Someone noted the tension that exists in part 1 of this series between three different statements in the Catechism. The first is the fact that sometimes we are obliged to pay money for the goods we need. The second is that sometimes it is okay to simply take the goods we need. And the third is that the government has a right to regulate the right of private property for the common good.
The Catechism doesn’t resolve this tension by telling us when these different statements are applicable, but as I thought about it, I think I may be able to clarify matters a bit. I’d like to propose three different types of situations. Let’s call them Type A, B, and C.
Type A situations exists when the market is functioning normally, or at least when it is capable of functioning adequately. In other words, it is not a situation of market failure. In this situation, even if prices have spiked and people are under strain as a result, basic human needs are still being adequately met. (They are never perfectly met.)
This is the type of situation we want to be in, and in Type A situations you are morally obliged to pay money for the goods and services you need or want to have.
Type B situations exist when the market is no longer meeting basic human needs adequately. In this case, the government’s right to regulate private property becomes operative and some form of government intervention is warranted.
This is a less desirable situation than Type A because the government is nowhere near as efficient as the market in routing resources to where they need to be. The government simply does not have the knowledge that the market as a whole does.
The situation is analogous to that of the Blogosphere vs. one of the major media outlets. It doesn’t matter how much info CBS had; their handful of flawed employees simply couldn’t compete with the distributed knowledge of the Blogosphere, which was incredibly efficient in ripping apart a story that CBS wanted to push.
In a similar way, a handful of flawed government officials can never compete with the distributed knowledge of the Market when it comes to efficiently routing goods and services. When governments try to do this, they fail. As I said last time, that’s why Communism failed (and continues to fail).
Experience thus teaches that we don’t want to be in Type B situations. Government interventions in the market needs to be as limited and infrequent as possible–or at least that’s my opinion.
In reality, there is considerable room for divergence of opinion on this point. One reason for this is that there is no objective definition of what counts as meeting basic human needs "adequately" or even what basic human needs are. There is a tremendous grey zone in which different individuals can have different opinions about when government interventions are warranted.
That’s what politics is for.
When one is in a Type B situation, the general duty to obey the law means that one has an obligation to go along with the way the government is handling things. For example, if they have imposed a price cap on a service you offer (like renting hotel rooms), then you have to go along with that. If they have issued ration coupons to citizens then you have an obligation to only use the ration coupons that are legitimately yours (i.e., you can’t steal someone else’s; though you could trade things to get the coupons you want).
The goal of the government’s actions in a Type B situation should be to get us back into a Type A situation as swiftly and smoothly as possible so that individual initiative can again replace govenrment intervention, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity.
Type C situations occur when one cannot pay for what one needs and in which the government and other agencies (e.g., church relief organizations) cannot be counted upon to supply it either. In Type C situations it becomes morally legitimate to simply take things (or at least certain things) that one needs, and this is not the sin of theft. It also should not be classified as the civil crime of looting.
Type C situations are obviously the least desirable of all, for a great variety of reasons (among them the sheer danger that one is exposed to in having to take things against the will of their owners).
These three situations can all exist simultaneously in a country.
Right now, much of the U.S. economy is in a Type A situation. There are, however, some parts of it that are being run in a Type B manner, including parts of the city of New Orleans. In other parts of the same city, Type C situations exist.
How to handle oneself morally in a Type C situation is a topic of its own.
That’s the subject of the next post in this series.
Type C situations requires payment for the items taken if the needy is able to pay later in life.
I note that in New Orleans some looters ran away whenever the police showed up — until they learned the police were busy elsewhere — and some didn’t.
One suspects that some knew the differences between what they were doing and what they were entitled to.
Many of you probably saw the situation at the Convention Center this evening. I believe it was ABC doing the reporting. A woman was searching desperately for food, because diabetics were going into shock. As she was getting back to one of the women, she went into shock. Fortunately there was insulin found and a refugee nurse there to administer it. This saved the woman’s life. I really can’t believe this is happening in America. There are corpses lying on the side of highways and in shelters.
On top of this you have roaming gangs as Mary described inhibiting any efforts to save these poor people. Shock and disbelief don’t seem like adequate words to describe this.
In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean as a young man faced a Type B situation. Unfortunately, the government could not provide even basic means for his family to survive and then steals a loaf of bread to save his dying family.
Under the Type B situation, he is breaking the rule of Human Law, but is this permissible and not sinful?
Medical note:
Almost always, giving INSULIN — rather than FOOD — to a diabetic going into shock will KILL him, NOT save him, because a diabetic going into shock is almost always suffering from LOW blood sugar, NOT high blood sugar.
Pretty much the only way a diabetic going into shock would ever need insulin rather than food would be if he had either been gorging himself on sugar-rich foods without taking insulin (which almost never happens), or else if he had been deprived of insulin over a substantial period of time, allowing his blood sugar to build to dangerous levels.
In the case of a catastrophe like Katrina, where diabetics may have been caught without adequate provisions of insulin, it wouldn’t be surprising to find diabetics going into shock who need insulin.
In any other circumstance, though, food would be what’s needed. So if you happen to have a relative or neighbor who is diabetic, and if you should ever find him slumped over and unresponsive, try to get him a quick SUGAR rush — say, orange juice, or a banana. DO NOT try to give him insulin, because you’ll probably kill him.
I note that in New Orleans some looters ran away whenever the police showed up — until they learned the police were busy elsewhere — and some didn’t.
One suspects that some knew the differences between what they were doing and what they were entitled to.
Maybe. On the other hand, if I know I’m going to get arrested if caught whether I’m right or wrong, I might wait until the police aren’t there. For example, if I’m breaking into a store to get the only food that might be available for me and my family, I won’t accomplish that goal if stopped at gunpoint by a police officer.
Best Music Buys CD Search and Price Comparison
It’s generally considered one of the best albums in pop music history. For all that renown, Astral Weeks is anything but an archetypal rock & roll album: in…
Blame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime
Gay couples should be, should not be allowed to marry