Letting Christian theology shape our politics: the Christian tradition and property Part 3
Many of the early church fathers, such as Ambrose and Augustine, argued that private property, like civil government, was a result of the fall. They believed that God had given material resources to human beings in common, and that individual persons would only have possessed such resources under the principle of stewardship. According to that principle, how I use my possessions for the good of others is just as important as my right to use those possessions in the first place.
Later Christian theologians muddied the waters, and with the rise of the market economy and the beginnings of what became capitalism these theologians articulated careful justifications for the idea of property. But even then both scholars and pastors consistently emphasized the obligations of property owners more than their rights. The commandment ‘you shall not steal’ was always explained in light of the teachings of Jesus not simply as a prohibition of someone taking my property, but as a requirement that I use my property to serve the needs of others. This is a matter of justice (giving another his or her due), not simply “charity.” (See Post 1, Post 2, and also a complementary post by Brad Littlejohn.)
Now in all of this I have said very little about civil government. Yet it is fascinating to see that virtually all of those who objected to what I have written in one way or another engages the issue on a political – or specifically an Americanized political – level. Very few critics actually engaged the substance of the Christian tradition. Many American Christians, it seems, even those most worried about nefarious doctrines like that of the two kingdoms, don’t like having their modern assumptions about property and the poor tested by the actual substance of Christian theology. They judge Christian theology from the perspective of their American political convictions, rather than the other way around (though they often baptize their political convictions as Christian in the process).
Let me give two examples:
1) In contrast to the Christian tradition, which has generally viewed both property and civil government as good but as the results of the Fall, American Christians tend to view civil government as highly suspect and private property as nothing less than sacred. And although there is a general consensus that God appointed civil government as his minister to enforce – i.e., coerce – justice, there is a marked reluctance to view government as having even the right (i.e., authority) to tax property holders for the sake of ensuring justice for the poor.
Note, this objection is not simply an objection to the manner in which government is using tax revenues to protect the poor. There are plenty of good Christian reasons, for instance, to oppose communism or even socialism on the grounds that 1) they do not work; 2) they are often destructive of civil society; and 3) they hurt the very poor they are trying to help. But many libertarians will not even allow us to consider or debate the best ways in which government should help the poor. They question the notion that government should help the poor at all because they reject the Christian notion that an individual’s property rights are qualified by the more basic rights of the community or in particular of the needy.
2) Many American Christians believe whether or not a person is poor should be determined based on that person’s income or possessions. On that basis, they say, there are virtually no poor people in America, and there are certainly no responsible people who are poor. But this assumption is hardly biblical (not to mention the fact that it ignores the fact that the reason there are so few poor in America is because government helps those who would otherwise be poor). In Scripture the concept of the poor is much broader than an assessment of economic resources suggests. The poor are those who are 1) oppressed or vulnerable to oppression; 2) excluded from meaningful participation in the community; 3) lacking the basic resources necessary for life. The specific examples Scripture often provides of those who are poor are slaves, immigrants, women without husbands, and children without fathers.
Now anyone remotely familiar with American society knows that these groups make up a significant percentage of the American population. While many of the “widows and fatherless” in our society are what they are because they’ve been abandoned by irresponsible men rather than because those men died, that hardly changes their basic plight. The poor are still with us (as Jesus said they would be), and it is good that our government seeks to protect them.
Now none of this dictates that any particular policy or program is the appropriate way to protect or help the poor. Civil government should not be equated with civil society (or the rights of the community and the poor), and the first level of support for the poor and for one another should come through the organic structures of civil society. This is a fundamental point needing recognition in a society that wants to be free, and a point often ignored by well-meaning folks on the Left. But I also believe government has a responsibility to make sure this happens, and it seems, increasingly, as if this point is acknowledged by fewer and fewer on the Right (to their own political and moral disadvantage).
It is true that many government programs designed to protect or help the poor have actually done them great harm. Dependency is never a good thing, and America seems to be becoming an increasingly dependent society. But the dependent, contrary to popular perception, are not simply the poor. Most of the programs that are redistributive in this country, whether through grants, entitlements, or tax credits, redistribute resources directly to the middle class or to the wealthy because they are not means-tested (think education, Medicare, Social Security, the mortgage tax credit, lavish public pension programs, and the plethora of subsidies for various businesses, industries, or research programs).
It is obviously true that American government is too big and in too much debt. But it is not Medicaid, nor is it basic provision for the poor, that is bankrupting the country.
It is clear that we need to have, and are having, an open debate about the future of America, and about the nature of government’s responsibility to its citizens. But whatever positions Christians advocate in this debate – and we should advocate positions that make sense economically, politically, and morally – we should not forget the teaching of our own theology. Calvin argued from Scripture that a magistrate will be judged based on how well he protects the poor under his charge. In a democracy, when we are all magistrates insofar as we influence legislation or political debate, we should be mindful that we will be judged on the same basis.
Posted on September 20, 2012, in Libertarianism, Politics, Property, Rights, Welfare State and tagged capitalism, laissez-faire, Medicaid, poor relief, redistribution, socialism, Tea Part. Bookmark the permalink. 32 Comments.
Hi Matt; got some thoughts for you.
The Christian tradition has viewed government as good in what sense? Better than anarchy? Sure, but that doesn’t make it good. Theft is better than murder, but that doesn’t make theft good. And the overwhelming majority of governments in the history of the world have been not good. So I wonder what justifies the tradition here.
You say that American Christians “judge Christian theology from the perspective of their American political convictions, rather than the other way around.” Without a doubt, this happens frequently, and is lamentable. But I’m not sure what you’ve said supports this claim in this case. Many American Christians do support tax dollars being used to help the poor, but just not by means of the sort of welfare system that is currently in place. For instance, I think American Christians support legislation that helps businesses thrive, governmental control of monopolies, etc., each of which requires use of their tax dollars, so that the economy is conducive to productive labor and goods are affordable. Government regulation of this sort helps bring about an economic environment that mitigates against poverty.
On your second example, I agree that American Christians tend to think of poverty in terms of income and possessions. And I agree that that’s bad. But then you give three criteria for what poverty really consists in, and while I agree with that too, I’m not sure that American Christians are against government regulation against (1) and (2). I think plenty of Christians would point out that legislation against prejudicial hiring practices and segregation of schools was good and necessary. So maybe I just need more specifics on what you have in mind here as counting as oppression and exclusion.
You also say that the government “has a responsibility to make sure this [that the poor are helped] happens, and it seems, increasingly, as if this point is acknowledged by fewer and fewer on the Right.” This strikes me as straightforwardly false. What the Right denies is that the government has a responsibility to use certain avenues toward helping the poor. The Right would agree that the government should help the poor, but would argue that the best way it can do this is by fostering a society that includes opportunities for employment open to all. Otherwise, the dependencies that we seem to agree are bad will inevitably result, given fallen human nature.
Lewis, a few points. First of all, you are right, I am not engaging libertarian philosophers. I am engaging popular rhetoric and ideas that have grown popular among Christians who do not necessarily read philosophers.
Second, I never claimed that Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 58:7 was about political theology. I did not get to the implications for government until Post 3.
Third, if it is in fact the case that it is a duty of justice (note, not piety or “charity”) for those with excess to provide for those in need, then it is prima facie a primary candidate for government intervention if it does not take place (given that Government is called to punish those who do evil in defense of those against whom they do it). You are right, there are some thorny questions about what government should enforce and what it should not. I would agree that government should take measures against public drunkenness just as I would argue that government should ensure the basic needs of the poor are met without forcing us to hold all our property in common or to have equality in resources (communism or socialism).
You point out that this principle can be applied in different ways, and that it is not sufficiently politically detailed. I agree. I was attempting here to outline a basic principle that is not often recognized, and I think Christians and other citizens will disagree on the details. That is what the political process is for.
Thanks Paul, I’ll respond one by one.
On your first point, I’m surprised that you ask. The texts are many, ranging from Old Testament indications that kings and magistrates are in the image of God and anointed by him, to the New Testament’s assertion that the magistrate is the minister of God for our good, and that we are to honor him as such. Yes, government is very often evil and can turn outright bestial, but that is due to human sin; it is not a problem with the gift of government itself.
On your second paragraph, I basically agree with you. I tried to make that clear in my post. We can question policies and programs, but we should not throw out the basic principle. I think we are agreed on this.
On paragraph 3, you are right, with so much of this it all depends on the specifics. I am purposely trying to work here at the level of principle (or political theology), though with the contemporary context in mind. But the closer we get to concrete circumstances the more wisdom, prudence, and basic knowledge of the facts comes into view, and Christians, like other people, are going to have some disagreements. That’s fine, and we have to work to consensus in terms of policy, but I think it is crucial that at least we are starting with the right principles, right?
On the fourth point, I’m not sure what you think is false. Most conservatives, I think, would acknowledge that government should focus on fostering the society you describe as a means of helping the poor, rather than focusing on redistributive policies. However, they would also affirm that there is a place for at least a minimal safety net (means-tested), in order to ensure that those poor not assisted through other channels of civil society still receive justice. That, I would argue, is a good thing, but it is increasingly denied by those influenced by libertarianism, and that is a bad thing.
Thanks for the response. We agree more than I thought we did. I felt like the essay was pitched at a more general conservative American Christian audience, but I may have misjudged this.
One final quibble: Your initial claim that the Christian tradition holds that government is good is intended to push back against a common Christian conservative claim that government is not good. The points you make to support the tradition show that government is intended to be good, or that it is ideally good. But they do not support the idea that government is in fact good. Here’s an analogy: the Volvo I used to own was, when created, intended to be a good car, and ideally is a good car. But, in fact, it was horribly unreliable and cost me a tremendous amount of money to continually repair, and thus was not a good car. My point is that the conservative Christians wouldn’t deny that government is supposed to be good, or that it ideally is good. They would just deny that it pretty much ever is in fact good. Things aren’t as intended or ideal. So I don’t see any need for correction in the conservative Christian viewpoint on the badness of government.
Paul, thanks, I’m glad we are making the connection.
I understand the distinction between the goodness of government as an institution and the goodness of any particular government, or any particular act of government. I also understand that no government is perfect.
But I do think American conservatives tend to lack perspective on this. From a historical perspective, we have better government than virtually any people in the history of the world. I doubt very many of us would choose to live in any other time or place. So I do get tired of hearing Americans complain about this country, or about our system of government. It strikes me as being very naive as well as ungrateful.
It is impressive that when Paul speaks of a government far more tyrannical and arbitrary than anything we have ever experienced (if you doubt this, just read about the Roman Empire), he calls us to thank God for it and to honor it, and he describes it as being for our good. This is the same government described in Revelation 13 as the beast.
It is also noteworthy that over and over Calvin argues that tyranny is preferable to anarchy. Now to be sure, Calvin lived in a time before it was possible for tyrants to do the sort of things that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did, but at the same time, Calvin knew what disorder, war, persecution, and rioting were all about. To put his comments in the context of today, most of us would rather live in Egypt or China or even Saudi Arabia than in Somalia, Afghanistan, or Syria. To be sure, both tyranny and anarchy are horrible options. But government is clearly better than no government.
You also have to ask how many government employees are getting rich “helping the poor”. There was an article in the WSJ yesterday or today about how 60% of the employees at the new “Consumer Finance Protection Bureau” make over $100k. On top of that these people get benefits and pensions that people in the private sector do not. There is an awful lot of bureaucracy soaking up money between the taxpayer and the poor person.
I saw that figure as well, and it totally depends on the task of the Bureau as to whether that should really be considered excessive. The CFPB is not on the GS pay scale, but even then, skilled professionals from several disciplines regularly make something in that neighborhood starting out, and the compensation is not about wasteful spending on lazy civil servants, it’s about being able to attract and retain people like lawyers, who could quite easily make significantly more than $100k/year in a city like DC or New York.
If the CFPB is handling complex financial and regulatory issues, it would not be surprising if their makeup involves a heavy dose of people with the type of expertise that you would be surprised to see a 100k+ salary tied to. Factor in living in an expensive city like DC, and it’s not such a ridiculous salary.
I can’t find a ton of hard data on a shorter search, and it does appear that CFPB salaries are pretty good for government work, but I would still hesitate to make the jump from a salary figure without context to “getting rich helping the poor.”
Donald – How many federal employees and/or federal retirees do you personally know who (a) do not get more time off than you? (b) do not have a better pension than you do? (c) do not have better job security than you do? Their employer can print money to pay them. I have been in the business world for 20 years and have yet to meet a poor federal employee. Go to any retirement haven in the South or Southwest and you will find thousands of wealthy federal retirees.
And who in their right mind starts a new federal agency when we are running an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion, have a national debt of $16 trillion, and have an overall debt of something like $70 trillion when unfunded entitlements are included? And a majority of the American public wants to vote for the guy who is only making all this worse? We haven’t begun to see poverty.
As a college professor, I may not be a properly contributing member of society, so other than pensions, few federal employees enjoy the flexibility in hours that I have, and we both have pretty good job security. The federal pension program is significant, and I would prefer to see defined contribution plans instead of defined benefit plans going forward, but that’s really a separate question from whether the CFPB is any good.
At the same time, when I was a lawyer in DC, it was precisely those things that made working for someone like the IRS competitively attractive compared to a large law firm. They had better work life balance, reasonable pay, and high quality benefits. You’d make 60k+ less a year working for the government, but other things made up for it. That’s all I was getting at with suggesting that one not take the salary figure and run with it too far without checking other factors out.
That’s the only point I was making. I’m not sure that creating the agency was necessary either, although I’m not against the idea that regulation had to be reworked in response to the collapse of the credit default swap market, and it would be nice to proactively prevent that sort of thing from happening again.
Reblogged this on Literate Comments and commented:
You also have to ask how many government employees are getting rich “helping the poor”. There was an article in the WSJ yesterday or today about how 60% of the employees at the new “Consumer Finance Protection Bureau” make over $100k. On top of that these people get benefits and pensions that people in the private sector do not. There is an awful lot of bureaucracy soaking up money between the taxpayer and the poor person.
Matthew,
I think your critiques of popular libertarian memes are quite fair, and as someone who is registered Libertarian (for now) important for believers, many of whom are 2kers to think through. My reasons for libertarian party allignment were more pragmatic than ideological, as I feel that there are advantages to belonging to a political party as opposed to being independent when trying to engage the political process. And there are aspects of Austrian School economics that I think are superior to the various Keynesian schools out there, especially with respect to analysis on the business cycle, and monetary policy. However, since the Austrian School is grounded, philosophically, in post-enlightenment subjectivism, I think there are serious flaws in the realm of ethics for any 2k Natural Law advocates to understand.
First of all, Austrian School, and to a large degree Libertarian political philosophy builds on an ethical framework that centers on the individual, and ignores the metaphysical and ethical claims of Natural Law theory. Personally, I think that modern Reformed NL theory can build off of Thomistic NL, and while we may differ from Aquinas on a few key matters, I think he offers the most robust starting point historically on which we can build. Like I had shared in one of your prior posts, I also thin we can look to Ancient Near Eastern/Old Testament ethical and economic models when forming a modern understanding of how NL might inform the political economy. With that said, I think that anyone who wishes to have a robust conception of property, which I think Libertarians get partly right, must place ethical considerations above property considerations if they want to comport with NL. The problem is many Christian property advocates have this matter completely reversed.
If we start with ethical considerations, we must start with a concept of the good, as Thomistic NL does, and build out from there. In this respect, we must balance private property considerations with the problem of property. Where I sit now, I can honestly can say I haven’t put this together conceptually, especially with how the problem of poverty would be addressed in the private-public spectrum – but I don’t think that any of the current political parties or economic schools fully align with a modern 2k conception of political economy. My sense is that NL as a model for socioeconomic and political matters would still be viewed as broadly conservative, but I am not so sure that the direction of the GOP as an expression of American conservatism necessarily is even thinking in any unified way with NL ethics and what that would imply for the problem of poverty. But surely NL couldn’t conceive of property rights in such a way that becomes ethically troublesome with respect to the poor. Practically, this means the popular conservative Christian (and all too often Reformed) meme that equates taxation with theft is at best unhelpful, and at worst against not only NL but biblical ethics.
Jed, I think you are right that mainstream American conservatism (and certainly the Republican Party) does not work with a substantive concept of natural law. Our society is built on the idea of natural law, and I believe it will only be as it moves more and more away from the legacy of Christendom that Christians will start to realize the need to recover it. We’re still stuck quoting the Bible and wondering why our unbelieving neighbors don’t find that persuasive.
Matt,
After reading your posts, it seems you are making 2 separate arguments:
Argument 1: Christian theology recognizes the rights of the poor and thus requires the rich to meet the needs of the poor. This is correct. I do not aware of any orthodox Christians who would argue against this statement.
Argument 2: Christian theology recognizes the rights of the poor and thus requires the rich to meet the needs of the poor, therefore Christians MUST support some type of government policy that redistributes property to the poor. This is false. This implies that because one holds to a Christian theology of X, that therefore one must support a government policy of X.
If this logic were true, Christians must support government policies which enforce biblical morality. Your logic holds that if Christians do not support biblical morality as government policy, then they are going against Christian theology (i.e. sinning). An example: because the bible says drunkenness is a sin, Christians must therefore support a policy of alcohol prohibition or at the very least have the police arrest anyone in a drunken state. If they do not, they are going against biblical theology and therefore sinning. It is inconsistent to require the government to enforce biblical morality in regards to the poor and not apply it elsewhere, including worshipping God. Why should the biblical definition of property rights be enforced by the government while the biblical definition of worshipping God be laissez-faire?
In addition, your philosophy allow for little differences in opinion among Christians regarding the best way to help the poor. Libertarians believe property rights are the key government policy to help the poor while the socialist thinks massive redistribution of wealth is the key to assisting the poor. Both libertarian and socialist Christians can recognize their personal duty and society’s duty to personally help the poor, while disagreeing on what government policy should be. You seem to believe you have discovered a theologically correct “middle way”, but I still don’t see a consistent political philosophy. All I see is you creating caricatures (i.e. “ virtually no poor people”) of conservatives and libertarians and not engaging any libertarian philosophy. It’s easy to create a caricature of libertarian logic and then bring in the big guns of some of the greatest minds in history Calvin, Aquinas, et al. to destroy it.
Furthermore, in your second post, I would disagree with using Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 58:7 as an example supporting a theology of government. Yes, it states what we as humans ought to do, but to imply it’s a theology of government, I think is false. Those with a libertarian philosophy can easily seize upon Calvin’s statement of “first, that we should injury nobody” and “nor will it be of much avail to render your aid to the needy, if at the same time you rob some of that which you bestow on others” as Christian theological support for the non-aggression principle. This would be false also, because by using Calvin’s commentary as a direct theology of government, libertarians would be ignoring the second part of Calvin’s commentary requiring us to “bestow our wealth and abundance on the poor and needy”. Calvin’s commentary is not a direct Christian political theology of government as you seem to imply, but rather a theology what individuals (specifically God’s people), and society at large, are required to do before God. To imply this is some type of guide to a Christian political theology requires reading and interpreting the bible more along the lines of Sojourners than Calvin.
First comment was getting too long!
As to point 1. of this post:
To limit Christians who oppose Communism or socialism to using only a utilitarian or pragmatic philosophy (i.e. they do not work) rather than moral arguments, seems rather, well… unchristian. Your philosophy seems to only allow for moral arguments FOR government (i.e. the morality of taking care of the poor) while not allowing for moral arguments AGAINST government. There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians to be sure, but libertarians who use moral arguments against certain roles of the government are merely seeking to apply a universal moral code derived from natural law to all people and institutions within a society. They do not make exceptions for governmental institutions. Christians who are libertarians agree that the government is to enforce justice and seek to add a moral voice to how that justice is applied using natural law that is applied equitably.
Not to belabor the point, but not allowing for moral arguments against government leaves many well-meaning limited government conservatives defenseless in debates. The liberal debater makes a sweeping moral argument for a government welfare state to care for the poor from cradle to grave. He or she says “it’s our moral duty to have the government take care of the poor!” Meanwhile the conservative is relegated to saying “it doesn’t work” or “have you see the latest statistics regarding welfare and single mothers.” The liberal wins hands down. The liberal has a moral argument and the conservative does not. People rightly recognize that. This is why many conservatives have adopted the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) as a moral argument (i.e. government taxation is theft). Though they may be ineloquent in how they express the NAP (and inconsistent in how they apply the NAP), they seek rightly seek a moral argument in which to engage their liberal debate partners. Not allowing moral arguments for limiting the role of government concedes the debate to those with moral arguments for expanding the government. It is a debate of morality, to be sure, and conservatives and/or libertarians must have moral arguments.
Lewis, I disagree that saying something “does not work” or “does not actually help someone” is not a moral argument. If the moral requirement is to help someone then actually helping them is a moral requirement. The reason conservatives are not often persuasive is because they do not phrase it in moral terms about what is good for the poor, but about freedom from government (which I’d argue, is actually less moral, not more moral, as you seem to imply, because it emphasizes negative freedom without form). I’d encourage you to check out some of the arguments made recently by the president of the American Enterprise Institute, along these lines.
Not sure why you think my theology does not allow for moral arguments against government.
P.S.
“But many libertarians will not even allow us to consider or debate the best ways in which government should help the poor.” Who are all these bad libertarians using force and coercion to stop your debating? Doesn’t seem very libertarian of them!
With the government going broke the poor had better come up with a “Plan B”. Here is a piece I wrote yesterday on the left’s “Atlas Shrugged Problem” –
Mitt Romney’s 47% comments reminded me of what I call the left’s “Atlas Shrugged” problem. Now there are some on the left — let’s call them our Kim Jong-Il’s — who really aren’t worried about a U.S. Collapse. They reckon they will stay on top politically regardless of how bad things get so they’re not too worried. Kim still had champagne & caviar up until the end while his countrymen where starving. Likewise our liberal politicians, tenured professors, and retired civil servants on healthy pensions figure that they are pretty much untouchable regardless of what happens to the private sector. To be fair I would say our super-rich, multinational business owners also are pretty much immune. There is another segment of the left that really does care about ordinary poor people and who really wants the welfare state to work. They are the ones who have an Atlas Shrugged problem. What is that? It is the notion that people can pretty easily move from being productive, running businesses, and paying their own way to not working and living off of the government, but they can’t easily move the other way — from being a recipient to being a producer. As more people move from being a producer to being a recipient we become poorer and poorer and pretty soon no one is left to pay the bills. Ayn Rand, in maybe the best segment of her book, described a factory that ran according to the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Eventually the productive people said “to hell with this” and the factory shut down. If the government is going to keep all of its entitlement promises average people are eventually going to have to pay something like 70% of their income in taxes and people will just refuse to do it. America as we know it will collapse and who knows what will arise in its place. Most likely a left-wing dictatorship or a right-wing dictatorship — whichever the military supports.
Quick survey – How many people commenting here actually work in the private sector in a business that employs people and pays taxes? I always want to disqualify people who make more from taxes (i.e. work for the government) than they pay in taxes. Their votes should not count on this issue. They should have to recuse themselves.
I teach at a non-profit Christian college (no tenure program here). I will ignore my masters degree in taxation and make sure not to vote this November (would likely have voted for Romney) just for you.
I know Dordt College. I went to Northwestern so will try not to hold your affiliation against you! One error I think you made in an earlier comment is comparing the salaries of attorneys who go to work for the government to “what they could make in the private sector”. I would argue for the most part the professionals (at least in law, economics, accounting, etc.) in the private sector are of a higher caliber than those in government. After someone has spent much time in the public sector the private sector really does not want much to do with them (unless it is big business practicing crony capitalism). People who work in government generally CAN’T make the same amount in the private sector, which is why they join unions, buy politicians, and jealously guard their pay & benefits). I couldn’t care less who you vote for.
Thank you for not condemning me solely for going to that “other” school (of course Northwestern is the “other” for us).
I can only speak to attorneys, but I’m not sure that it’s true when it comes to some of the complex regulation areas. Most of my experience was with attorneys for the IRS and Dept. of Justice, but they were usually top caliber talent, both some who were early in their career likely getting experience before heading to the private sector, and those later in their career looking for a better life balance or a chance to influence policy decisions. Particularly with the collapse of the legal economy in 2008, there has been a massive influx of extremely talented attorneys into the ranks of government agencies.
Of course, if you were to ask people who the very best lawyers in the country are, you would get various answers, but I think a fair number would suggest that the Solicitor General and their staff are some of the absolute best.
To hit your later question here too: in many cases, I think I would prefer to have a public defender over privately retained counsel. Many people in the PD office are there on their way to working for the District Attorney’s office or something like that down the line, and while they’re overworked, they usually chose their job because they are passionate about what they do, and they tend to be very good advocates. On the contrary (and this is purely anecdotal, I make no universal claims), many of my friends who interned with the US Attorneys Office said that they frequently saw defendants retain private counsel because the lawyer was charismatic or had flash. In one case, the counsel for the defense showed up in court in a bright red “pimp suit,” the sort of behavior that instantly alienated the judge.
On the litigation side, the government is one of the very best places to go for litigation experience, because you will actually get to try cases on a regular (sometimes overwhelmingly regular) basis. You can have a brilliant attorney in your corner, but, pound for pound, few things are as valuable as actual trial experience.
Would you rather hire a private attorney to defend you or have the public defender do it?
Whoa, Erik! “for the most part the professionals (at least in law, economics, accounting, etc.) in the private sector are of a higher caliber than those in government.” Talk about painting with a broad brush! I didn’t go to Northwestern, instead went to a law school back East. Donald is absolutely right–and we government attorneys can’t join unions, and your remark about “buying politicians” is ludicrous. I know quite a few private attorneys whose competence I would question, and on the other hand, I work with some fine Army JAG attorneys of terrific competence and integrity. Let’s be a little more charitable in your remarks there, son.
Setting aside attorneys for the moment. You don’t think AFSCME & the NEA have bought quite a few politicians? I’m not talking about bribes, I’m talking about the Democratic Party being beholden to public sector unions. Witness what has been going on in Wisconsin. Witness the hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded public sector employee pensions. Try doing business in Illinois these days.
Now back to attorneys – Donald says, “Particularly with the collapse of the legal economy in 2008, there has been a massive influx of extremely talented attorneys into the ranks of government agencies.” So what you’re saying is that when the free market can not support the number of law school grads, it is a good thing that they can all flock to government jobs? How did the government function before they got there? What money is the government using to pay them? Borrowed money. Who is going to pay it back? You guys are defending a lot of things that are just not sustainable. Look at the demographics of Washington D.C. in the midst of a recession. No layoffs there. It is obscene and ridiculous and will be our downfall as a nation. How much debt is enough- $20 trillion, $30 trillion, $40 trillion?
I have lived or worked in a town that is dominated by government employers and employees my whole life (other than 4 years of college and 1 year in Des Moines). A lot of decent people, some hardworking people, but an awful lot of people who don’t work that hard, get a lot of time off, are really bored, and are kind of wasting their lives working for the government. It’s actually really sad. Most of these people have not really challenged themselves because working for the government was just the easy and comfortable thing to do. By the time they reach middle age they really don’t have the option of moving to the private sector.
You may say that my objections about debt are unfounded because the rich need to pay their fair share. O.K. Tell me what their fair share is: 50% of their income? 60%? 70%? Assume I give you that amount. Is that enough for the left to fulfill all their promises to the poor and the middle class? Don’t we have like $70 trillion of total debt when all of the unfunded entitlements are included? Just how many rich people do we have to tax to get that?
My dad retired from UPS after 35 years of back-breaking work. He has a modest pension and gets social security. He drives for an upper-middle class retirement community in which most of the residents are retired university employees. They are all on TIAA-CREF. He could not afford to live there.
Donald – I’ll believe you taking the public defender when I see it. Haven’t you seen “My Cousin Vinny?”
Pingback: Why Libertarian Philosophy is Foreign to the Christian Tradition « James W. McCarty III
Pingback: Water Is Thicker Than Blood
Pingback: Public Justice for the Poor: A Response to Timothy Terrell | Christian in America