It’s not uncommon to hear libertarians use “free markets” as a shorthand for political freedom generally. Despite the possibility for misunderstanding, (is freedom merely transactional?) this economic-centric view of freedom is quite sensible since libertarians tend to think of rights in terms of ownership. All rights begin, they argue, with the individual’s ownership of his or her body. In other words, all rights are property rights. While I can sell the work of my body or even give it away, it should not be forcibly taken from me since that would be a violation of my rights—that’s why stealing, slavery, murder, and rape are wrong.
For many progressives, a free market mentality seems not just transactional, but self-centered.
And in one sense they’re right. Economist Adam Smith’s arguably greatest insight was that in a free society individuals pursuing their own ends will, without even always necessarily trying to benefit others, nevertheless manage to do so. For instance, farmers and grocers just trying to get their own mortgages paid add value to my life in the form of the food that I eat by providing their unique services. The history of markets since Smith’s time has largely borne him out. When an economy is artificially manipulated by central planners to create greater fairness and justice, the opposite effect is generally achieved. But when markets can function without top-down control, everyone benefits at least a little bit.
Although self-interest may be the motivating factor in free markets, it needs to be said that benefitting others is also a concern. After all, what business can last long if its customers don’t perceive it as giving them value? Thus, self-interest leads to a concern for mutual interest. When I go to my local grocer to buy bread, for instance, the price I pay for that bread is one that we both are satisfied with. Whereas I am content to give up some of my money for her bread, my grocer is more than happy to give up her bread for my money. Both of us win from this arrangement.
In a free economy, I benefit when you do. This is only a paradox for those who think in terms of an either/or of selfishness or altruism—of either looking out for yourself or looking out for the interests of the other guy. But this is neither logical thinking nor is it Christian thinking.
In fact, this reciprocity in free markets reflects a more fundamental theological reality, in fact the most fundamental reality there is: that of the Trinitarian God.
Mutuality in the Trinity
At the center of Christian theology is the Trinity—the one God who exists necessarily as three distinct Persons. This complex unity is expressed in 1 John 4:8 with the simple phrase, “God is love”—love in His very essence. “Before” there was a creation for God to love, He already existed in self-giving love as Trinity. For God not to be love would be to undo Himself since He could not continue to exist as Trinitarian community without also being love. Thus, community is an essential attribute of God as it is all other persons. As Eastern Orthodox theologian John D. Zizioulas wrote, “being means life, and life means communion… It is communion which makes beings ‘be’: nothing exists without it, not even God.”[1]
In other words, the Trinity’s existence is based not on selfishness, not even on altruism, but on reciprocity. Each member of the Trinity finds joy and personal satisfaction in these relationships, not in merely giving (altruism) or merely taking (selfishness), but in giving and taking to their mutual benefit.
The Triune God gives freely to the world as well, hoping to bring humans into the divine reciprocity of finding joy in mutual benefit. In turn, everything we do, even suffering and sacrifice, will ultimately benefit us if we are in relationship with the Triune God who creates us for relationship and rewards us for our love and generosity.
Coincidentally, the relationships between the Trinity and the world are described by theologians as “the economic Trinity.”
What About When Freedom Doesn’t Work?
Often progressives have seen freedom as an unmitigated good in nearly every area except one—markets. In this one area, it is insisted that the state must intervene to plan elements of the economy and back up their policies with violence and the threat of violence. Thus, instead of seeing freedom in markets as an arrangement whereby free people choose to interact with each other for their mutual benefit without coercion, it is seen as necessarily exploitative because of power differentials between employer and employee.
Some libertarians have argued that exploitation is never possible when two people agree to an arrangement. After all, if there was not mutual benefit, the arrangement would never have been agreed to. If I take a job that I claim to hate, I value the job more than I do starvation. It follows then that I benefit from doing the unpleasant job.
However, even if we have shown that this kind of freedom in relationships is not inherently exploitative and is largely beneficial to all, that doesn’t mean that it can never be exploitative. To give just one example, nearly all of us would agree that it is exploitative for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl, even if she does claim to “consent” to it.
Or imagine a scenario where you are dangling from a cliff, holding on for your very life. A man appears and agrees to help you but only under one condition—that you give all of your property, your house, your car, and all of your belongings, over to him. Perhaps in such a scenario you would agree to the man’s terms, but you would no doubt feel exploited by the arrangement. After all, it would have cost the man almost nothing to help you, yet he chose to take advantage of you in your moment of distress. Though there may not have been coercion, there was still nevertheless exploitation. Unlike the relationships within the Trinity and the kinds of relationships that Christians are called to, two parties can agree to an arrangement based on self-interest without either of them “looking to… the interests of the other” (Philippians 2:4).
While one could make an argument for why such an arrangement may be legally binding, that one cannot defend it as ethical from a Christian point of view. Christian ethics are better reflected in the parable of the Good Samaritan who helps a stranger beaten and left for dead on the road than in my story of the man being bargained with while dangling from the side of a cliff. This is not because Christians view harming or inconveniencing themselves as an inherent moral value, but because they value human life for its own sake and because they believe in a God who will reward us for showing love to our neighbor. In other words, the Christian finds it in her own best interest to be concerned for the welfare of others.
What motivation would change the market calculus so that actors in it would see exploitation as not in their self-interest? Not the fear of politicians who can be lobbied and bought, but the fear of God who is no respecter of persons but judges justly. Too many of us believe our time is limited and doubt that there is a God who will give us our just desserts, so many of our selfish acts take from others. But when we believe that God rewards the generous, we know that our generosity benefits ourselves as well as others so we don’t have to choose between selfishness and altruism—doing what is right will always benefit us when there is a righteous judge to whom we must all give an account.
The Christian should prefer economic freedom (which is more compatible with voluntary mutual benefit) as opposed to coercion (wherein violence is used to force people to do things against their will) whenever possible. However, she should also remember that even if freedom is better than coercion, it cannot on its own bring about utopia or even guarantee that exploitation won’t happen. That would require that all members of society seek to make mutuality and love for neighbor their highest calling. Thus, while the free market reflects the mutuality found in Christian ethics and Trinitarian relationships when it functions well, we must remember that very few things in this life function perfectly. While a secular free market may be preferable to a secular centrally-managed market, nothing surpasses the kingdom of God in virtue or in mutual love.
That is why as attractive as a society built on free markets can be, it has nothing on the shining city on a hill that the church of Christ can be when it seeks to live as if the Kingdom of God is near.
[1] John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 1997. p. 16-17.