A question for Catholic libertarians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paragon468
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paragon468

Guest
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
  • Romans 13:1-4
Is there a way for Catholic libertarians to reconcile their voluntaryist, tax-free political stance with this passage? It seems as though the author is saying it is morally wrong to disobey government institutions. I’m not overly familiar with the historical context of this, so am I missing something?
 
I personally think that Libertarianism is as impossible to profess as Marxism for a Catholic, albeit for totally different and opposing reasons.
 
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, “free”) is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.

How is being a Libertarian “disobeying government institutions”?
 
I personally think that Libertarianism is as impossible to profess as Marxism for a Catholic, albeit for totally different and opposing reasons.
Libertarianism with a capital “L”… Nah, won’t work. Libertarianism with a lower case “L”… I think it has potential to work. But I wasn’t exactly looking to discuss the political theory itself, just how Catholic libertarians might view this passage.
How is being a Libertarian “disobeying government institutions”?
I’m referring to the libertarian political/ethical philosophy, not the Libertarian Party. The libertarian view is that all human interaction should be voluntary, and not a result of force/coercion. Their understanding is that government, by nature, uses coercion to accomplish everything that it does. The libertarian/voluntaryist worldview is naturally opposed to all forms of coercion government.

EDIT: I’m not really sure what the rules are for discussing politics, so just in case it’s not allowed I would like to stress this point: I’m not referring to the Libertarian Party or trying to start a discussion about different political philosophies. I’m just wondering how Catholic libertarians and voluntaryists view this passage.
 
I personally think that Libertarianism is as impossible to profess as Marxism for a Catholic, albeit for totally different and opposing reasons.
Most of what I hear is modified libertarianism, not the full strength version.
 
The libertarian philosophy does not reject the concept of limited government. No libertarian would advocate to make weapons of mass destruction to be available to every citizen. Unfortunately most of the population is very irrational, so getting rid of government is an impractical idea. But then all utopias encounter the same or similar problems.
 
The libertarian philosophy does not reject the concept of limited government. No libertarian would advocate to make weapons of mass destruction to be available to every citizen. Unfortunately most of the population is very irrational, so getting rid of government is an impractical idea. But then all utopias encounter the same or similar problems.
Libertarianism is against any form of coercion: this includes things such as taxes. Any tax-funded government is naturally opposed to (and by) libertarianism.

Again though, I’m not here to discuss whether or not libertarianism is a practical political philosophy. I’m just asking how Catholic libertarians (or libertarians of any Christian denomination for that matter) reconcile anti-state ideals with this passage from Sacred Scriptures.
 
Ahh…Romans 13 again. Well you gotta be aware that not all right-libertarians are anarchists or fully voluntaryists: there’s anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, constitutionalists, limited government proponents, etc., so a great number of libertarians do in fact believe in the moral legitimacy of the state. As to whether I can properly consider myself libertarian is hard for me, due to its multiple definitions, but I do often refer to myself as one. First of all, the Catholic Church is first and ultimate when deciding my political views, and I base my views on Catholic social teaching. I do agree with the Church that the state (in some kind of form, with its overload of definitions) is ordained by God so that it can serve man, so I’m not in dispute with Romans 13. However you must also take a look at 1 Samuel 8 and the principle of subsidiarity. In Judges, the Israelites had been living in a very decentralized society, with the local elders and tribal leaders making up the government (who had pretty much oly judicial authority), and leaders known as judges being appointed in times of crisis. Then in 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites go up to Samuel and ask him for a king. God says thä the Israelites have rejected Him by asking for a human king, but let’s them have one, respecting their free will. He tells Samuel to warn them that the king will lead to taxation, militarism, and conscription, and that the people will be the king’s slaves, but they still ask for one. Saul is installed as king, and for the next few centuries, the majority of the kings are wicked and help lead Israel (and Judah) into its downfall. So we see the Israelites were rejecting God by centralizing the government under a king. And the principle of subsidiarity states that social and economic matters should be handled at the lowest level possible. This is why the Church has spoken out against socialism and the welfare state (as well as “unfettered” capitalism, which I will get to)

So, what we got down is that the state (in some form) is ordained by God but it must be restrained by subsidiarity, a principle that gives vast potential for individual freedom and initiative. The point that libertarians have a hard time with is how the Church is opposed to “unrestrained/unfettered” capitalism (which is probably the same thing as laissez-faire) and economic liberalism (in the pure sense). What the Church is saying is that they are opposed to theories that the state has no role in the economy WHATSOEVER. However, she promotes free trade and a free market with competition and individual initiative along with that. The principle of subsidiarity would explain that the private sector should be tried first in the role of charity and social justice, but if it can’t accomplish that, local govt would be tried next, and then higher levels of govt after that. The point that a lot of people miss is that, though we shall not be laissez-faire in principle, we should try to be as laissez-faire as possible in practice by taking on matters of social justice upon ourselves first. This is why we have just and unjust taxation in Catholicism. A just tax is one exacted in pursuit of the common good. And we shall also remember that the ends don’t justify the means, so subsidiarity must be taken into account in order for a tax to be justified. If smaller means aren’t attempted first to create the common good, then the tax is nothing but theft. And subsidiarity also suits other topics: the drinking age would be best determined by responsible parents rather than some federal magic number legislation; and in education, Common Core shouldn’t determine the standards, that should be the local educational body.
 
Libertarianism is against any form of coercion: this includes things such as taxes. Any tax-funded government is naturally opposed to (and by) libertarianism.

Again though, I’m not here to discuss whether or not libertarianism is a practical political philosophy. I’m just asking how Catholic libertarians (or libertarians of any Christian denomination for that matter) reconcile anti-state ideals with this passage from Sacred Scriptures.
It’s one thing to advocate for the eliination of a tax or even to fight againnst taxation. It is quite another to disobey the laws regarding taxation once they are passed. Libertarians do the former while your passage from Romans is against the latter I don’t see the problem.
 
We should strive to be libertarians in practice, rather than principle, and we must call for a decentralized, self-governing society. Subsidiarity has led me to label myself as a “libertarian”, “decentralizationist”, “subsidiaritist”, and, yes, “anarchist”, in the Catholic Worker sense of the term. Anarchism is often incorrectly defined as “no rules”, while it actually means “no rulers”. The Church teaches that the state is to be the SERVANT of man, and 1 Samuel 8 warns to keep God, rather than man as our ruler. Anarchism is another term that is hard to define, but most seem to circle around the ideas of decentralization, self-governance, and free association. Subsidiarity is very much in line with these ideals, and it is a comparable idea to federalism, which is a concept adopted by many anarchists. An Anarchist FAQ states:
The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralized, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighborhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of “self-management” becomes that of “self-government”, a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.
…]
The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the creation of a network of participatory communities based on self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighborhood and community assemblies [meetings for discussion, debate, and decision making].
…]
Since not all issues are local, the neighborhood and community assemblies will also elect mandated and re-callable delegates to the larger-scale units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger areas, such as urban districts, the city or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at several levels in order to develop and co-ordinate common policies to deal with common problems.
…]
This need for co-operation does not imply a centralized body. To exercise your autonomy by joining self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the decisions you help make is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical structure, where you forsake autonomy within the organisation). In a centralized system, we must stress, power rests at the top and the role of those below is simply to obey (it matters not if those with the power are elected or not, the principle is the same). In a federal system, power is not delegated into the hands of a few (obviously a “federal” government or state is a centralized system). Decisions in a federal system are made at the base of the organisation and flow upwards so ensuring that power remains decentralized in the hands of all. Working together to solve common problems and organize common efforts to reach common goals is not centralization and those who confuse the two make a serious error – they fail to understand the different relations of authority each generates and confuse obedience with co-operation
This is very much in line with scripture and subsidiarity because it calls for a higher authority to help in case of need and rejects a centralized state. In basic words, I believe in the state (in a highly decentralized form), but I reject the modern state, with its centralized, bureaucratic ways. Quite a few anarchists were great Catholics, such as Servant of God Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, who had a similar concept in mind. I would go on some more but I’ve already created two walls of text (sorry) and I’m tired so ill debate it later.
Peace
 
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
  • Romans 13:1-4
Is there a way for Catholic libertarians to reconcile their voluntaryist, tax-free political stance with this passage? It seems as though the author is saying it is morally wrong to disobey government institutions. I’m not overly familiar with the historical context of this, so am I missing something?
Click the link for a closer look at how precious little respect St Paul *actually *had for the monster that ruled the Roman empire:

When St. Paul Tweaked the Emperor’s Nose
 
Well you gotta be aware that not all right-libertarians are anarchists or fully voluntaryists: there’s anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, constitutionalists, limited government proponents, etc., so a great number of libertarians do in fact believe in the moral legitimacy of the state.
Perhaps the word “libertarian” was too vague. I’m referring mostly to the voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist ideas that the state does not have more authority than the individual.

I find myself becoming more and more anarchist, and I’m wondering how these ideals hold up with Catholic social teaching. The Church seems to lean towards statism, at least in the vague sense that we need a loosely defined government to ensure fairness and defense. Does this leave any room for complete voluntaryism? Or is a state built on coercion necessary according to Catholic social teaching?
 
It is possible for both anarchy and totalitarian governments to exist in any given society.

If fact, they often do appear together.

I call myself a libertarian because I hate nanny governments.
 
It is possible for both anarchy and totalitarian governments to exist in any given society.

If fact, they often do appear together.
Would you mind elaborating on this? I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying.
 
Perhaps the word “libertarian” was too vague. I’m referring mostly to the voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist ideas that the state does not have more authority than the individual.

I find myself becoming more and more anarchist, and I’m wondering how these ideals hold up with Catholic social teaching. The Church seems to lean towards statism, at least in the vague sense that we need a loosely defined government to ensure fairness and defense. Does this leave any room for complete voluntaryism? Or is a state built on coercion necessary according to Catholic social teaching?
Its funny how you mention the state and it’s authority with the individual, because Catholic social teaching has a concept known as “primacy of the person”. It teaches us that all social functions are to be at the service of the person. The family, the state, the international order, etc. are all here to serve the person, rather than the other way around. So, the individual comes before the family, the state, etc. For millennia, humanity had been under the notion of state and family as ruler. For example, in the Roman Empire, the people had to give blind obedience to the emporer and saw him as a god, and the patriarchal family structure consisted of a despotic pater familias who controlled the lives of his family members. The Church, however, gave us the radical notion that the family and state were here to SERVE man, rather than rule, since that God is ruler. All authority given to family and state is to be directed toward the good of those under it, and this authority is to be practiced selflessly and only when it is needed.

I’m gal to hear you’re becoming more of an anarchist, join the revolution brother! The Church seems to lean toward statism because it use the word “state” to describe some kind of governmental structure entrusted with authority. However, when Catholic social teaching is actually put into action, with subsidiarity and primacy of the person in mind, the state strangely resembles more of an anarchistic model. As for complete voluntaryism, that would not fit Catholic social teaching, because the Church teaches that this decentralized state would have to step in for some cases, but, if subsidiarity is taken seriously, these cases should become increasingly rare. Remember, the Church puts a lot of emphasis on the common good, and we all have a basic right to food, health care, shelter, clothing, etc. However, subsidiarity gives us the chance to work toward a voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist society, but force is necessary in cases where basic human needs can’t be satisfied. My economic views are a mix of distributism and Austrian economics because distributism affirms that the economy is the servant of man, and Austrianism ensures our economic freedom.
Another forum member spoke on the relationship between subsidiarity and anarchism:
In brief, anarchism can be viewed as extreme subsidiarity, where rules are established in the narrowest and most local manner possible. Neighborhood rules are established by neighbors, agreed upon by neighbors, and mutually enforced by neighbors. The broader and higher tiered a society gets, the more that rules become abstract laws removed from their local intent and value. Once you get to higher levels of government you have the absurdity of people in a distant capitol making laws for an arbitrary jurisdiction, and enforcement has minimal actual consent from the governed. Why should the cultural norms of the Pacific Northwest, which has a high tolerance for marijuana use and little danger from allowing it, be dictated by folks in Washington D.C.? The DEA is a government entity that is inherently distant from the people it supposedly serves, and its rules become arbitrary and lack the consent of the people.
Free association implies the acceptance of the rules of the group, and mutual enforcement of the norms. It implies a choice to join, and a choice to accept those who wish to join. Just as I agree to abide by, and enforce, the rules of chess when I play a match, I can do the same with my associates in other endeavors. In doing so I’m accountable to the group I associate with, not any outside, arbitrary organization.
A few other forum members and I had been speaking on this topic and I recommend looking at the thread to learn more about this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=955036
And last of all, I highly advise you take a look at John Paul II’s Compedium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It is possibly the greatest source of discovering more about Catholic social teaching. It’s very long, but I think looking at certain sections will help you find out what you’re looking for:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
 
The Church seems to lean toward statism because it use the word “state” to describe some kind of governmental structure entrusted with authority. However, when Catholic social teaching is actually put into action, with subsidiarity and primacy of the person in mind, the state strangely resembles more of an anarchistic model
So are you suggesting that the “state” referred to by the Church is simply any societal/communal means of protecting the basic human rights of the people, as opposed to a governing force that controls society through coercion? That seems to fit rather well with voluntaryism.
As for complete voluntaryism, that would not fit Catholic social teaching, because the Church teaches that this decentralized state would have to step in for some cases, but, if subsidiarity is taken seriously, these cases should become increasingly rare. Remember, the Church puts a lot of emphasis on the common good, and we all have a basic right to food, health care, shelter, clothing, etc.
Could you provide some examples of when state intervention is justified? Do you mean intervention beyond what the non-aggression principle would allow?

Regarding the rights to food, health care, etc., how would you suggest an anarchist society deals with this? It wouldn’t be possible for the state to provide these things to everyone without the use of coercion through taxation. Shouldn’t that type of redistribution only be justified when specific individuals are directly denying people of these basic resources? And couldn’t social programs to solve these problems be funded voluntarily without the state getting involved?

Thanks for the in-depth response, as well as for the links. I’ll definitely be looking into the “primacy of the person” concept.
 
I personally think that Libertarianism is as impossible to profess as Marxism for a Catholic, albeit for totally different and opposing reasons.
If by “Marxism”, you mean Communism and if by Communism, you mean theoretical Communism not forced on anyone and not throwing away God, all one would need to do to see this is to look in the Book of Acts for the very beginning of Christianity.

If this is what you mean by Marxism, than how can you say, “I personally think that Libertarianism is as impossible to profess as Marxism for a Catholic”?
 
If by “Marxism”, you mean Communism and if by Communism, you mean theoretical Communism not forced on anyone and not throwing away God, all one would need to do to see this is to look in the Book of Acts for the very beginning of Christianity.

If this is what you mean by Marxism, than how can you say, “I personally think that Libertarianism is as impossible to profess as Marxism for a Catholic”?
The early Christian community described in Acts did not practise ‘Communism’.

By Marxism, I refer to the means of production being controlled by the state and to the abolition of private property.
 
Would you mind elaborating on this? I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying.
I was born in a third world country that was at the time under the grip of a dictatorship. I was too young at the time, but my parents told me that in spite of quite restrictive laws about commerce, especially trade, there was a flourishing black market trade going on. In other words, sea trade, aka smugglers, or even pirates, plied their commerce and were quite prosperous.
Another example:

This government also banned guns for its citizens, yet is spite of that, a black market trade on weapons market was also flourishing.

The point, of this all? In spite of the government’s effort to keep things under draconian control, the more things slipped out of their control. The more disordered and chaotic things became.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top