Whither Economic Justice?

Is there such a thing as economic justice?  On the outset, it seems that there is, but if we dig down deep, there are more questions than answers.

Let's take the position of the economic left.  The left desires economic equality.  The most extreme version is communism where the state strongarms everyone into possessing exactly the same things and in equal amounts.  But such a vision for the economy assumes that all humanity is exactly alike.  God created each of us differently and uniquely, and that includes our needs as well.  Some of us express a demand for sausage pizza while others overwhelmingly prefer pepperoni.  For the state to mandate us to have only sausage,  only pepperoni, or a half pepperoni/half sausage is a waste of resources.  Thus, we need the market to allocate goods and services in order that those who want pepperoni get pepperoni, and those who want sausage get sausage.

Furthermore, economic equality among people cannot be defined relative to each other's economic statuses, because each economic status is relative.  Of course, it'd be nice if everyone's income can be equalized to $1,000,000 a year, but to do that, you need all nations and all governments to force it to happen.  In other words, there must be no available recourse for anyone who wishes to shirk their duty from doing so.  If every country is Communist except for China, then all the wealthiest (i.e. those making significantly more than $1M a year) will flock to China. China, now flush with capital and financial power, now has the incentive to ensure that every other country remains impoverished in their communism in order that it can enjoy most of the wealth.  Thus, communism fails because it can only work when everybody is committed to it.

Let's now take the position of the economic right.  The right desires economic individualism.  The most extreme version is anarchy where everyone is allowed to employ any and all means possible in order to gain competitive advantage.  This includes terrorism, extortion, murder, torture (why not?) and other social Darwinistic actions.  Sure, it may be unethical and unseemly, but "you gotta do whatcha gotta do to survive."  It's a cruel world, right?   But with this anarchic antinomianism, we run into precisely the same philosophical problem with communism, namely that what's just is entirely relative.  Sure, for me to cause a competitor's factory to explode is unjust to the competitor, but it's surely sweet justice to me!  Whose justice shall be used to evaluate other forms of it?

Of course, the ideal solution, if there is one, to economic justice is rooted in Aquinas' thought, which is to moderate somewhere between these two extremes.  Government regulation is necessary to, at minimum, pin down a definition of justice  so market players can evaluate their actions according to it.  The extent to which the government regulates the market, however, is a topic of fierce debate.  After all, a game needs some rules so that people can play it.  But too many rules and the game stops becoming fun and nobody participates.  So where do we draw the line?  But at the same time, sociological research has shown that wide income disparities decrease happiness among the general populace.  Indeed, one can claim that we have inbuilt within us a sense of knowing when certain estates are simply grossly unfair.  Of course, the difference between six-figure and seven-figure earners matter little if society is comprised of only those two income brackets, but when the range widens to a low of four or low-five figures and highs of 9, 10, or even 11 figure incomes, something within us just cringes... (or maybe it's just me).  Indeed, to use the game analogy, it won't be long before people refuse to play if the same person keeps winning.

So what is economic justice?  A working definition, perhaps, is that economic justice provides for an opportunity where everyone can participate meaningfully in the markets in such a way that all participants fulfill their purposes in life.  But this is a tenuous definition, because it assumes that those who are wealthy are called to it, while there are those who are called to be poor.  Being called to be wealthy is really easy to claim.  So it can only remain a working definition because somehow we need to make it so that being called to be wealthy is as difficult as being called to be poor.

Thus far we have only discussed the complexity behind economic discussions.  But perhaps an interesting venue for further thought is to view economics as religion. When we view economics as religion and see the parallels between the two, perhaps a Christian understanding of justice can offer insights into the economic vision for justice.

(to be continued)