The Imago Dei and the Market Economy: Libertarian Tensions in Michael Novak’s Political Theology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
I read your article with interest and I find it methodologically well elaborated. The goal of your scientific inquiry is clear expressed and supported by compelling and thoroughly researched arguments.
In order to make your article more valuable, please find below my small suggestions:
Lines 30, 34, 37, 51, 58 and other lines in the text: I believe that given the fact that `imago Dei` is an important theological concept it should be italicized.
Line 63: Inside the citation, a space must be inserted before the page number, 26.
Line 353: One of the two points should be eliminated after the citation.
Lines 422 to 425: A citation is needed to sustain Wolterstorff’s critique of libertarians’ arguments.
Lines 432-438: A citation is needed if the appreciations on the Kantian style arguments are provided by other scholars than the author of the article.
Lines 482-482: One of the articles `a` or `the` inserted in front of the expression `natural right` should be eliminated.
Line 481: If the first proposition expresses the author’s opinion, I believe it is necessary to find a personal formula to indicate that.
I wish you all the best with your research!
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and notes on my paper. I have made the necessary revisions.
Comment 1: Lines 30, 34, 37, 51, 58 and other lines in the text: I believe that given the fact that `imago Dei` is an important theological concept it should be italicized.
Response 1: Corrected
Comment 2: Line 63: Inside the citation, a space must be inserted before the page number, 26.
Response 2: Corrected
Comment 3: Line 353: One of the two points should be eliminated after the citation.
Response 3: Corrected
Comment 4: Lines 422 to 425: A citation is needed to sustain Wolterstorff’s critique of libertarians’ arguments.
Response 4: Corrected
Comment 5: Lines 432-438: A citation is needed if the appreciations on the Kantian style arguments are provided by other scholars than the author of the article.
Response 5: Corrected
Comment 6: Lines 482-482: One of the articles `a` or `the` inserted in front of the expression `natural right` should be eliminated.
Response 6: Corrected
Comment 7: Line 481: If the first proposition expresses the author’s opinion, I believe it is necessary to find a personal formula to indicate that.
Response 7: Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper examines Michael Novak’s perspective on human rights and liberty and the market economy. The paper explores both the affinity and tension that exists between his approach and libertarianism.
Novak grounds his justification for human rights and liberty in the concept of imago dei—or the idea that humans are created in the image of god. As such, humans are sentient beings with subjective experiences, but they also are not wholly independent and rely on community. To maximize human flourishing, Novak proposes a minimal state and a free market, which will allow people to exercise their freedom while still needing god, since they are fallen and in sin.
Free-market libertarians similarly promote free markets, but their support for these markets is grounded in methodological rationalism. This, according to Novak, fails to properly ground universal natural rights and freedom.
The paper contrasts the differences between Novak’s “grounding” of rights and libertarianism, especially relying on the work of people like Murray Rothbard and Had-Hermann Hoppe.
The writing is clear and compelling. The thesis is interesting and clearly presented. The paper makes extensive use of primary sources by Novak and libertarian thinkers to construct the argument. Secondary sources are also used, but the paper could benefit from a more thorough grounding in contemporary scholarship.
The paper might also benefit from the explication of possible counterarguments from libertarians to avoid the accusation of constructing a straw person argument.
For example the paper could:
· Examine the libertarian principle of self-ownership. This principle might challenge the notion of imago dei is the sole tenable foundation for human rights and liberty.
· The Non-aggression Principle is also relevant here. This can demonstrate how certain things can be seen as objectively wrong without theological grounding.
· Rebut the Libertarians notion that natural rights can be derived solely from reason and without the need for theological or religious foundations. The paper could discuss why Novak believes such a rationalist foundation is insufficient.
At any rate, the paper is relatively brief and there is room for elaboration.
The paper adds to the ongoing dialogue between theology and political philosophy, with a special emphasis on the intersection of religion and economic theory. This is a relatively underexplored area in the literature.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind words about the essay and for the thoughtful feedback. Below are my responses to each comment. I hope I am not misunderstanding your feedback, but I believe the paper already deals with the first three comments. So, in my responses I noted the specific lines where each issue is addressed in the paper.
Comment 1: Examine the libertarian principle of self-ownership. This principle might challenge the notion of imago dei is the sole tenable foundation for human rights and liberty.
Response 1: I believe I addressed the libertarian argument from self-ownership in lines 404-425 and again on lines 466-504. The concept is also addressed in footnotes 10, 13, and 17. If there is something more I should add, please let me know.
Comment 2: The Non-aggression Principle is also relevant here. This can demonstrate how certain things can be seen as objectively wrong without theological grounding.
Response 2: I briefly address the shortcomings of the NAP in footnote 10 using Walter Block’s analysis of natural law. For sake of brevity and flow of the essay, I thought it best to place this argument in a footnote rather than the body of the essay. Originally, it was included in the body, but it seemed to disrupt the natural flow of the argument. Hopefully, the reviewer will accept the way I address the NAP in this footnote. If further elaboration is needed, I am willing to add additional argumentation to the body of the essay.
Comment 3: Rebut the Libertarians notion that natural rights can be derived solely from reason and without the need for theological or religious foundations. The paper could discuss why Novak believes such a rationalist foundation is insufficient.
Response 3: I may be misunderstanding this third recommendation, but sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the paper directly address this question. Section 3.2 is devoted to demonstrating Novak’s rejection of rationalist attempts to ground natural rights. However, in order to critique libertarian alternatives to Novak’s position and to supplement Novak’s theological foundation, I utilized a technical analysis of rationalist arguments found Nicholas Wolterstorff’s work. I believe this effectively challenges rationalist foundations for natural rights (section 3.1). In my opinion, Wolterstorff’s arguments sufficiently compliment Novak’s argument and can be used against libertarian arguments by logical extension. If something more specific is necessary to bolster the essay, please let me know.
Comment 4: Address a possible objection to Novak’s framework:
Response 4: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I added another section to the end of the paper to deal with at least one major objection. Section 3.3 The Limitations of Novak’s Tri-Partite System acknowledges a notable weakness in Novak’s framework raised by a contemporary libertarian thinker. Hopefully, this adds more nuance to the paper. See below:
3.3. The Limitations of Novak’s Tri-Partite System
In spite of democratic capitalism’s virtues, libertarian critics have noted a significant weakness in the enduring qualities of Novak’s system. Jeffery Tucker, a contemporary libertarian thinker and friend of Novak, believes this shortcoming stems from Novak's confidence in the political institutions to function as economic corollaries. Throughout his writings, Novak goes to great lengths to defend free markets, but in Tucker’s estimation Novak does not go far enough. The flaw in Novak's thinking, Tucker argues, is his failure to see how the market economy could eventually "replace democratic institutions as the basis of law, justice, and security, thus replacing the public sector entirely in a way that upholds the common good” (Tucker 2014, p 20). For Tucker, there remains within Novak’s thought an exaggerated importance of political institutions, and this flaw prevents Novak from recognizing the authoritarian trajectory of American institutions over the centuries.
In this way, Novak’s view of political institutions is similar to many classical liberals (Ludvig von Mises included) who all “tended to regard democracy as a political corollary in the economic sphere” (Tucker 2014, p. 19). The true nature and outcome of political systems, however, is much different than classical liberal theory. “Modern democracy,” writes Tucker, “has emerged as a highly bureaucratic system of entrenched elites who live and thrive quite apart from voting mechanisms and public input” (Tucker 2014, p. 20). In the end, Tucker concludes, Novak’s tri-partite system may work well in the theoretical and idyllic past of America’s founding, but it does little to account for the tumultuous political struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, let alone the rise of a leviathan bureaucracy in the twenty-first century.
Herein lies the tension in Novak’s political theology. On the one hand, his insistence on theological foundation for political liberty offers a non-rationalist defense of natural rights and human dignity that contemporary libertarians could employ. On the other hand, Novak’s over-confidence that the political sphere can function as a corollary of the economic sphere poses perhaps the greatest weakness of his tri-partite system and would benefit from a libertarian-oriented skepticism about modern political institutions.
