enables the poor to accept their plight in this life, which is why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. It is no coincidence that Christianity originally grew mostly by gaining adherents among the urban proletariat in the Roman Empire. Inasmuch as the poor have been a key market segment, as it were, for Christianity, its theologians and priests have always had a strong motive to retain the loyalty of less advantaged groups by supporting political ideologies that seemingly favor the working classes. Add to this the cognitive bias that predisposes the mind to conclude that the way to make a poor person better off is by simply redirecting resources towards them from wealthier members of the community. The net result is the state of affairs that we’ve witnessed since the ascent of capitalism in the 19th century — that is, one in which any set of ideas that justifies restricting, or even abolishing, private property rights finds avid followers among Christianity’s most influential thinkers. 

This is also one issue that Christians, especially those of the libertarian and classical-liberal kind, had to struggle with. These Christians are ostracized by the likes of left-wing thinkers such as Jim Wallis for allegedly ignoring the poor people that are hurt by the evils of laissez-faire and greedy businessmen, while the evils of government's economic policies and interventionism is gleefully neglected. I will say this: poor people can be more receptive to the Gospel than rich people, for poor people seem not to focus as much on material goods as the middle-class and wealthy might. This is not an indictment of the free market, of capitalism, of the bourgeoise, of the middle class, of the upper class, or any thing of that sort. Rather, it is an honest acknowledgment as to why wealthy people often struggle with the Gospel. "After all, its promise of bliss in the next life enables the poor to accept their plight in this life, which is why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses." I will say that the promise of bliss in the next life is important, but not central in the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord of Life. It is the promise of unfettered fellowship with God, with fellow believers, and the presence of perfection in heaven that motivates many Christians to endure their sufferings and tribulations. 

As the Apostle Paul says:

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. 8 We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed— 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death is working in us, but life in you. (2 Corinthians 4:7-12, NKJV)

The Christian does not neglect the fact that the world is in peril, but rather he acknowledges that these sufferings are but sharing in the suffering of Christ. And even when we may feel discouraged and alone, we know that God is ultimately with us, and we have victory in Jesus Christ, for faith "is the victory that overcomes the world." (1 John 5:4) 

As to how this translates to the Christian reaction to the free market and political freedom, I believe that the use of these biblical doctrines to attack laissez-faire is a misguided attempt by Christians as it misses the whole point of the doctrine of suffering: to help us grow strong in our faith. And statism in the economic sector does not help the poor but rather hurts it. For the State's restrictions on markets restrict those who do not and are not able to follow its rules; for example, let's say that a poor man wants to start a business selling hoodies. But the government of the region he lives in restricts starting a business until a license is received. The poor man cannot pay for the license, since he has no money. So when he just sells it without official permission, the government steps in and shuts it down. If the poor man resisted, he would either be in prison or lying dead. And the minimum wage laws, which we are all told help the poor, are in actually shutting jobs out of the marketplace. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I could go on and on about the glories of free markets and the evils of statism, but others have went further into that, and they have showed that not only is capitalism compatible with the Gospel but also that laissez-faire is compatible too. I will delve into such topics in future articles and writings. But this is to show but a few examples in which interventionism is harmful for poor people. We also oppose the evil of refusing to give to the poor from one's own heart and pocket while lobbying for the government to support these old poor people. 

3. The Ethic of Self-Abnegation: The New Testament is pretty clear that we are obligated to overcome our selfish impulses and constantly help others with a self-denying love.  Free markets collide with this injunction by sanctioning the notion that people can legitimately interact with others via trade and exchange whenever it is in their self-interest to do so. Observing alongside the authority of Adam Smith that this pursuit of self-interest redounds to the public good does nothing to get around this fundamental opposition. For the Christian demand to love others involves a moral criterion that judges people on the purity of their intentions, rather than the over-all consequences of their actions.  Steve Jobs may have generated more prosperity than Mother Theresa, but a good Christian will insist upon the moral superiority of the latter because she consciously sacrificed herself to assist others.

This is one of the most complex arguments against the concept of the free market: that since it allegedly encourages selfishness through its promise of prosperity, it is in complete contradiction to the ethic of self-denying agape love that motivates one to give his life for Christ in the same way Christ gave His life for us (and for the whole world). This is false, as I will show, but it seems to resonate a lot with many Christians. The image of innovators, entrepreneurs, and capitalists advertising their goods and services through mass media and social media showing how good their goods and services are, and how terrible (or at the very least inferior) their competitors are is horrifying to many people. They see that the opposition to free markets is the opposition to immorality (in this case, competition). I argue that this is clearly not the case, for competition in the market not only improves people's lives through the improving of products for consumers but also it does so in a voluntary and moral way, not through coercion but through voluntary cooperation and individualism. While it is true that bad things would exist in the free market (things such as gambling, cigarettes, usury, trashy novels and movies, etc.), it is also true that the free market, when used for good purposes, outshines all methods (with the exception of voluntary charity) of attempts at doing good.

As to the issue with Steve Jobs and Mother Teresa, I will say this: while Mother Teresa did wonderful things for the poor and downcast, Steve Jobs (even if he was far from a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ) gave us innovative technologies such as the iPhone, the iPad, the Macintosh computer operating system, and other things. What is the point of this? Is not technology ruining us all? I would say that it is not the technology that is ruining us but rather the sinful nature of man. Other than that, it is a wonderful and glorious achievement on the part of Steve Jobs (as I, a former PC guy, have converted to owning an iMac). And Christians, while they are rightly concerned about proper motives and true love, are somewhat mistaken when they harp about how Steve Jobs is somehow inferior to Mother Teresa and to Christian missionaries simply because he was neither poor nor as sacrificial as she was. I say "Baloney!" to that. Steve Jobs, while he was not a Christian, wasn't a man who escaped risks, but rather he was an entrepreneur who took risks to bring us a wonderful technology that even with potential for abuse can be amazing and liberating.

Conclusion

The free market and Christianity are at peace with each other, in stark contrast to what Tomas Salamanca claims, and in contrast to the claims of both anti-Christian libertarians and anti-libertarian Christians. I have shown that the free market should not be shunned by the Church but rather accepted. I am not saying we should all become soulless materialists, but neither should we be socialistic and statist altruists who demonize successful people while celebrating (and sometimes idolizing) missionaries and ministers for being altruistic and giving up his wealth. 

The free market and the Gospel are complimentary and harmonious, despite what some will tell you to the contrary.

Some Resources on Christianity and the Free Market:

"The Myth of the Just Price" by Laurence M. Vance: This lecture refutes the "just price" theory that many Christians seem to hold and makes the biblical case for laissez-faire capitalism.
"Why Economics Should Be Important to Christians" by Shawn Ritenour: A Christian laissez-faire libertarian, Shawn Ritenour deals with the question of economics and Christianity, and he shows why they are both important.
"Profits and Morals: A Non-Catholic Assessment of Centesimus Annus" by Larry Reed: A non-Catholic Christian analyzes an important defense of free markets by Pope John Paul II.
"Christian Anti-Capitalism" by Laurence M. Vance: This review of a book entitled The Economy of Desire smashes some anti-capitalist myths told by Christians.
"Just Nonsense" by Laurence M. Vance: Laurence Vance reviews Ronald Sider's book Just Politics.
"The Source of All Blessings (And Curses)" by Gary North: Gary North refutes some Christian anti-capitalist nonsense.

Addendum: As a reminder to those who would point to the story of the rich young ruler as an example of biblical anti-capitalism, I would send them this excerpt from James Redford's long essay "Jesus Is An Anarchist" (which, while I am not an anarchist yet, I find interesting but have not read in the full):

Jesus on the Rich 

Jesus had this to say about the rich:Luke 18:18-30: Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother."' And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich. 

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And those who heard it said, "Who then can be saved?" But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed You." So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life." (See also Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31.)Some have given this as anti-libertarian commentary. But first of all, in analyzing this statement by Jesus it needs to be pointed out that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for any person whatsoever to enter the Kingdom of God. But Jesus also said that "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (verse 27). It is standard Christian doctrine that it is impossible for anyone to enter the Kingdom of God on their own--that the only way in which anyone enters the Kingdom of God is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ alone (see John 14:6). Thus, the rich are by no means unique in this particular aspect. And so also, from this alone it cannot be claimed that Jesus had it in for rich people per se more than any other group. 

Second, when Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact an exceedingly libertarian thing for Jesus to advise this person. For this was not just any kind of rich person--this was a rich person of a particular type: a ruler, i.e., one who has some variety of command over an Earthly, mortal government. And thus, the riches that this particular rich person was in possession of had been obtained through extortion and theft, i.e., by the threat and force of arms and might--this particular ruler's opinion to the contrary (verse 21) not withstanding scrutiny: almost no rulers throughout history have ever regarded their wealth as having been obtained through stealing:Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (St. Augustine, Book 4, Chapter 4 of The City of God.) 

Thus, when Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person, He was merely telling this person what any good libertarian would have said in the same situation--particularly a natural-rights libertarian such as a Rothbardian.