Trinitarian Stewardship and the Limits of Socialism

The question of stewardship cannot be separated from the question as to what extent it is appropriate for government to restrict the economic activities of individuals and, collectively, of industry. Consequently, this question points to the more general, and arguably central, question of political philosophy of how to balance individual liberty with “the common good.” Grave risks faceany society that emphasizes one of these concerns to the detriment of the other. Philosophers like Plato and Marx, for example, consider that societies based on personal economic advancement tend to at best entrap individuals in lifestyles which undermine human well-being (e.g. Republic, Book 8,555bff) and at worst lead to complete conflict and estrangement between individuals and their fellow citizens, between individuals and nature, and even within the individuals themselves(e.g. Marx's The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, ed. by Tucker, 1978 pp.110,118, and 120; see also Alienated Labor; ed. by Morgan, 1996, 1144-1147). On the other hand, thinkers such as Aristotle and Locke maintain that private property is woven into the natural order, so that undue government restrictions on wealth and use of land threaten both the development of personal virtue (such as the acquisition of self-discipline and the virtue of generosity) (e.g. Aristotle's Politics Book 2, chap.5, 1263b57) and open the doors to tyranny (Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, chaps. 18-19). Nevertheless, both philosophers acknowledge that the failure to exercise self-discipline and generosity in the acquisition of personal wealth leads to the very dangers described by Plato and Marx.