Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

thescroll_header

Medieval Judaism and Libertarianism

Two great tastes that taste great together?

Print Email
The Old Synagogue in Sopron, Hungary.(By Emmanuel Dyan/Flickr.)

Over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, there’s been a fascinating symposium on a new book, John Tomasi’s Free Market Fairness. The book argues (I am simplifying greatly) that libertarians should be more like left-liberals (focus more on helping the poor) and left-liberals should be more like libertarians (focus on protecting “economic liberties” from government interference). The book is mostly a work of political philosophy (and, full disclosure, I helped conduct research for it), but one of his arguments looks very interesting in light of … medieval Jewish history. Let’s take a look!

One of John’s arguments, which he calls “linkage,” is that economic freedom helps buttress the social and political rights that we all agree are super important. Once people have property rights, for example, it’s harder for the government to take away their freedom of speech because they it can’t take away privately owned computers or printing presses. There’s an interesting twist on this in the early medieval Jewish experience, wherein Jews denied the liberty to participate in other sectors of the economy built up a comparative advantage in banking (as Christians were religiously prohibited from charging interest). Check out the consequences:

Very wealth Jews became central to their co-religionists. They were Jews with access to the halls of power; they were the economic supports of their fellow Jews; they were the mainstays of the Jewish community, bearing the heaviest burden of financing the necessary institutions of communal life and culture. The advantages of Jewish moneylending resided in the wealth and political leverage it conferred.

In essence, the liberty to succeed in the marketplace empowered an otherwise trod-upon minority to gain a degree of social power that it wouldn’t have otherwise had. In this case, then, capitalist freedoms appeared to challenge entrenched social discrimination by allowing a minority to carve out a space for itself. Indeed, Enlightenment Jewish thinker Moses Mendelssohn partly based his case for Jewish emancipation on the critical role Jews had come to play in the economy. Yay for economic freedom then, yes?

Not quite so fast. All the financial clout Jews had accrued in Britain (about which, along with France, the above excerpt was focusing on) didn’t stop the York massacre in 1190 or the expulsion of all Jews from Britain in 1290. Further, as we all know, Jewish success in commercial life ended up producing a vast array of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, the consequences of which proved to be deadly in both private and public life. In those cases, the active exercise of state power (in forms ranging from anti-discrimination laws to military force) was often needed to protect the Jewish community from those who wished to do it harm.

The point, then, is that the potential for capitalist freedoms to allow disadvantaged minorities to develop social power cannot be discounted. At the same time, we cannot be blind to the way that other forms of discrimination and power imbalances can undermine those freedoms. Sometimes, dealing with these problems requires the active exercise of state power to protect minority rights, possibly by restricting on the freedom of private actors (including economic actors) to discriminate. It’s a tricky balance, and one that we need to think hard about in advanced capitalist societies. And while John’s book is a welcome step forward, I’m not sure more doctrinaire libertarian accounts than his are well-suited to thinking this sort of problem through.

On that note, that’s it for my guest blogging stint, folks. I hope you guys enjoyed it as much as I did. If you’re interested in staying in touch or just yelling at me, you can find me on Twitter as @zackbeauchamp. Take care!

Print Email

<>

It would be interesting to learn is this chap, John Tomasi, had ever heard of Prof Milton Friedman or had encountered one of his books, “Capitalism & Freedom,” which was published in 1962 — a full 50 years ago — wherein Prof Friedman advocated for a “negative income tax.”

The negative income tax — as proposed by Prof Friedman — would ensure that poor Americans pay NO federal income tax (being “poor”, after all, means that one doesn’t have much money) and would instead have their incomes supplemented by the federal government (i.e., they would be PAID by the federal government to bring them up to a certain level of minimum income). This sort of federal program would provide much (as in “MUCH”) better & more consistent income support for poor Americans than the hodge-podge of programs that the Dems & Repubs had passed up to that point.

If memory serves when President R Nixon proposed this program to Congress during his first term it got lukewarm support from Republicans & very little support from Dems. This is one of the reasons why this libertarian (if not all libertarians) declare to both Establishment political parties (i.e., Dems & Repubs), “A pox on both thy houses!”

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Medieval Judaism and Libertarianism

Two great tastes that taste great together?

More on Tablet:

New Report Shows Britain Not Immune To Anti-Semitism

By Liam Hoare — Faring better than Europe, but with clouds on the horizon