Poverty

Nomodiphas: I believe that people through their government have a duty to eradicate poverty. In Deuteronomy 10:18 Moses told the people of Israel to imitate God “who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.” The people were told to take the initiative and be sure the poor were taken care of. This command was not qualified in any way.

We know there are different sources for poverty. Some people are poor due to their bad work ethic, others are poor because of disabilities, and still others are poor because of oppression. The burden of poverty was not laid on the poor, but rather on the rich. The poor were not instructed to take care of themselves, but instead the rich were commanded to provide for them. For example in the Law of Moses the rich, who benefit from the structure of society, were on multiple occasions warned to provide and care for the poor and needy. In Deuteronomy 15:7-8 Moses said: “If there is among you anyone in need. . . . You should . . . open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be.” In verses 10-11 Moses further instructed the rich to “give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so . . . I therefore command you: Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.” It was the responsibility of the rich to ensure that there was “no one in need among [them].” There was no inquiry into the origin of poverty and no justification for its presence in society. Poverty was treated as an evil that the prosperous in society must do all they could to minimize and relieve.

Philosophos: Indeed that is true, but these principles must be balanced with other verses. First off, the Law of Moses also states that if there was a young man who was able to work, but refused to and instead spent his time drinking and hanging out with friends, the community was to stone him. So yes the Israelites were to take care of the poor, but they were not to tolerate people among them who chose not to work when able, living idly with the expectation that others should provide for them. They were to take care of the poor, but the poor would mainly be comprised of the sick, elderly, widowed, and orphans. Poverty is an evil and yes we should be working against its existence, but we should also not tolerate those who live idle lives and leach off of those that work. We are not obliged to give them anything and their presence acts as a disincentive to work and when they are taken care of by us we actually encourage poverty. When one can have their needs met without working there is less incentive to work and without working one cannot escape poverty.

What is the cause of poverty in our country? It is cultural. Less than 1% of our poor finish high school, get married and stay married, and work full time for one year at the same job. These are the things needed to escape poverty. Our social welfare programs work against the elimination of poverty for they allow people to have the basic securities of life without marriage or work—they do not encourage good decisions. Couple this with the fact that our government has worked hard to remove the sigma of welfare. If the government provides basic securities and there is no shame of not working, why work? The continuation of poverty brought about by governmental aid is demonstrated in the fact that welfare rates have gone up even in times of huge job growth! Welfare is not need based and it in fact prevents people from entering the job market.

Nomodiphas: I am confused, how does government involvement keep people from working?

Philosophos: Look, today we have a situation where minimum wage, entry level jobs are held in contempt and welfare is a right (we are entitled to the wealth of others). A good work ethic is not natural. Economic incentive (or economic necessity) coupled with social stigma produces hard workers. The government has sought to eliminate both. There is no longer any reason for our poor to not choose leisure and immediate gratification over work.

Nomodiphas: Well sure, but in the Bible business was subordinated to the charge of caring for the poor. In this sphere there was no unbridled free market; rather the Law of Moses trumped any business plan. In Deuteronomy 24:13-14 Moses warned employers to “not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers,” and to return all pledges given for loans by sundown. Furthermore, in verse 19 Moses said to the landowners “when you reap your harvest in the field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.” This was to allow the poor to provide for themselves. This same principle was applied to olive trees and vineyards in the next verse. Business could only function within the limits established by the law and the law was limited in such a way so that care for the poor was the priority instead of secondary to the profitability of business.

Philosophos: I don’t at all see that as a repudiation of the free market. These are just conditions to allow the market to work. The state did not assign jobs to its citizens; it allowed them to freely contract their labor—this is the free market at work. The restrictions you mentioned were put into place to prevent abuse. They did not limit what type of job one could work at or how much one had to be paid. They merely ensured that wages were given in an appropriate amount of time.

Second, I want you to notice how it is not the government that is told to care for the poor, but rather the citizens that are told to care for the poor. The government was not given the power to take from those with wealth and give to those with less wealth. Instead it was the citizens who were commanded to be generous for God had been generous to them. Further, though sometimes there is a need for it, the people were not to just give the poor a handout—the primary way they were to help the poor was by allowing or giving the poor an opportunity to help themselves. The people were not told to harvest their gleanings and give it to the poor, but instead to leave the gleanings so that people without property would have an opportunity to work and provide for themselves.

As for the limits on business, they were to prevent oppression. A core function for the government, a truth about justice, is that the strong should not take advantage of the weak (that is justice while mercy would be the request that the strong actively take care of the weak). The Bible is very serious about preventing oppression of the weak, by the strong. The Book of Amos, for example, is full of warnings of impending judgment for the oppressors of the poor. In 8:4-10 Amos wrote:

Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land . . . buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. . . . The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds . . . I [God] will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.

Nomodiphas: You make good points. The rich were commanded to not oppress the poor and were required to not take from the poor the ability to provide for themselves. But there are other ways the Law of Moses subordinated business to the end of preventing poverty. Even more effective than caring for the poor and needy were the institutions and laws that prevented poverty from even taking root within society. The first such provision was a ban on usury. In Exodus 22:25 Moses wrote that “if you lend money to . . . the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.” In addition to this Deuteronomy Chapter 15 states that every seven years all debts were cancelled and people who hired themselves out as laborers were released from there obligations. This prevented people from falling into inescapable debt where they would exist under the power of their debt holder.

Another provision to keep members of the Hebrew nation from falling into poverty was the year of jubilee. When the Hebrew people first occupied Israel under Joshua the land was divided and each family was given a hereditary tract of land. Leviticus 25:28 pronounces that during difficult times people were allowed to sell their land, but at the end of fifty years, in the year of jubilee, all property was to be given back to the original inhabitants. These measures were exactly what Rousseau had in mind when he wrote that “it is therefore one of the most important functions of government to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes; not by taking away wealth from its possessors, but by providing all men the means to accumulate it . . . [this prevents] the citizens from becoming poor.”

These measures that God instituted through Moses prevented any family or group from gaining large tracts of land and through this a dominating position in the nation. In a largely agrarian society, land was essential to provide for oneself. Through the natural cycle of weather some land owners could be lucky, while others unlucky. The lucky ones, in difficult times, could buy the land of the unlucky and soon amass huge tracks of land and wealth for their families. This, however, would put everyone else at a disadvantage and they would likely be hired as laborers who would only be paid a portion of what their work produced, causing them to fall deeper into poverty while enriching those with land.

As economic stratification widens, not only is there a risk of class antagonism and civil war, but more likely, a tyranny is bound to emerge. The rich invent a philosophy to justify their wealth. They say they are fairly rich; they work hard and are cleverer than the rest of society and therefore merit their wealth. If only the poor would work harder, then they too could enjoy the same lifestyle as the rich. Because the wealthy hold a larger stake in society, they come to think that they alone should rule. Soon a government of the rich and powerful few emerges that oppresses the poor, weak masses. The rich claim they know best and have society’s best interest in mind, but they rule in order to hold their position, to keep themselves and their children elevated in society and keep the poor trampled under foot.

Liberty cannot exist without some form of economic equality. Rousseau wrote that the essential duty of government is “above all in protecting the poor against the tyranny of the rich.” Moses shared this notion and for this reason instituted these economic measures. Banning usury, canceling debts, and returning land so that every family may provide for itself and no family may amass a fortune, all these provisions promoted a degree of economic equality while preventing a stratification of wealth in order to safeguard the freedom of the people.

Philosophos: I would agree that these laws were put into place primarily to prevent social stratification. I believe that these are wise and good laws; however given that there is not penalty attached to these proscriptions I would argue that these are prudential and not moral, necessary laws. A large middle class is better because of the problems that you mentioned that often accompany wealth concentration. You are right about the fact that as wealth becomes more and more concentrated those with wealth are more likely to control politics. But you must keep in mind that wealth in and of itself is not bad. God blessed Abraham, Job, and King Solomon among others with great wealth.

There is a Christian man in my city that is very wealth and he gives the majority of his wealth away. He is doing more for the church and the poor than anyone else I know. He works primarily to make money to help advance the Kingdom of God. I have very deep respect for him. If all men were like him, I would encourage the concentration of wealth for when a few men control wealth they can be decisive with it and be well organized and fund projects that large, contentious groups can’t. The problem is that this good man is a rarity, he is not the norm. Most men that make money make it for their own benefit. Still, it is not morally wrong to have lots of wealth, what is right or wrong is how you use it.

Still, as you mentioned earlier today, the government is not entitled to tell you how to use your wealth. We have a right to the fruits of our labor. The government may tax to further its legitimate purposes, but taking from some and giving to others is not a legitimate government function. The government should have laws in place that help the poor provide for themselves and prevent the rich from oppressing the poor, but it may not justly take from some and give to others and it may not force others to give. It is wise for a government to have laws in place that work against the concentration of wealth, but this is merely a prudential law and not a morally necessary one.

Nomodiphas: What about Jesus? Didn’t he warn in Mathew 25:40-43 that on the final judgment he will tell the righteous “just as you did to one of the least . . . you did it to me.” And to the wicked he will say “you that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire . . . for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Jesus said that not only is it unjust to oppress the poor, as most people agree with, but it is also unjust to ignore the plight of the poor and not actively care for them.

There are many other passages within the Bible that confirm this principle of caring for the poor. The prophet Isaiah in 1:17 told the Hebrew nation to “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” Again, there is no qualifier to help only those who could not prevent their poverty and ignore those whose poverty is self inflicted. No matter their circumstances people have value and must be treated with dignity and respect. Jesus affirmed the principle that at all times everyone must be treated as ends in themselves, rather than as collateral means so others may live a more comfortable life.

Philosophos: Of course we are to treat all people with dignity and respect and not as collateral means so that we may live a comfortable life. With power comes responsibility and those with wealth in this life ought to use it to help those who have less. But let me ask you this, are we saved by works?

Nomodiphas: Of course not, we are saved by God’s grace alone.

Philosophos: So when Jesus is talking about taking care of the poor he is not saying that our salvation is hinging on it?

Nomodiphas: Not at all.

Philosophos: Then what is he saying?

Nomodiphas: I suppose he is saying that our acts of mercy are evidence that we follow him.

Philosophos: I think you are correct. God saved us out of mercy. After receiving his mercy we are expected to give it to others. We need to keep in mind who Jesus is talking to here. He is not addressing some governor telling him to care for the poor, nor is he telling non-believing merchants that they’ll be judged based on how they care for the poor, rather He is talking to his followers telling them that He expects them to be merciful as He was and that their mercy is evidence that they are true followers. It is not unjust to withhold aid to the poor, rather it is unmerciful. The government deals with justice and not mercy and therefore care to the poor is outside of its function. Are you in agreement with this?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: Now, how do we relate all of this back to our society?

Nomodiphas: Well, we should not tolerate those who are able to work, but choose not to and instead live from the work of others. Based off of the principle of gleaning, there should be laws in place that prevent the rich from taking away people’s ability to provide for themselves. The government must have laws in place to prevent oppression and it is wise, though not necessary, to have laws in place which encourage the growth of a large middle class and prevent the growth of wealth disparity. The government cannot force people to give nor can it take from some and give to others. As Christians we are expected to be merciful, it does not save us, but is the correct response given the mercy that Christ gave to us. As we know mercy is different from justice. Care for the poor is an act of mercy and is therefore beyond the realm of government and the government in no way can compel it.

Philosophos: What are the consequences of the government either directly or indirectly providing for the poor?

Nomodiphas: Well, given the conclusions we have come to, it is unjust. The government does not have the power to take from some and give to others. Second it corrupts notions of justice and mercy thereby perverts the gospel message. Finally it costs a lot. Taxes are raised and a bureaucracy must be created to administer this massive act of mercy. A giant bureaucracy is less efficient then individuals at dispensing charity. The government is set up to treat people as faceless citizens, not as individuals, but mercy requires individualization and that is why the government fails at it. It seems that people (at least as in the case of America where there are not structural injustices) are responsible for their poverty. Only the poor themselves, by taking responsibility for their poverty and dealing with it, are able to overcome it. And now that I think of it, even in cases where government oppression creates poverty, we are responsible for our government and in that way in responsible for our own poverty. Because we are responsible for our governments, even if they are bad, we should give wisely and give in such a way so that our giving may bring change (mainly increased liberty) instead of allowing injustice to perpetuate.

Philosophos: Very good and true. Today, wanting someone else’s money is called ‘need,’ wanting to keep your own money is called ‘greed,’ and ‘compassion’ is when politicians arrange the transfer.” In the 1980’s, when the tax rates were lowered, charitable giving rose at a rate 55% faster than the last 25 years. Government involvement in care for the poor stifles private giving and care. We lose personalized charity for a charity that is dispensed by a faceless organization. Further, because charity is forced it loses its goodness.

Because mercy is outside of its function, the government is not good at providing mercy. A good example of a failed attempt by the government to help the poor is the Job Corps. The Job Corps took 100,000 young people and provided them with free job training. 2/3 never finished this free program financed by the people at a cost of over $21,000 per participant. Those that did finish often worked in a field outside of their training. This program cost a lot and did no real good. But outside of inefficiency I want you to consider one more aspect of the government aiding the poor. How does it affect our liberty?

Nomodiphas: Popular involvement in government assumes that people are free. As they become more reliant on the government they become less free and well, more reliant. As their liberty lessens, they don’t function as independent of the government. They cannot step back and look at what is best for the government for they need a government, just or not, that will continue to provide for them. They don’t see the government as their creation, but rather like a father. They cease to be free citizens that run the government and instead become children of the state unable to rule themselves. Reliance destroys self rule. They put up with its injustices so long as it continues to provide them with the things they believe they are entitled to. They have lower opinions of themselves for taking handouts, which prevents them from self governance and leads them to accept the government’s impositions. They are less likely to start up new businesses, wealth decreases, and then further poverty sets in. They take less initiative in the field of science or health always waiting for the government to solve their problems. These fields lag as well. It definitely hurts liberty and we know that one of the primary functions of government is to further and protect our natural liberty. Wealth production is not the primary purpose of government and government should not be involved in it especially if it jeopardizes the liberty of its citizens.

Philosophos: Good thoughts. Here is my last question on this topic, what is poverty in our society? Specifically how do we define poverty and does it even exist in our country?

Nomodiphas: I can think of two different types of poverty or two different types of poor people, one is subjective or comparative poverty the other is absolute poverty (destitution). Comparative poverty is common in our country and in every country. It means I am rich or poor compared to those around me. For example if I lived in a half million dollar house in a community where everyone else lives in ten million dollar houses I would be poor. While I am poor in this sense, I am not destitute.

Destitution is when one lives without the basic needs of life: food, water, clothing, and shelter. From what I can tell destitution does not exist in this country. I do not know of anyone who starves to death in this country. There are people without shelter, but groups provide temporary shelter for them—the reason many people reject these shelters is because they are not willing to obey the rules of them (like staying drug free). Poverty in this country is a very elusive term. You can see people who are considered poor that wear designer clothes and carry cell phones. I read about a woman complaining that by the time she spends her government aid on her rent, cable TV, and her cell phone bill, she barely has any left! Cable TV! Cell phones! And you consider yourself poor and oppressed? People who are poor in this country live like kings compared to the rest of the world. They have running water, electricity, refrigerators, and phones; often they own cars and sometimes even houses!

Philosophos: Very true. Lets take a look at what poor people look like in our country. 41% own homes, 75% own cars and VCR’s, 2/3 have air conditioning and microwaves, most have a TV, refrigerator, and a phone. The average poor person in our country has more living space and is more likely to own a car than the average European. Our poor would be wealthy in many other places and ages. In fact if you compared our poor to the rich during the time of Jesus I bet our poor across the board live better. I would wager that they have better access to food, clean water, health care, cleaner living conditions, fairness in the courts of law, and even more opportunity for non-essential forms of entertainment. If our poor live better then the rich at the time of Jesus, who was Jesus telling us to help when he said help the poor?

Nomodiphas: He was referring to the destitute. I don’t think he wanted us to make sure that all of our neighbors had DVD players or new cars. Rather Jesus told us to help those without the basic necessities of life. Destitution does not exist in the United States. However, real poverty affects hundreds of millions around the world. There are countless people who lack the necessities of life. These people do starve to death, live without clean water, adequate shelter and clothing, and die due to a lack of medicine. Not that we should ignore our neighbors, rather we need to expand our conception of who are neighbors are. I believe too much focus is put on those in the US and this takes the focus off of those who live in the most need.