A Brief Theology of Property Rights: From Augustine to the Environmental Gospel*

*Speech delivered to the 1991 Regional Meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society on "The Greening of Political Economy," Big Sky, Montana, August 24, 1991. This speech is based in part on Robert H. Nelson, "Reaching for Heaven on Earth: The Theological Meaning of Economics," (Roman and Littlefield, 1991). Editor

At this conference, we've already heard a lot of talk about the difficulty of objective decision making in environmental matters.

• The press blows environmental risks out of all proportion.

• The public reacts hysterically to news of the latest environmental danger.

• Presentation of contrary scientific information has little impact on the development of public policy.

These illustrate what seems to be a widespread phenomenon in the environmental area. People have very strong filters that tend to shape and bend information teaching them according to prior dispositions.

Some people call these filters ideology. But I am going to argue that it is often more accurate to say that they are theology. It seems to me that theological elements (understanding theology broadly) are pervasive in environmental policy making. These theological elements influence not only the perception of risk but also many other aspects of environmental policy.

One of these aspects is the proper role that property rights can and should play in solving environmental problems. Indeed, the same attitudes often extend to general outlooks on the proper role of property rights in society as a whole. Since I'm going to talk about a subject somewhat off the beaten track, the relationship of property rights and religion, it may be helpful if I give a little more explanation for my interest in this subject.

I am an economist who has worked in the Federal Government on environmental issues for a number of years. In my position I came to the conclusion some time ago that debates between economists and environmentalists were really a kind of religious war. Not much progress was being made, partly because basic assumptions and a proper set of values were often the real issues. But people did not know how to talk about values or did not want to talk about them. So economists and environmentalists have often ended up talking at cross purposes.

Neither one could change the mind of the other, and they simply ended up repeating the same arguments without much effect. This was true in a lot of areas, and one of these was property rights. Hence, I eventually decided to take a somewhat novel and perhaps even radical perspective.

Let's assume that environmentalism at least, in its radical versions, really is a religion. It is admittedly a secular religion, but for many purposes that may not be a critical difference. Then, let's also agree that economists have what is really a theological difference of opinion with many environmentalists. If this is so, it seems to me that individual economists must have a theology, too, or perhaps a number of different theologies with common elements.

Continuing in this line of thinking, I decided that the sensible thing to do would be to analyze environmentalism from a theological perspective. It also seemed that it would only be fair to apply the same perspective to economic thinking as well. With respect to each, it seemed desirable to ask what were its basic premises, theologically speaking? What was the theological logic? How or did the environmental and economic filters on the world answer questions that western religion has traditionally answered, such as the character of good and evil or the path of salvation? I can't get into it here in any great depth, but this inquiry has thus far led to several published writings and has seemed to me very illuminating. Things that otherwise would not make much sense become understandable in the light of a theological analysis.

Taking environmental theology first, the parallels between environmentalism and Judeo-Christian religion proved particularly interesting. The Endangered Species Act is a lot like Noah's ark. Wilderness areas are an awful lot like, cathedrals—both places of spiritual inspiration. The offense of modern man is the same offense decried in the Bible and by many previous religious leaders. Through modern science and industry, mankind is creating a whole new world. But this usurps the place of God, as when a species previously put on the earth is now extinguished by human action.

There is thus a surprising amount in common between environmental views and the complaints of the Pope about irreligious and Godless modern, societies of materialism. At a fundamental level, the environmental vision of happy and innocent nature unaffected by human impact looks a lot like the Garden of Eden. In environmental theology, the fall of man then results from the introduction of organized agriculture, leading to even greater sins with the arrival of industrial civilization.

If salvation is the path by which sin is eliminated in the world, then the environmental path of salvation is the path of eliminating, or at least minimizing the impacts of modern industry and civilization. This is where you get the common environmental view that what is natural is good, what is unnatural is evil.

Getting to the subject of this session, where does that leave the status of property in this environmental religion? Well, the answer is pretty clear. Property will not have much status. For example, economists would argue that property rights are necessary to achieve a maximum efficiency in the use of resources. But environmental religion will say, "So what? Why seek efficiency if it means the production of more goods and services, more movement away from the primitive and innocent natural conditions sought. The very act of producing more efficiently to achieve greater outputs of goods and services will simply introduce further evil into the world." Rather than efficiency, in environmental theology the social goal should be the minimizing of human impacts on nature.

Besides efficiency, another traditional defense of property rights is, of course, that they are necessary to the preservation of individual freedom. But environmental theology offers little support here as well. What can many people be expected to do with their freedom? They will produce more goods and services, which is a movement away from the fundamental goal of minimizing human impacts on nature. Instead, economic liberties will have to be curtailed in the interests of moving towards the environmental Garden of Eden, towards environmental salvation. To be sure, when heaven on earth is reached, issues of property and coercion will disappear, because all people will cooperate happily and harmoniously for the benefit of all. So in environmental religion, coercion is merely a temporary expedient on the route to the abolition of the industrial and economic conditions that have yielded evil in the world.

If all this has a familiar ring, you would not be wrong to conclude that it sounds remarkably similar to Marxism. Those who have observed that the rise of environmentalism corresponds closely with the decline of Marxism are making a valid connection. They both share the desire to transcend current evil conditions through a fundamental transformation in the human condition. This transformation requires the suspension of property rights and economic liberty as a temporary measure.

Having said that, I should also note that there are some key differences: In Marxism, heaven on earth arrives through the perfection of the economic system. Along with most current economists, Marxism values efficiency highly. In environmental religion, by contrast, the path of salvation involves a renunciation of economic progress and economic efficiency. So at this fundamental level, Marxism and environmental theology are in fact different religions. Even though they have similar views about the role of property and the use of coercion, it would be a mistake to argue that environmental religion is simply Marxism in a new dress.

I suspect that so far many people in this audience may not agree on all the particulars of my analysis, but do not have a basic problem with the characterization of at least the more radical forms of environmentalism as a theology. But I propose next to get into an area that may prove more troublesome for some of you. I propose to address how you might respond to an environmental religion of this kind.

First, I doubt that it will do much good simply to say that environmental theology is the wrong theology. It is probably necessary to say what is a better theology, or perhaps a set of better theologies. Given a choice between a bad theology and no theology, my guess is that most people will choose the bad theology. Moreover, in my own view, simply to oppose environmental theology is to take a theological position of sorts. It may be left implicit, but opposition to environmentalism will generally involve a set of values grounded in some kind of theological understanding.

As I said before, policy making in Washington today often seems more like a war of religions than an exercise in rational logic. Perhaps it should be analyzed as such, applying a theological logic and method to the disputes. This will at some point necessarily involve directing a theological perspective to economic as well as environmental ways of thinking.

I am well aware that this is getting into some potentially controversial ground. Americans know full well that religious conflict, has often proven disastrous in the past. They have sought to erect unprecedented barriers intended to separate church and state. In my view, however, this attempted separation is often illusion. It is often a form of discrimination that allows some theologies—those like environmentalism that are secular religions—to participate in governance. Yet, other more traditional religions are excluded. It frankly seems to me that the very concept of the separation of church and state may have to be thoroughly reexamined.

Some of you might be concerned by now that I am about to propound what I believe to be the one and only correct theology, the one superior alternative to environmental theology. Let me reassure you that I have no such intention. But I do want to discuss what some past theologies, traditional and secular alike, have said about property rights.

The future of theology, it seems to me, will hold the key to the future of property rights. And it may be interesting to consider what might be the outcome for property rights if one or another type of theology were eventually to prevail.

I might also mention at this point that I address this and related subjects in a new book of mine entitled "Reaching for Heaven on Earth: The Theological Meaning of Economics." It has just come out in the last few weeks. Some of you may find it surprising, but there is, in fact, a strong antagonistic element in western religion towards private ownership and towards property rights. Rights to property have often been seen as reflecting a desire to benefit oneself, when the correct motive should be to benefit others. Property has often been equated with selfishness, which is an unworthy, or even sinful outlook.

In fact, the Christian view of heaven does not involve any role for property. As one popular Christian explicator wrote, "Heaven is pure communism. There is no private property in heaven." The Garden of Eden is seen in much the same light. No property would exist there, because, all goods would be shared equally among selfless individuals who were fully as concerned for the well-being of others as for themselves.

How, then, can there be any justification for property, when Christian values might seem to indicate so strongly otherwise? To answer that question, one begins by recognizing that conditions in this world are far from heavenly. Indeed, in Christian theology, since the fall of man and the emergence of evil in the world, selflessness no longer holds and, instead, selfishness has come to prevail.

The early Christians such as Augustine argued that this is the reason that property becomes a regrettable necessity. In a world filled with sinners, goods and services could never be distributed on a purely voluntary and cooperative basis. Without property, there would be constant feuding and scheming to get control over goods and services. Nothing would ever be settled. So property rights had to be introduced as a means of establishing some minimal order in a corrupt world. For Augustine and other leading theologians of early Christianity; property rights were not a positive force for sustaining a sound and viable economy. They were simply a way of minimizing evil in the world.

After Augustine, another great Christian theologian would be Thomas Aquinas. With Aquinas, there are some similar elements to Augustine. Aquinas explains that a property rights will bring on a "more peaceful state" and that "quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed." However, there is a different flavor to Aquinas. He also argues that there can be material benefits and desirable incentives associated with property. rights. As Aquinas explains, "Every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all." In Aquinas' view, property rights stimulate greater production and help to make possible a satisfactory provision of goods and services to serve the basic needs of the faithful.

Aquinas is also a great proponent of natural law. In his thinking, the pursuit of self-interest is natural to mankind. And in natural law writings, the actions of individual who follow the laws of nature will yield a rational and harmonious society. Thus, in the theology of Aquinas, self-interest is natural in the affairs of the world, and property is a great advantage because it maintains individual incentives to advance one's own personal interest. In short, there is a much more positive view of property in Aquinas and other natural law theologians.

Jumping rather quickly here in this brief survey, we arrive at John Locke, Adam Smith, and the Enlightenment. What we find is in many ways a secularized blend of Augustine and Aquinas, but with the emphasis on the theological tradition represented by Aquinas. In Locke, Smith, and other leading Enlightenment figures, natural law concepts are typically at the heart of their thinking. And, like Aquinas, they see the pursuit of individual interest as in conformance with natural law.

A key new element, however, is introduced. The pursuit of self-interest is seen as the equivalent for social interactions to the force of gravity in the interactions of the solar system. And the pursuit of self-interest for the 18th century will produce an equilibrium in society as perfectly functioning and as harmonious as the equilibrium of the sun, planets, and moons. It is a mechanistic and static view that seeks to emulate in social matters the success of Newtonian physics. Thus, for many 18th century thinkers, the authority of Newton would be bestowed on the pursuit of self-interest and the defense of property.

What had historically been a natural law argument for property becomes in the new 18th century version a scientific argument as well. By following science, and living according to the laws of nature that will be revealed much more perfectly than ever before by science, it will be possible to perfect the human condition. It will be a perfect harmony and equilibrium, na virtual heaven on earth grounded in part in the vigorous defense of self-interest and property.

The last theology I will mention, also a secular theology, is what a number of historians have labelled as the progressive "gospel of efficiency." This gospel has played a decisive role in shaping the development of the American welfare state of the 20th century.

The basic assumption is that society can be perfected through the pervasive application of scientific methods and thinking. However, unlike the 18th century Newtonian vision; scientists must control society through detailed directions issued from on high. Scientists applying expert knowledge are the ones to manage society for the overall welfare acting "in the public interest."

Every person, every resource has a proper and scientifically determined place in a well run social order. If science is allowed to play its proper role, and the ugly influence of politics can be curbed, the result will be a great improvement—indeed eventually the perfection of the human condition. It will be, as others have written, the "social salvation" of mankind and the attainment of a new "heaven on earth."

What is of particular interest is that property rights have little role to play in this secular theology of American progressivism. In fact, personal rights to property can only get in the way of the ability of the scientific managers of society to put each resource to its proper and best use. And in my view, progressive theology has played a basic role in the sharp erosion in the status of property that has occurred in the 20th century. Progressive theology teaches that any limits on takings must be minor, because government must be able to use property to serve larger collective purposes. In actual practice, short of outright confiscation, the courts have in fact generally gone along with such interpretation.

In wrapping up, I would like to conclude with a few points.

One of the distinctive features of western civilization has been its view that history has a meaning and that this meaning is central to the understanding of the place of human existence on earth. Starting in Judaism, and then absorbed into Christianity, history has been seen as a path that will culminate eventually in a transformation of existence for the better. Sometimes this has been seen as occurring only in the hereafter, but often it has been expected on earth as well, as eventually for all peoples and places.

In the modern age, there have been a series of secular faiths that, while renouncing the religions of old, have nevertheless carried on this basic perspective. Many of them were grounded in the idea that economic progress would be the transforming mechanism in history, the means by which the current world would be transcended and a new world reached.

Most recently, however, many environmentalists have rejected this particular mechanism, but still see the possibility of salvation in a return to their own vision of original nature. This itself is not so far from the Christian desire to reverse the fall of man and to restore the innocence of the Garden of Eden.

In short, the Judeo-Christian tradition has continued to exert a powerful influence, even when it may be outwardly rejected and a secular dress adopted. In fact, it is the dynamism of this tradition, now often expressed in secular ways, that in my view accounts for the role of the west in transforming the whole world in the past few centuries.

This is really an incredible development, one that cannot be accounted for in terms of a mundane search for material comforts or ordinary economic well-being. It rather reflects the crusading spirit of a western religious revolution, one that by now has reached an unprecedented number of people around the world, often through their conversion to one or another form of "economic theology."

Capitalism and the defense of property rights have been the main manifestations of this spirit. Moreover, in the future, if capitalism and property are to maintain their past preeminence, the same or a similarly powerful religious foundation and revolutionary spirit will still be required. I am, however, much less certain just what form this future religious foundation might or should take.

It would be foolish for me to try to predict where all these religious and economic developments will lead. I will simply say that, recognizing that religion can take many diverse forms the understanding of the role of religion in society today seems to be making a comeback. In my view, the only way to understand a lot of events going on today, including the status and future prospects for property rights, is to adopt the kind of theological perspective that I have been employing today.

...Robert H. Nelson...

© Copyright 1992
Institute for domestic Tranquility