One of the most consistent arguments made against the policy of society wide debt forgiveness is this: “You need a Christian or believing (in the sense of ancient Israelite) nation for it to work. It cannot work in a nation like ours because it is non-Christian, so either people will not go for it, or they will abuse it and it will not work.” Almost every time I have made a case for debt forgiveness somebody makes this argument. But it is a fallacious one, both historically and logically.
It is fallacious
logically because there is nothing inherent to many pagan philosophies saying that
debt cannot be forgiven. Forgiveness, liberty and debt cancellation were all
concepts that existed before either Israel or Christianity had graced the face
of the earth. Indeed, the most ancient usage of words that can be translated as
“liberty” were pagan words referring to debt forgiveness.
It is fallacious
historically, because we have countless examples throughout history of ancient
societies practicing debt forgiveness. From the ancient Sumerians, Akkadians,
and other Near Eastern societies, on through to Greek city states and the Roman
public, we see that debt forgiveness was either practiced, debated, or offered
in various contexts. In fact, many ancient pagan leaders saw it, correctly, as
an effective means of shoring up popular support for their reign, and limiting
the damage their nobles could do to both their reign and their society.
Many examples
of debt forgiveness in pagan societies can be given, here is one from ancient
Athens,
“Now later writers observe that the ancient Athenians used to
cover up the ugliness of things with auspicious and kindly terms, giving them
polite and endearing names. Thus they called harlots "companions",
taxes "contributions", the garrison of a city its "guard",
and the prison a "chamber". But Solon was the first, it would seem,
to use this device, when he called his cancelling of debts a
"disburdenment". For the first of his public measures was an
enactment that existing debts should be remitted, and that in future no one
should lend money on the person of a borrower. Some writers, however, and
Androtion is one of them, affirm that the poor were relieved not by a
cancelling of debts, but by a reduction of the interest upon them and showed
their satisfaction by giving the name of “disburdenment" to this act of
humanity, and to the augmentation of measures and the purchasing power of money
which accompanied it. For he made the mina to consist of a hundred drachmas,
which before had contained only seventy-three, so that by paying the same
amount of money, but money of lesser value, those who had debts to discharge
were greatly benefited and those who accepted such payments were no losers. But
most writers agree that the "disburdenment" was a removal of all debt,
and with such the poems of Solon are more in accord. For in these he proudly
boasts that from the mortgaged lands:
He took away the record-stones that everywhere were planted;
Before, Earth was in bondage, now she is free.
And of the citizens whose persons had been seized for debt,
some he brought back from foreign lands, "uttering no longer Attic speech,
so long and far their wretched wanderings," and some "who here at
home in shameful servitude were held," he says he set free.
This undertaking is said to have involved him in the most
vexatious experience of his life. For when he had set out to abolish debts, and
was trying to find arguments and a suitable occasion for the step, he told some
of his most trusted and intimate friends, namely, Conon, Cleinias, and
Hipponicus, that he was not going to meddle with the land but had determined to
cancel debts. They immediately took advantage of this confidence and
anticipated Solon's decree by borrowing large sums from the wealthy and buying
up great estates. Then, when the decree was published, they enjoyed the use of
their properties but refused to pay the moneys due their creditors. This
brought Solon into great condemnation and odium, as if he had not been imposed
upon with the rest, but were a party to the imposition, However, this charge
was at once dissipated by his well-known sacrifice of five talents. For it was
found that he had lent that much, and he was the first to remit this debt in
accordance with his law. Some say that the sum was fifteen talents, among them
Polyzelus the Rhodian. But his friends were ever after called chreocopidae,
or debt-cutters.
He pleased neither party, however; the rich were vexed
because he took away their securities for debt, and the poor still more because
he did not re-distribute the land, as they had expected, nor make all men equal
and alike in their way of living, as Lycurgus did. But Lycurgus was eleventh in
descent from Heracles and had been king in Lacedaemon for many years. He
therefore had great authority, many friends, and power to support his reforms
in the commonwealth. He also employed force rather than persuasion, insomuch
that he actually lost his eye thereby, and most effectually guaranteed the
safety and unanimity of the city by making all its citizens neither poor nor
rich. Solon, on the contrary, could not secure this feature in his
commonwealth, since he was a man of the people and of modest station; yet he in
no wise acted short of his real power, relying as he did only on the wishes of
the citizens and their confidence in him. Nevertheless he gave offence to the
greater part of them, who expected different results, as he himself says of
them in the lines:
Then they had extravagant thoughts of me, but now, incensed,
All look askance at me, as if I were their foe.
And yet had any other man, he says, acquired the same power:
He had not held the people down, nor made an end until he had
confounded all, and skimmed the cream.
Soon, however, they perceived the advantages of his measure,
ceased from their private fault-finding, and offered a public sacrifice, which
they called Seisactheia, or Disburdenment. They also appointed Solon to
reform the constitution and make new laws, laying no restrictions whatever upon
him but putting everything into his hands: magistracies, assemblies, courts-of law,
and councils. He was to fix the property qualification for each of these, their
numbers, and their times of meeting, abrogating and maintaining existing
institutions at his pleasure.
In the first place, then, he repealed the laws of Draco, all
except those concerning homicide, because they were too severe and their
penalties too heavy. For one penalty was assigned to almost all transgressions,
namely death, so that even those convicted of idleness were put to death, and
those who stole salad or fruit received the same punishment as those who
committed sacrilege or murder. Therefore Demades in later times made a hit when
he said that Draco's laws were written not with ink, but blood. And Draco himself,
they say, being asked why he made death the penalty for most offences, replied
that in his opinion the lesser ones deserved it, and for the greater ones no
heavier penalty could be found.”[1]
For those
who argue that you need a Christian nation to enact debt forgiveness, the
Greeks prove this conclusively untrue. Anyone who knows their Greek history reasonably
well knows that in many ways the Greeks had a terrible morality and lived in
ways that Christian’s, and even many other modern people, can only condemn.
However, they still came to the obvious conclusion that debt forgiveness is good
for a nation, and a moral imperative when a nation's people are heavily burdened
by debt.
We can
observe a couple of things from Solon’s efforts. First, he only got his reforms
through because he was trusted by common man and noble alike. Some of his friends
in the know did take advantage of his policies, as is to be expected; humans can
find a way to abuse anything good. He had to give both sides less than they
wanted so that his whole society was not turned upside down, which turned
people in the elites and among the common people against him. And his policy
was so successful it eventually won people over and they asked him to radically
reform their society in many other ways as well.
So, even
though Solon was a flawed individual, and his policies were also flawed, just
the act of debt forgiveness was so powerful for this pagan society it won many
of them over to listening to this man on other polices of law and culture.
Solon’s policies did not usher in the golden age of Athens straight away, but
they did pave the way for it, and it is for this reason that he is viewed as
one of the greatest reformers in Athenian history.
So, we can
see conclusively you do not need a Christian society, or even a remarkably
moral society for debt forgiveness to work. In fact, the reverse can actually
happen; the flow on effect of debt forgiveness can eventually allow your
society to increase its morality and culture in other ways. What is also
interesting is that the only genuine Jubilee[2]
that is called in the Old Testament was from Cyrus the Great, who was also a
pagan ruler, in this case the King of kings of the ancient Persian Empire. Cyrus
let the peoples of many nations go free, including the Jews, restored them to
their lands and homes, and gave them wealth to rebuild their lives. This is
what a Jubilee was, and it had a remarkably positive and stabilizing effect on
the Persian empire, increasing its prosperity as a result. You could probably
say that Pharoah in Exodus also called a Jubilee of sorts, however, this was
not one he did willingly but under the command of the Lord God who told him to
let God’s people go.
So, again we
have established conclusively that debt forgiveness is possible in an
unbelieving nation. I wonder what sort of moral effect it would have on modern
Australia, Britain, Europe of the United States to have their peoples freed
from debt? The effects of both the Athenian and Spartan efforts at debt
forgiveness created two of the mightiest European nations of the ancient world.
Nations which still live on in memory as grand ancestors of our modern western
civilisations. Imagine what the highly capable European peoples of the western
world could achieve if freed from the massive weight of the burden of debt
around their necks? Imagine the blessing the West could have on poorer
countries by cancelling their national debts. It is time to bring back disburdenment,
I think you’ll find many Christians and pagans alike would support this policy
and see it for the good that it is. The ancient Greeks did.
Here is an ancient video you can watch on this as well click here.
References
[1]
Plutarch’s Lives, Volume 1, The Life of Solon, Castalia House, pp125-127
[2] A
partial Jubilee was called in the times of Nehemiah (Neh. 5) and in the time of
Jeremiah, King Zedekiah called a Jubilee but took it back (Jer. 34).
Nothing wrong with this conceptually, but who goes first? Do you declare going into debt illegal and immoral. Or after someone borrows money, do you suddenly find debt to be immoral. If debt if immoral, then both sides are engaged in an immoral practice. That is, going into debt would be just as immoral as loaning money to someone.
ReplyDeleteIf debt is immoral and should be forgiven, then what about the person going into debt? Isn't he or she engaging in an immoral act. So if you dislike debt, then you should dislike debtors too.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is not that debt is immoral or that debtors are immoral or even lenders are immoral. None of them are scripturally or ethically. The issue at stake is that debt gets out of hand and needs to be reset this is why the Scriptures made allowances for people take debt, or lend money, but put boundaries around how this happened, for how long, and how and why it needed to be done.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the bible makes allowances for both the borrower and the lender shows it is not inherently wrong to lend or borrow, it just needs to be contained, otherwise it gets out of control.
Equating forgiveness of debts with forgiveness of sins, is not wrong, you just have it backwards. It is not that debt is being equated to sin, but sin is being equated to debt, it is a burden that needs to relieved, it weighs people down (sin does more than this, but that is why there are several images of what sin does used in the Bible). The illustration of debt forgiveness being applied to forgiveness of sins was a powerful one to ancient people who found themselves facing debt, often through no fault of their own, because of bad crops, or brigands attacking a caravan with their merchant goods in it, or greedy land owners stacking the land values against them, or some other economic hardship. It was a concept they could readily relate to. It is not equating the two exactly.
I for one agree with Michael Hudson that people will always find ways to lend and borrow, so you need to contain it. It's a normal economic activity that can benefit both parties if done well, but will harm society if done poorly. Usury on the other hand is immoral, when applied to your own people.