(Click here to continue on the main path)

As a Catholic, I want to present a point of view that is different from Dee's and, to a lesser extent, from John's. My view is based on three concepts: God, the common good, and stewardship.

I know it's not cool to introduce God in our discussions, but I'm going to do it anyway. At least Fred might support me.

I believe that God created the world for the good of humankind. In other words, God created the world for the preservation and comfort of human beings. That is God's purpose and our institutions should support, not oppose, that purpose. I agree with Locke on this point. Locke was not a purely secular thinker; and he believed, as I do, that we are here to fulfill God's purposes. Locke believed that whatever property rights people have, those rights must never be allowed to interfere with God's purpose -- the well being of his creatures. I believe the same thing.

Property is not a bad thing, but the rights of property as we define them must foster the preservation and comfort of all, not just a few. In other words, they must serve the common good. We can think of the rights of property as limited by the obligations of stewardship. Those who have property have obligations to other people and to society as a whole. (We could also bring in the natural environment here, but I'm not going to do that.) As Pope Leo XIII wrote, he who has received many material blessings "has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others." (Rerum Novarum, 22)

To be a little more concrete, let me add that the Catholic church over the last century has consistently advocated a family wage. Employers are not free to hire people for whatever the market will bear. That approach, associated with classical liberalism, is morally unacceptable for two reasons. First, it denies some people the benefits of God's creation. Second, it detracts from the dignity of the employee as a human being created in God's image.

I think that the property rights that Dee advocates are too strong because they are not limited by proper obligations or stewardship in relation to the common good. Libertarians forget those obligations. Or it might be better to say that they simply leave them out of their equations. Of course, libertarians believe in charity, and that's a good thing. But the obligations of charity are not the same as the obligations of stewardship. That's what they are missing.