Friedrich Hayek He argued that justice and injustice can only be determined by an act. Thus, when the famous Austrian playwright and novelist Ordon von Horvat was walking along the Champs-Élysées during a thunderstorm when he was struck by a tree branch and ultimately died, we could not speak of injustice. The tree did not intend to kill him, it just happened.
But there is a further (and perhaps more important) implication in Hayek’s view that justice applies meaningfully only to actions. It also suggests that the patterns of income and wealth in a pure market economy are neither just nor unjust. The way two people interact in a market economy is certainly just or unjust, but the particular order that results from the interaction of millions of people is neither just nor unjust. Since no one has planned the total order (there is no action or directing will behind it), it is beyond the scope of justice.
Today’s economies are mixed systems. In these systems, free market processes are generally present. Thus, in general, the particular order that emerges is outside the realm of justice. But governments intervene. That is, they resort to coercive power to interfere with people’s free actions. Some, but probably not all, interventions are aimed at shaping the patterns of income and wealth in society. And justice applies to the extent to which these interventions affect the overall patterns of wealth in society. That is, the way in which governments shape these patterns can be just or unjust. For example, governments may impose inheritance taxes or bail out struggling banks (as happened after the 2008 crisis) with the aim of preventing the growth of inequality.
There is no need to consider this an issue By itselfMaybe there are good reasons for intervention, but even if it is generally okay, it would only be okay if all government intervention was actually justified.
But when government intervention becomes unjust, a delicate situation arises, because in that case we can say that the patterns of income and wealth are partly the result of unjust actions and therefore partly just or unjust. To make this clear, if in a pure market economy you become poor or lose your job, you are exactly like Ordon von Horvat: you may be angry about your fate, but you have not been treated unjustly. But if in a mixed economy you become poor or lose your job, this may be (partly) the result of government action, i.e., government action based on unjust coercion. But arguments may be made to justify government action in retaliation for a previous injustice. And perhaps there is more to it than that. Sanford Ikeda’s words“When redistributive interventions are undertaken, those who lose as a result have a legitimate and identifiable target to blame: the central government and its supporters.”
If this reasoning is correct, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate numerous actions of citizens in a mixed economy. It’s confusing! For example, if the bakery around the corner evades taxes, is this unjust? (It is certainly illegal, but being legal is not moral.) If we admit that governments have built an ingeniously complex regulatory regime that favors large companies with their lawyers and consultants and who are better able to manipulate the mixed economy, it is no longer possible to make a clear judgment. But if we examine the actions of large companies like Apple, it quickly becomes clear that it is really difficult to find an appropriate perspective from which to judge their actions, including their attempts to seize regulation, because they too may be victims of unjust government interference. The case is probably one of the most important. EU Commission Decision To punish Apple for abusing its power in the music streaming business.
In an imperfectly mixed economy, individuals or companies who evade taxes, break laws, or implement schemes to circumvent government intervention may even have the moral high ground. They may be justified in acting illegally. They may even be justified in seizing regulation or fighting for new regulations that favor their industry. I am not saying that they are justified. These are moral questions that necessarily require detailed and complex analysis of each specific case, if there are any clear answers at all.
But what is clear is that in an interventionist society things get really confusing and unclear. It is not clear that people who do things that would arguably be blameworthy in a pure market economy would also behave blameworthy in a mixed economy.
Max Molden is a PhD student at the University of Hamburg. He has been active in the European Federation of Free Students and the Prometheus das Friheitsinstitut. He writes regularly for Der Friedenker.
