Libertarianism and the economic liberalism which accompanies it is not in any sense ‘Catholic’. Libertarianism lacks any conception of the ‘common good’. This spirit of extreme individualism is straight out of the enlightenment and has as its basis a heretical anthropology of human nature.
I doubt we could scare up even one Catholic libertarian or philosophical anarchist (
properly understood) would claim this “extreme individualist” strawman you are whipping here. We are, however, quite interested in the Golden Rule and its corollary “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” I am less interested in “Don’t tread on me.” as I am interested in “
Don’t tread on your neighbor.”
http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/dont-tread-on-neighbor300.jpg
As to invoking the “Common Good” I always suggest that people actually look at the definition of that term before using it to cheer on the welfare state. It doesn’t say what most think it says:
The Common Good
No government is legitimate on its own authority. Even if government is imposed by a majority it is still illegitimate if it does not promote the common good. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “The common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.” (CCC 1909)
The common good is not so broad as some believe. Three elements define it:
- Respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person;
- Prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society;
- The peace and security of the group and of its members. (CCC 1925)
In defining the role of authority in providing for the common good, the Church touches here on the concept of negative rights as they contrast with positive rights. A “negative” right refers to an individual’s freedom to act or refrain from acting. It means that no one may use force to prevent us from exercising the right. Such rights would include fundamental personal rights such as the ownership of private property, freedom of speech and religion, and a right to personal security, to simply be left alone. Government can not grant such rights. Its job is to recognize and protect these rights and do nothing to impede them.
When other people are forced to provide for our property or security (or money or health care and the like), we enter the realm of positive rights. In contrast to the negative right to be left alone, a positive right is a right to make others act on our behalf. Recall the words of the American Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The rights, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are all negative. Not a one of these can be provided by men. The most we can do is recognize such rights. To pretend that these are positive rights would be as absurd as if the founders had declared a right to happiness itself, rather that its mere pursuit.
This distinction between positive and negative rights can be seen in the definition of the “common good,” above. Note the first element is “respect for, and promotion of, the fundamental rights of the person.” This clearly refers to negative rights.
The third element is similar and calls for: “The peace and security of the group and of its members.” Peace and security are arguably a subset of the first element, amounting to the negative right to not be harmed by others, but that is not important. The thing to notice is that both the first and third elements are for the benefit—not just society in general—
but to every individual member of society.
Now contrast the first and third elements with the second element comprising the common good: “Prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society.” Here is a very different animal. This good is not conferred directly upon individuals. This element of the common good is directed at “the social well-being and development of the group itself,” promoting prosperity
in general so that each may have access to “what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.” (CCC 1908)
The enabling of this good is expressly directed to society in general, a necessary limitation, since no society can allot spiritual goods to individuals (as if handing out food stamps). As to temporal goods, the group has no way to give such goods to individuals unless they first take them from the person who produced them. As different as spiritual and temporal goods are from one another, the Church still classes them together, recognizing that neither involves a positive individual right to prosperity to be provided by the government.
This three-part definition of the common good is congenial to libertarian thought in that individual rights and security are protected when a person is allowed to live life peaceably and without interference. Prosperity, on the other hand, may be promoted only in a general way, enabling the free flow of earthly goods and heavenly grace. Those in authority can do no more, for to allot a particular measure of such goods to every person is either inconceivable or attainable only by physical coercion.
~ excerpt from Free is Beautiful
