In your opinion, is laissez-faire economics, as defined, compatible with Catholic dogma?
Why or why not?
The tricky part about a question like this is that in any given system of economics, it consists of so many different aspects and to lump everything (regulation) into one basket as an all or nothing proposition would not be the correct way to look at it.
These individual aspects should be judged individually on their own merit. This is different than looking at an ideology such as communism or socialism in which it is the immoral ideology that forms the basis for what economic policy is and the imposed way of life.
Is your question asked in a literal sense, meaning is it immoral to have a
completely unregulated economy? If so we have to step back to the simple economics of free trade and keep complicating it until we get to the point where, if left on its own it would cause some unjustice to occur, the question would it be ‘is it immoral to not impose a regulation on that particular aspect’.
As a start we can look at a simple economic system:
I make a pair of shoes, you make a horse brush. We trade our products with each other. Could this happen indefinately and if left unregulated, be immoral.
I make a shoes, you make a horse brush, 8 other people make such things as lawn chairs, light bulbs, screwdrivers, etc.
I give you a pair of shoes but I don’t really want a horse brush so you give me a coin. I take this coin to one of the others and give it in exchange for a screwdriver, who in turn goes and gets a light bulb, etc. Can this go on indefinately unregulated? At what point does it become immoral to not regulate?
I start mass producing shoes. I hire a a laborer to make them. I sell them for four coins a pair and give one coin from each pair made to my laborer. In effect, for every pair of shoes the laborer makes, he can buy a light bulb or screwdriver, etc. There are still three coins left. One goes to buy materials for making more shoes. I keep two coins. Is government obliged to step in and regulate now?
At this point, for every pair of shoes made, my laborer can buy an article from one of the other people, and I can buy two articles. But now, due to inflation, the person selling lightbulbs doesn’t want to make four lightbulbs in order to get one pair of shoes, so he raises his price to four coins. His standard of living happens to be lower because he doesn’t have mass production capability. He decides to hire a labor and pay one coin to make light bulbs. One coin to his laborer, one for material, and two for himself. Now he only has to have his company make two light bulbs to earn enough money to buy a pair of shoes. The laborer still has to make four light bulbs to buy one of shoes. Light bulbs seem a bargain at this point to the shoemaker. At this point is not regulating immoral. Explain.
If refraining from regulation is not intrinsically evil at this point, feel free to complicate it to the point where it you feel it would be immoral to not start imposing regulation. We can then discuss the morality of that particular regulation.
