My point is not that I necessarily am convinced of the insturmentalist theory, but only that one cannot resolve these questions easily by recourse to assertions about the “nature” of property or even to our core intuitions (eg theft is bad), given that differenting theories can account equally well for those intuitions but produce divergent results in other situations.

Under this view property is nothing more than a useful lie that we tell people because of its social benefits, but since we know that it is a lie, there is no problem with acting contrary to the concept of ownership and screwing a few chumps that bought into it as long as it will maximize overall pleasure/satisfaction.

I guess that it all boils down to a never ending deontologist vs. consequentialist argument.

Such an argument would account quite nicely for our common intuition that theft is wrong, in that theft would tend to undermine the property rights regime and lead to decreases in social welfare. On the other hand, the argument would also justify what amount to forced “sales” or transfers in situations where the costs of bargaining are very high, such as perhaps in cases of nuisance law, etc.

This essentially utilitarian account of property rights (deepened by a smattering of economic theory) would provide no traction to the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor so long as we were confident that such redistributions increased aggregate welfare, something which is almost certain if we make the quite plausible assumption that people have diminishing marginal utility for money.

Nate, I think you’ve employed a sleight of hand when you argue that “feed my sheep” should be understood as the equivalent of “ensure that my sheep are fed.” Arguing this equivalence is the burden of your hypothetical liberal, who must show that the relevant passages of scripture should be rewritten to focus on the outcome rather than personal duty. Making that argument is difficult, impossibly so in my mind, because every argument would apply equally to the parallel constructions like “love thy neighbor,” and “serve one another.” (I’m hoping that even hypothetical liberals are reluctant to use coercion to ensure that everyone is “loved” and “served.”)

As for property rights, it would be most instructive to try to figure out what system God had in mind when he commanded us not to steal. Because “stealing” is only coherent within a system of property rights, God implicitly revealed (1) that there is an ideal system of property rights independent of human laws, or (2) that Israelite property laws reflect God’s ideal system, or (3) that no matter what system of property laws a society adopts, it is a grievous sin to violate them.

Finally, I should point out that I interpret our moral duties toward our neighbors as strenuously as any liberal I know. For my personal views, see my comments on this thread from the early days of T&S. Some of my representative comments are at:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000205.html#comment-11981
http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000205.html#comment-11984
http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000205.html#comment-12021
http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000205.html#comment-12023
http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000205.html#comment-12031

“What really matters is that the poor are taken care of,” or “what really matters is that we do everything in our power to take care of the poor.”

Matters to whom? Nothing matters, unless it matters to someone or to something.

Obviously, having food and shelter (regardless of the source) will matter more to the poor.

Doing our best to help the poor will matter more to our own souls.

But as Nate pointed out, doing the best we can may involve more than a generous and friendly hand to needy people within our immediate reach. Living in a Democratic society that allows freedom of speech and assembly, gives us power that our predecessors never had. The parable of the talents comes to mind. If God expects us to give of our time and money and talents in behalf of our less fortunate brothers and sisters, then why would God not also expect us to use our vote, our freedom, and our power to influence others for the same righteous ends?

For example, we don’t see many starving people in America, but how many people do we see in misery because of unemployment? How many of us have the capacity to help one of these people to get a job? What about putting pressure on a few cities for public transportation to help those who can’t afford cars or gas to actually be able to support their families? This is just one example. I’m sure that everyone can think of some ideas that would do more for the needy, for less money, than putting food in their hand from day to day.

The principle of Subsidiarity helps to mitigate some of the differences that may exist in common sense, but when I am referring to common sense I am meaning the sense of right and wrong that is common among mankind.

Lewis explains in Mere Christianity that

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right….

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to–whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
…
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.

Then in the Appendix to the Abolition of Man, to which he refers, Lewis explains:

I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it.

That is why Jefferson referred to certain truths as “self-evident.”

The fact is that neither you or Nate will deny that stealing is wrong, or that people deserve just compensation for services. One can navigate the subtleties of metaphysics and come up with some kind of definition of property to try to justify what common sense would call stealing, or to rename black to white, but, while people make mistakes, for the most part we all know what is just and what is not, and it is upon that innate knowledge that good government is built.

Pre-1960′s, people knew that race discrimination was wrong, just as the Nazis at some level knew that what they were doing was wrong, they justified their actions with rationalization contrary to their innate morality.

So to bring the conversation back to my original assertion. The forced redistribution of wealth is wrong because it is a form of stealing. It is the poor wielding the force of government to plunder the rich and is malum in se as they say.

I hope that the mom at least gets her act together and gets a job soon. I don’t like being resentful against people I basically like. There *are* jobs here, and I’m quite sure many potential employers will sympathize with her because of how this cruel and sadistic President has personally and deliberately persecuted her.

Am I judging them? Yeah. I know I am.

I thought my position on that question would have been made clear. But you’re quite right that I didn’t answer this particular question directly. In the spirit of clarity …

My killing someone to provide a kidney is wrong (and you’d better be prepared to do this or the threat isn’t credible, and therefore useless). I wouldn’t do it. Should a government be able to do it? I would want to put in place a process where that outcome was as unlikely as I could make it. But my point was that you get to choose processes not outcomes. People empowered to choose outcomes have a special name: dictators.

I think you will always run the risk of a government that runs amok (unless you eschew government entirely). As George Washington wisely put it: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” But despite his fear of government, experience that dwarfs yours and mine, and myriad opportunities, Washington was wise enough never to ordain outcomes, as you are implicitly suggesting here: he recognized the devious seed of tyranny when he saw it.

As a practical matter, any government powerful enough to do the things most people want (provide currency, protect property rights, protect the other rights of citizens, etc.) is powerful enough to do many bad things as well. But from your statements, I wonder if you don’t even want a government powerful enough to do those things. Good luck in that world. I have a feeling you would not find it such a friendly place as you seem to imagine. I hope your neighbors would band together, but I hope they wouldn’t band together against you.

Jaffa
read a little here
outline of the Tao