Markets, Free and Rigged

Written by Douglas Wilson

Thursday, 29 November 2012 14:22

I have a lot to say about this, and will no doubt be getting into much more of it in the months to come, but for the present let me just say what it is I have a lot to say about. I say this so that those Christians who think that Romans 13 was assembled out of railroad ties will resolve to think through the issues more carefully.

Wisdom is learning to live in conformity with the way the universe actually is. Folly is the attempt to bend the universe to flatter your desires. Godly wisdom is understanding that the universe is the way it is because the Creator God made it that way.

Congress has the authority to require certain things of us. But Congress does not have the authority to require other things of us. Congress does not have the authority to be try to remake the universe. Among other things, however broad a mandate they believe themselves to have, they do not have the authority to repeal the law of noncontradiction, the law of gravity, or the law of supply and demand. I would probably get (at least among Christians) broad agreement on the first two points, and widespread confusion on the third.

Because of this, I am simply going to state my bottom line conclusion now, with a commitment to follow it up with more detailed posts later. As we head deeper into the madness of socialism, we need to swear off any use of the phrase "black market." There is no such thing as a black market. There are free markets and there are rigged markets. Those who rig the markets with their guns and lies try to rig them further by describing the free markets as being black markets. To the extent that you call them that also, you have joined forces with the oppression.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Eric Stampher - Their black is our white

Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:51 pm

So you're saying the real "black" marketing your going with is interference? Interference of free exchanges? Mostly by mafias or governments?

Reminds me Milton Friedman's love of the supposedly dastardly illegal immigrant labor. Folks freely engaging in wanted work for cash. That is, until government inserted taxpayer benefits.

katecho

Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:11 pm

The case of illegal immigration is an interesting one though. That is a "black" market that the government is not highly motivated to interfere with. They realize that they can collect tax revenue (and votes?), today, as fuel for their socialist promises, and they don't have to worry about paying back any social security benefits to those "illegals!"

Another related "black" market is recreational drug trade. That market is quickly being whitened so that it can be taxed and legitimized through regulation.

Gerv - What is a black market?

Friday, November 30, 2012 6:29 am

At least here in the UK, the phrase "black market" refers to the market in goods on which duty has not been paid. Is that a definition you'd recognise?

A set of rules for Methodists in the UK in the 18th century was recently brought to my attention, and among other things it said this:

"It is therefore expected of all who continue [in the Methodists] that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

1. By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced such as:

...

C. Doing no harm to the government and leaders
1. The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty.
..."

At least historically, then, some Christians have taken the view that black markets, in the non-duty-paid sense, are to be avoided, presumably as an outworking of Romans 13. Would you disagree?

Eric Stampher - There's a new Caesar in town

Friday, November 30, 2012 7:26 am

Gerv,

You're asking the right questions.
Add to them. who is Caesar? Anyone who makes the claim to your duty? Or must a greedy, grasping government be rightly constituted to have a right to all your money?

Once the powers lose the compliance of the religious, black will be the new white.

Gerv	Friday, November 30, 2012 10:05 am

But the argument "this government can no longer be considered legitimate" is a different argument to "I am entitled to ignore this legitimate government's claims to duty on this particular item". If Doug wants to make the first argument, he should make it - with support. But he seems to be making the second one, and I'm asking about how he supports _that_.

Matt Weber

Friday, November 30, 2012 8:53 am

I don't get it. A black market is an illicit market of some kind, either because it is structured to get around the rules or because it is involved with trading an illicit good. An example of the first would be a black market in rubber or something during WW2. An example of the latter is child pornography.

Matthew N. Petersen

Friday, November 30, 2012 11:33 am

Are you seriously suggesting that I should go out and buy pot on the free market, rather than obeying the government and paying taxes in Washington?

Or that I should smuggle tobacco in from Cuba?

It definitely sounds like you're angling for insurrection. (Though I shouldn't be surprised since essentially, that was your point about Obamacare too--you seem to think we are morally obligated to support various means of insurrection.)

katecho

Friday, November 30, 2012 12:53 pm

Doug doesn't mention taxes. I don't think his lead in has to do with resisting taxes, but in resisting the government's general manipulation of supply and demand. The government may wish to promote the idea that those who don't stick closely with the rest of the consumer herd are somehow participating in something "black" and illicit. Doug seems to be suggesting that we should not moo to that moosic.

Toby Wilson

Friday, November 30, 2012 1:33 pm

How about this way of looking at it:

Anything that is actually wrong could be categorized under something else, so that the category of "Black Market" is an unnecessary term that distracts from the real issue. Furthermore, it is a term that has historically been used by folks who were intent on justifying all the abuses of the messianic state.

So instead of "the black market in X," we should ask whether "X" is a thing that is inherently wrong. The "black market" in raw milk is a great example of the abuse of this term in order to try and demonize an economic activity that is otherwise good and should be left alone by the damned messianic state.

If we say instead, "the black market in human trafficking" (or in bestiality brothels) then we have an activity that is evil (and criminal) regardless of the by-your-leave of civil government. The issue is not whether a market is government approved, but whether an activity can otherwise be rightly called criminal.

Christians have allowed secularists to define our terms and shape the parameters of debate for so long that we don't even realize that acceptance of a term like "black market" amounts to giving away the store.

katecho

Friday, November 30, 2012 1:52 pm

Well said. I think Toby has captured the theme from several angles. Ultimately it's about propaganda, and who defines the terms.

Timothy Murray

Friday, November 30, 2012 2:10 pm

I share Toby Wilson's sentiment.

John Wycliffe dealt in illicit wares in clear opposition to the ruling authorities and the fruit of his crime informs our arguments today.http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html

Matt Weber

Friday, November 30, 2012 2:03 pm

Quote:

Christians have allowed secularists to define our terms and shape the parameters of debate for so long that we don't even realize that acceptance of a term like "black market" amounts to giving away the store.

You can say that again. This one still doesn't realize it. Black market seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable term that applies to a legitimate phenomenon.

Is there an etymological argument forthcoming here? Are we to learn that "Black Market" was originally coined by Trotsky, and applied to the illicit Soviet trade in blue jeans or something?

If the point is merely that what is described as "black market" need not be a bad thing, then success! Everyone already agrees. In North Korea, there is a thriving black market in vegetables, with no condemnation from liberals here in the US. Closer to home, the black markets in alcohol during Prohibition are viewed in a quasi-heroic light by modern day liberals, or at the least a rational response to a bad policy. Even closer, people who oppose drug laws, sometimes liberal, don't think black markets in drugs are a bad thing.

Toby Wilson

Friday, November 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Matt, all I mean is that "Black Market" is a term of sophistry more than substance, one that particularly serves advocates of the messianic state.

Here's how I see that sophistry working:

1. "Black Market" begins as a term that means any economic trade not approved by the civil government.

2. Since a lot of economic trades that are not approved of by the civil government (e.g., human trafficking, etc.) are rightly considered criminal behaviors in and of themselves, the term "Black Market" begins to mean "economic trade in truly criminal activity."

3. From there, the clever sophist parlays this into: any market the government doesn't approve of must be bad/wrong/evil/truly criminal. Which is the way "Black Market" is normally used today.

Because of the working relationship between this sophistry, the feeble-mindedness of many Christians, and the cowardice of most pastors to address such issues, we have people in the pews who believe that it's wrong to buy or sell raw milk just because government calls such trade "the Black Market."

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Friday, November 30, 2012 2:48 pm

Oooh. See, here is where I disagree.

This discussion is way too abstract and generic. There is no such thing as a pure free market: there are actual markets.

This is a bit of an introduction to properly conservative thinking on that. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/10/29/back-to-the-stone-age-iic/ Here is one of the conclusions:

"Once a market become institutionalized, they can never be entirely free, because the owners and regulators will always seek to maximize their own revenues and those of their friends, relations, allies, and fellow-citizens."

What I think Douglas Wilson wants is markets that are properly lawful, not free markets. And lawful markets will have laws placed on them, or they will not really be markets but a kind of competitive brigandry that is "free" but not lawful or really all that useful.

Toby Wilson

Friday, November 30, 2012 4:52 pm

Michael,

So if the activity itself (producing, packaging, and drinking raw milk) is not inherently wrong, and neither party is coercing or cheating the other (the milk isn't cut 50% with water), what business does the government have being involved in it?

I'm no secular libertarian, but frankly I look like one these days because most Christians think like statists of one stripe or another.

From a Christian standpoint, government does not have the authority to regulate human action. It only has authority to punish actual crimes--and only those things that are crimes from a Biblical perspective, not whatever the magistrate's boogeyman of the week is. Regulation is the road to tyranny.

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Friday, November 30, 2012 6:44 pm

I'm not a classical liberal, I'm a traditionalist conservative.

Considering the state or local magistrate is providing the currency, guarding the market from brigands, judging lawsuits over fraud, of course it arrogates to itself authority to govern the participants in the market, or charge them tolls and taxes.

This does not mean that any regulation is justified, but I don't truck with the Enlightenment notion that presumes either that men or angels or that a market makes them so.

If you like anarchy, go to another shop.

Jonathan - re:

Friday, November 30, 2012 9:43 pm

Toby Wilson wrote:

From a Christian standpoint, government does not have the authority to regulate human action. It only has authority to punish actual crimes--and only those things that are crimes from a Biblical perspective, not whatever the magistrate's boogeyman of the week is. Regulation is the road to tyranny.

I don't think there's any such clear "Christian" or "Biblical" standpoint on what a secular government can and can not do. Trying to claim that a single out-of-context passage in a single Pauline letter thus justifies a universal argument-from-omission is pretty much a case study in Biblical misinterpretation. I believe that we, as followers of Christ, should work extremely hard for justice, for peace, for love, for truth, for the spreading of the gospel - and I believe that, within a democratic government, we should advance those things just as much as we do in the rest of our lives. Of course, there are certain principles that come to greater prominence (I don't think it is right to force or compel belief in the gospel in my personal relationships, so I also don't believe we should do so via government). But I don't see any evidence that the Bible tells us a list of things that secular governments can and cannot do, except that they, like everything else, are still subject to the power of God.

And, on an entirely different note, I think the catchphrase "regulation is the road to tyranny" is quite untrue.

Toby Wilson

Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:07 am

Michael,

Before I go further, I want to make clear agree that there are no such things as free markets (except in Euclid-land, where all the planes and lines have no thickness). I wasn't trying to advocate that. I'm saying that government does not have a role in managing markets beyond the punishment of actual crimes. Punishment of crimes does alter the market--no bestiality brothels and such--but it does not "regulate" otherwise legitimate activity.

We must keep in mind that the magistrates actions are judgments. Regulations amount to judgments against some party by the magistrate. Even if we might not agree on what the Bible considers criminal, surely we can agree that magistrates ought not render judgment against someone who is not committing a crime.

I don't know why you keep trying to label me an anarchist. I have not remotely advocated any such thing. I believe in the reality of civil law, and the power of the magistrate to enforce. I simply think those laws ought to coincide with, and be limited to, some kind of Biblical standard. Again, we may disagree on the particulars of that standard, but my beef with many Christians is that they don't even want to start the discussion from the point of view of seeking to discover a Biblical standard.

Now to your most recent comments:

1. Why should the state have the power to "provide" the currency, as you put it? Especially, why should the state have the power of creating a legal monopoly for itself in the realm of money (through legal tender laws)?

2. I believe that there can be legitimate taxation, but whatever that is, it's a sight less taxation than we have now.

3. I think you meant to say "men are angels." My comments assume that, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. The Founding Fathers didn't think men could be made angels by the market either, but many of their views on this are very similar to my own. If you read the Virginia debates regarding ratification of the Constitution, you can get a pretty good idea of Patrick Henry's views. My own are quite similar to his. Limited civil government under King Jesus, with the belief that the Bible has authoritative things to say in this realm of human life. Hardly anarchism.

4. Finally, do you really think America is in any danger of too little civil government? Come on, you sound like the poster child for Wilson's argument that folks are always worried about falling into the ditch on the OTHER side of the road, rather than the ditch that two of their tires are already in.

-tob

Toby Wilson

Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:22 am

Jonathan,

I’m going to break your paragraph down into smaller chunks and try to deal with them a point at a time as best I can.

Jonathan wrote: “I don't think there's any such clear "Christian" or "Biblical" standpoint on what a secular government can and can not do.”

No offense, but how much time have you spent trying to discover such a thing? There are more than a couple of good books on this, you know. Reading Kuyper’s Stone Lectures is probably not the worst place to start. I’m a little leery of getting into this too deeply because I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that the Bible doesn’t speak to these things at all, or is not authoritative in this area? Do you mean that the Bible does speak to civil government authoritatively but that the particular applications of Scripture in this area are debatable? Anyhoo, your statement implies to me that you either disagree with, or are ignorant of, the massive amount of Reformed scholarship in this area. If you disagree with it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to persuade you if Kuyper can’t.

Jonathan wrote: “Trying to claim that a single out-of-context passage in a single Pauline letter thus justifies a universal argument-from-omission is pretty much a case study in Biblical misinterpretation.”

OK, I admit it. I have no idea what you’re referring to with this statement. I don’t recall making any claims about any particular passage. The only reference Pastor Wilson made was to Romans 13, but he just mentioned it in passing, and didn’t try to build any kind of case from it. If you’ll show me what passage I tried to build a case from then I’ll be happy to respond. (That last sentence looks fairly sarcastic in print, but I don’t mean it that way.)

Jonathan wrote: “I believe that we, as followers of Christ, should work extremely hard for justice, for peace, for love, for truth, for the spreading of the gospel - and I believe that, within a democratic government, we should advance those things just as much as we do in the rest of our lives.”

I call bullshit (or if you prefer the Greek, skubalon) on this one. First, all those abstract terms (truth, justice, and the American way—that one is sarcasm) need to be defined before I could even agree on whether we ought to work extremely hard for them. They OUGHT to be defined Scripturally and specifically. Furthermore, that tricksy transitive verb (love) is going to need an object.

Throwing around nice words is no more helpful than throwing around pejoratives like “black market.” Someone has to define those words in order for them to become social policy. I’m arguing that our goal should be to find out what the Bible says about those things—in the details—and seek to live in submission to God in those details.

The problem with “advance those things” in a democratic society is that it turns into coercion and force awfully fast. By the way, would you advocate advancing those things through a monarchy? Is it OK to coerce people by popular vote but not by kingly decree? What does “advance” mean? Does it mean legislate by force? Fine. By what standard ought we to determine what government will compel others to do? I believe that a law against bestiality advances the Kingdom of God in society, but I believe it for specific Biblical reasons, not just because it grosses me out. On the other hand, folks who want to make raw milk illegal would argue that they’re doing it “out of love” and “for the children,” but I have yet to even hear one of them try to make a case from Scripture for such tyranny.

It’s easy to nitpick someone else’s position, but what basis for civil government and social policy would you offer? If you agree that it should be Scripture, then we’re just quibbling over the details of interpretation and application. If you think it ought to be some other standard, then we’re having a different kind of discussion.

Jonathan said: “Of course, there are certain principles that come to greater prominence (I don't think it is right to force or compel belief in the gospel in my personal relationships, so I also don't believe we should do so via government).”

So is the standard of biblically limited government: what I don’t think is right to force or compel in my personal relationships? Seriously? I’m shocked you were willing to publicly admit such a thing.

Jonathan said: “But I don't see any evidence that the Bible tells us a list of things that secular governments can and cannot do, except that they, like everything else, are still subject to the power of God.”

Again, have you spent any time looking for such a thing, or do you have presuppositions that mitigate the possibility of the existence of such a thing? If the government is subject to the power of God, how are we supposed to know whether it is in submission to that power unless the Bible tells us? I’m not saying that the process of determining a Scriptural view of what government can do is easy-peasy. I’m saying that, with Spirit-led hard work it is possible, AND that a lot of folks smarter than I am have already done a lot of that work. Furthermore, even after we have done the work, we may still disagree on the details. That’s OK. The point is that we earnestly seeking to submit ourselves to the Will of God in the realm of civil government. As it stands today, most Christians either act like God doesn’t have a say in the matter, or deny that He has spoken to the issue in any definitive way.

Can a government execute people who have red hair willy-nilly? Why not? Is there a list in Scripture that precludes governmental gingercide? If not then, hey-ho, let’s get on with the pogrom!

Jonathan, if you think God says something is wrong for the government to do, then does that information derive from Scripture (rather than feelings, mob-rule, or somebody’s private “revelation”, etc.)? If you believe that it DOES derive from Scripture, then you must hold that we can determine from Scripture what that wrong thing is.

If we can determine from Scripture what that particular wrong this is (gingercide, in this case), then we have at least ONE item for our list of things civil government can’t do according to the Bible. If we can’t determine that it’s wrong from the Scripture, then the alternative will be some damnable form of tyranny.

Jonathan said: “And, on an entirely different note, I think the catchphrase "regulation is the road to tyranny" is quite untrue.”

So? Says who? Do you even have a working definition of tyranny? Is there any interference of civil government that you would consider to be too much?

Regulations are judgments against somebody. They must be. They regulate behavior by either prohibiting, or requiring conformity to, particular actions by particular people. In our country health insurance providers are prohibited from operating outside of their individual states. This is a judgment against them, limiting where and with whom they can do business. Is selling health insurance a crime, or wrong in some way? If not, then whence the justification for judgment against them?

On the other hand, if regulations prevent fraud (for instance), then what are they but judgments against an activity that is already inherently wrong and criminal? Such a thing is not really a regulation of the market (even if we call it such), it’s just a law against a particular kind of theft.

If regulations are not judgments against activity that is already criminal then they are tyranny.

Even if you disagree with me on what should be a crime or not, surely we can agree that government should only punish people who are guilty of crimes. Regulations on otherwise lawful activity simply punish the innocent.

Birken Vogt

Saturday, December 01, 2012 6:26 am

The questions to be asked in these libertarian vs. statist debates is, where does the governmnet derive its authority to punish transgression of the rule in question? (It has to be in the Bible.) And what would be a just punishment for that transgression? (It has to be in the Bible.)

It has to be in there explicitly or deduced by good and necessary consequence. If not, how can it be other than tyranny?

Michael Brendan Dougherty - re:

Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:31 am

Toby,

I appreciate this. Although I've been jammed up and may not be able to respond to each point properly, I'll try.

Toby Wilson wrote:

Michael,

1. Why should the state have the power to "provide" the currency, as you put it? Especially, why should the state have the power of creating a legal monopoly for itself in the realm of money (through legal tender laws)?

2. I believe that there can be legitimate taxation, but whatever that is, it's a sight less taxation than we have now.

3. I think you meant to say "men are angels." My comments assume that, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. The Founding Fathers didn't think men could be made angels by the market either, but many of their views on this are very similar to my own. If you read the Virginia debates regarding ratification of the Constitution, you can get a pretty good idea of Patrick Henry's views. My own are quite similar to his. Limited civil government under King Jesus, with the belief that the Bible has authoritative things to say in this realm of human life. Hardly anarchism.

4. Finally, do you really think America is in any danger of too little civil government? Come on, you sound like the poster child for Wilson's argument that folks are always worried about falling into the ditch on the OTHER side of the road, rather than the ditch that two of their tires are already in.

-tob

1) Well, for one reason it is quite effective for public order. It is much better to have a universal currency in our nation than to have banks that issue currency dying out and people left with notes they can never exchange. Of course the government may mismanage our currency - it may be doing so now. But almost no one can argue that the dollar has been an inefficient medium of exchange compared to the notes that circulated in the frontier west prior to the dollar.

2) Agreed.

3) I disagree when Henry, as I'm more in the Filmer, Burke and Adams tradition on what I think the role of government is.

4) I think we are in danger of very poorly distributed government. We have far too little of it where we should, and far too much of it where we shouldn't. A lack of government afflicts our borders. An unbelievable excess afflicts our health care.

But I would say that I think governments can, will, and probably should have a role in regulating the market. It is much better to have rules that prevent most fraud before it has to reach a judge. One reason for this is that if the government that protects and facilitates commerce is careless about preventing people from being cheated, or demanding that they seek the police or a judge to set aright many of their transactions - well, then, you have a bad government, and a civil order that no one can respect.

Sometimes there are things that remain public goods even in private markets. When Venice regulated the design on gondolas, they did so because it was important to the city's tradition, it was part of its patrimony - which itself had economic value to the city. I'm fine with such regulation which would technically violate our "rights" as they are now conceived - because (like you presumably ) I don't believe in human rights, per se - the Bible talks more specifically about human wrongs. In that case, no one has a right to willy-nilly destroy the patrimony of their polis, just for novelty or temporary personal gain. We're all custodians.

As a Catholic, I also believe in the Social Kingship of Christ - that is why I'm skeptical of the theories of governments put forward by rapidly secularizing Congregationalists a few centuries ago.

I think government is not a science where people can simply derive the right answer directly from what are ultimately abstract questions of theological ones: it is a more difficult art. That is why we need wisdom, not a raw philosophy that is now 3 centuries out of date.

I doubt we're going to resolve this, easily.

Toby Wilson

Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:17 am

Michael,

I appreciate your comments greatly. I'm not in a position to make a lot of comments at the moment, but just wanted to say thanks and let you know that I'll be getting back to your points at a later time.

I'm unfamiliar with "the Social Kingship of Christ." I'll read up a bit before I reply again. In the meantime if you have a link to a site that you believe is representative of this perspective let me know.

-tob

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:56 am

Toby,

"The Social Kingship of Christ" is a big topic, and the subject of a lot of debate between Catholics. But the bare gist of it is this (which I'm quoting from elsewhere):

"When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well ordered discipline, peace and harmony.” Christ’s reign affects every aspect of our lives as Pius XI says: “if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from His empire.” Thus, just as Christ’s law and kingship cannot be excluded from the public functioning of governments and the making of laws affecting education and marriage, so too it cannot be dismissed from business affairs, whether of individuals or collective associations." End quote

That is to say that Christ is Lord over everything, individuals, nations, businesses - nothing is exempt from his dominion. My guess is that most Calvinists will agree with this point.

Timothy Murray

Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:35 pm

This 'mere Christian' agrees and rejoices to read such words as they express who we are and our proper relation to one another.

When such words are banned, will you obey the government that bans them? Or, will you deal in the 'black market of Christian thought?'

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Sunday, December 02, 2012 3:18 pm

I pray for the courage to obey the Lord. Just because I agree with St. Paul and not mid-century libertarians that civil government is legitimate, doesn't mean I accept that everything they do is such.

I doubt the words will be banned. The government is probably not going to come crashing through our churches with guns and shooting the praise and worship bands, that would actually backfire.

Instead we'll just get more and more things like the contraception mandate, which doesn't ban Catholicism per se, but bans Catholics from running hospitals, schools, and colleges according to the teachings of the Church. It also incidentally bans Catholics from running their businesses according to our conscience as well. They will do what all the most devious persecutors did: increase the price of discipleship, make you choose between providing for your family or obeying the Lord. This is a test none of us should wish on ourselves.

Zachary Graves

Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:53 pm

An associate of mine poses the following question:
"A black market is one that trades in goods or services presently illegal, and in my view has never involved a moral judgement, simply a statement of fact. Either a transaction is legal, or it is not. Whether it is moral is independent. A truly free market is one where the participants need not operate in fear of discovery by the government. A black market may operate on free market principles, but the necessity of operating in secret and in fear of discovery and associated punitive action, in my view, means it cannot be called free. A point of comparison would be underground or secret churches operating in countries where Christianity is banned or oppressed by the state. I don't think calling a church forced to operate in secret an underground or secret church is a negative judgement, just a statement of how the church is currently operating. Church history is a long one where being in the moral and legal right did not always coincide."

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll