Right Left Whatever

Is capitalism compatible with stewardship?

Joshua Claybourn discusses capitalism in a discussion with Richard Hall.

My take on it is that capitalism, even though it is based on self-interest (what critics will call greed), is still the most efficient way to allocate resources, and is the one system most consistent with the principles of liberty. Even if it caters to human greed, that catering is controlled by the fact that if a seller of goods and services asks for too much their buyers, the buyers will start dealing with others who are asking less. The whole system is regulated by the law of supply and demand. The best way to beat the system is to get a government-sanctioned monopoly. That is where true greed lies, and that is not at all evidence of capitalism, but rather political cronyism, and it is more evident in socialist systems as capitalist, as government services constitute a greater portion of the economy in socialist systems.

But enough about greed, what about another criticism: "capitalism is not compatible with stewardship"? This is a view with which I flat out disagree. Stewardship does not mean that the environment is untouchable, it means that it is to be used wisely and not wasted. A true capitalist will minimize waste, knowing that waste hurts the bottom line. Resources may be consumed, but that consumption can be minimized through innovation, and resources can be replenished (for example, there is more forest land in the United States than there was one hundred years ago). New technologies and techniques become available and more economical through free-market activities, completely naturally, saving both resources and capital.

For some more background into the question "Is capitalism compatible with stewardship?", here is a policy publication from the Acton Institute, A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship.

Their conclusion:

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace International, said in an interview in the New Scientist in December 1999, "The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s ... political activists were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than with the actual science...." What we have said above indicates that Moore was right in his critique of the movement to which he made such an important early contribution. Too often, modern environmentalism has become anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-economic development, and anti-reason. It is time to reverse this trend.

On the basis of a biblical worldview and ethics, as well as of sound science, economics, and public policy principles, we believe sound environmental stewardship celebrates and promotes human life, freedom, and economic development as compatible with, even essential for, the good of the whole environment. While we do not rule out all collective action, we believe market mechanisms are frequently better means, in both principle and practice, to environmental protection. They are less likely to erode important human freedoms and more likely to be cost-effective and successful in achieving their aims. While we understand that passions may energize in the pursuit of sound environmental policy, we also believe that reason, coupled with a commitment to "do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with … God" (Mic. 6:8), must ultimately guide environmental policy.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at August 26, 2003 10:25 PM