Thinking About CST & Markets (or "Friday Night at Gate C24")

Today I (along with MoJers Patrick Brennan, Susan Stabile, Eduardo Penalver, and Mark Sargent) had the wonderful fortune to participate in the latest installment of Villanova's ongoing exploration of CST and the law at a conference titled, Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, the State, and the Law.  The conversations were much too rich to capture in a single blog post -- and indeed, I did not planning on blogging about it now, but my sixth hour in the Philly airport has led me to brainstorm new ways to pass the time -- but I'll try to convey the flavor of the day by focusing on one exchange that took place on one panel.

St. John's University (Minn.) economics prof Dan Finn kicked things off by setting forth "10 heresies that tempt neo-cons to stray from CST."  I won't list them all, but I will mention four of his points:  First, he pushed back against the suggestion that when solidarity is pursued by society via the law's coercive power, it becomes morally empty.  Instead, Finn challenged us to recognize that law can help virtue become a habit under certain circumstances.  Second, he argued, against what he perceives as the libertarian challenge, that the voluntariness of exchange ensures justice; instead, the voluntariness of exchange simply ensures mutual advantage.   Third, he suggested that instead of referring to government's "intervention" in the market, we could more helpfully refer to government's "structuring" of the market.  Fourth, he wondered why neo-cons tend to take particular failures of government regulation as evidence that government regulation does not work, but rarely take particular failures of the market as evidence that markets do not work.  For example, according to Finn, neo-cons blame public school failures on the government (rather than on individuals), but they blame consumerism on individuals (rather than on the market).

Villanova law prof Robert Miller responded by agreeing that all of Finn's asserted "heresies" are erroneous views of a just economic order, but he asserted that the vast majority of libertarians/neo-cons would deny holding the views attributed to them by Finn.  Tracing a variety of grounds on which Milton Friedman approved of state regulation of the economy, Miller essentially argued that Finn had erected a neo-con straw man.

Eduardo Penalver then provided a taxonomy of libertarianism in an effort to clarify the disagreement between Miller and Finn.  He contrasted a moral version of libertarianism under which the commitment to individualism is principled (found in the work of Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick, for example) from a consequentialist libertarianism grounded in the belief that less state intervention tends to produce better outcomes.  While Finn had challenged neo-cons on their principles, most neo-cons -- at least those who look to CST for guidance -- will resist the suggestion that their governing principles are drastically different from those traditionally espoused by CST.  The differences arise in the area of policy -- which practical measures will most effectively further CST principles?  In that regard, Eduardo challenged progressive Catholic theorists to undertake empirical work in an effort to verify the relationship between libertarian policies and CST principles.

Others can expand on (or correct) my recollection.  As always, thanks to Mark and his colleagues at Villanova for dedicating time, talent, and treasure to the Catholic legal theory project.