To be clear on how a State can justify redistribution in an
emergency, we need to understand how that same State can justify paying
interest (usury) on non-productive government debt. First, we need to look at whether either
redistribution or State usury can in any way be considered “distributive
justice.”
Does government payment of interest on its debt come under
distributive justice? Weeeeeell, sort
of. It’s a distribution by the State,
so, stretching a point pretty much past the breaking, yes, you could say it comes under distributive
justice. Putting it that way, however, is
extremely misleading. For one thing, it
confuses justification (a rationale),
with justice (a virtue).
That is why Aquinas justified
payment of interest on government debt as an allowed expedient in an emergency. It is clearly not justice, and does not, strictly speaking, belong under distributive
justice — or any other kind of justice or virtue. Aquinas’s argument from the Summa Theologica is as follows:
“Reply to Objection 3. Human laws leave certain things
unpunished, on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who
would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and
punishments appointed for them. Wherefore
human law has permitted usury, not that it looks upon usury as harmonizing
with justice, but lest the advantage of many should be hindered. Hence it is that in civil
law [Inst. II, iv, de Usufructu] it is stated that ‘those
things according to natural reason and civil
law which are
consumed by being used, do not admit of usufruct,’ and that ‘the senate did not
(nor could it) appoint a usufruct to such things, but established a
quasi-usufruct,’ namely by permitting usury.” (IIa IIae, q. 71, a. 1)
Given that paying usury even on public debt cannot be considered
just (and therefore is not
distributive justice), how is it
possible to justify it? Let’s look over the conditions for the
principle of double effect and see how (or if) they apply:
One, the act must not
be evil in and of itself.
This is easy to answer.
Taking a profit from something that generates a profit is, assuming that
the profitable activity is otherwise morally good or indifferent, a clear and
positive good. It is safe to conclude,
then, that paying or making a profit is not unjust.
Pope Benedict XIV made this clear in his 1746 encyclical, Vix Pervenit: “On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit.” [Emphasis added.] The existence of a dishonest profit necessarily implies that there can be honest profit. Profit, therefore, is not in and of itself
evil.
Heinrich Rommen made a similar point in his book on the
natural law with respect to the legitimacy of private property. As he explained, the universal prohibition
against theft, e.g., “Thou shalt not
steal,” necessarily implies that private property pertains to the natural law
and is therefore permanently and unconditionally valid. Private property is not evil. It is the misuse of private property that is
evil.
Thus, paying usury on government debt (or taking it) is not
objectively evil. It is the fact that
government debt is unproductive that makes paying interest on it wrong.
Two, the unintended
evil must not be the means by which the good effect is attained.
Again, a no-brainer.
The good effect relating to paying usury on government debt is not
attained by paying the usury. The good
effect — permitting the State to carry out its proper function — is attained by
borrowing the money, not by paying the usury.
Were it possible for the State to borrow money (without coercion)
without paying usury, e.g., public
spirited citizens freely lending to
the State without charging interest, then the issue would not come up.
(BTW, the proposal that the government could abolish taxes
and avoid usury simply by printing the money it needs appears to be objectively
evil, as it attains its goal only by abolishing private property and
transferring value without the free consent of owners of monetary assets —
stealing — by manipulating the currency.)
Three, the good
effect must be what is intended.
Again, an easy pitch.
The State is not borrowing money to pay usury. It is paying usury to be able to borrow
money.
Four, the intended
good must outweigh the unintended evil.
Maybe you have a different opinion, but as far as we can
tell, the rather limited and non-objective evil of a government paying interest
on the money it borrows is far outweighed by the fact that the government can
thereby continue to do its job. Without
government, there would be anarchy, and that is hardly an acceptable state of
affairs.
