A question for Catholic libertarians

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A lot of you have been talking about taxation, so I’m going to explain the Catholic concepts of just and unjust taxation:

The Church teaches that authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it (CCC 1903).
So, in order for taxation to be legitimate it must: 1) seek the common good; and 2) be attained by morally licit means (ends don’t justify the means). The Church has long taught how taxation is only just when used for justice, and that when it deviates from justice it becomes theft. This is what prompted St. Augustine to ask, “Without justice, what are kingdoms but great robberies”. This is the difference between just and unjust taxation: just taxation is that which is based on justice, being in accordance with the Church’s requirements, while unjust taxation is utter theft, against the Church’s requirements.

Any type of welfare that follows from the common good requirement would have to help those in need who are unemployed, unable to work, or living in poverty. Everyone has rights to food, clothing, shelter, health, work, and other things that are needed to give someone a basic sense of humanity, and these need to be given if someone cannot attain them for themselves. However, we are also told “he who shall not work, shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10), so if someone who is physically able to work refuses to do so, and instead wants to be dependent on the community for his needs, does not deserve welfare, and all welfare will be withheld from him until he chooses to work. Aside from welfare, the common good could also call for funding for the military, infrastructure, and other things needed for a well-coordinated society.

Now we get to the second requirement: the means must be just. The means must not violate the dignity or independence of the human person and must not violate the moral law. Also, subsidiarity is an important principle in determining the morality of a tax. A tax that goes toward stimulating the economy of a local community may fit the common good requirement, but if this tax was enacted by the federal government, it would most certainly be unjust because it ignores subsidiarity. Also, one must remember that subsidiarity calls for private initiative first before the political community intervenes. If subsidiarity was actually practiced to its fullest, I believe taxation would be greatly diminished, as local charities and other organizations would step in. I emphasize here that local, private means MUST be used before force is used.

So, all taxation must be a duty of justice rather than theft, and must be used solely for the common good and must be obtained by morally licit means, with private means being tried before public ones.

Excellent explanation…

I only disagree with "Everyone has rights to food, clothing, shelter, health, work, and other things that are needed to give someone a basic sense of humanity,"

There is no “right” to food and clothing, if no one produces food and clothing. Everyone does have a right to grow his own food and manufacture his own clothes. The same with shelter and health. No one has a right to shelter if no one builds a shelter and no one has a right to good health. We have the right to build our own shelter and provide for our own health care.

 

[PseuTonym]

Since Switzerland has “army conscription”, it does not have a proper government.

The only “Problem” a government has is to remember that its source of authority is “the consent of the governed.”

They had a referendum. In fact, the article says that they have had three votes on the matter in the past 25 years. The governed have voted for conscription.

The only functions of a proper government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

If you are going to repeat that, with the word “only” indicating that there are no other proper functions of government, then you really ought to explain your point of view on trademarks and patents.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They had a referendum. In fact, the article says that they have had three votes on the matter in the past 25 years. The governed have voted for conscription.

I noticed that and found it very odd that people would vote themselves into slavery. Oh well…some people** need** to be ruled or governed.

If you are going to repeat that, with the word “only” indicating that there are no other proper functions of government, then you really ought to explain your point of view on trademarks and patents.

I would think it would be obvious…

A function of a proper government is “to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.”

A proper government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor. The government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.

 

[Illmatic15]

Excellent explanation…

I only disagree with "Everyone has rights to food, clothing, shelter, health, work, and other things that are needed to give someone a basic sense of humanity,"

There is no “right” to food and clothing, if no one produces food and clothing. Everyone does have a right to grow his own food and manufacture his own clothes. The same with shelter and health. No one has a right to shelter if no one builds a shelter and no one has a right to good health. We have the right to build our own shelter and provide for our own health care.

Thank you!

And you must keep in mind that the positive rights I mentioned are rights constantly affirmed by Church teaching, such as in quotes like this:

John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38
Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights–for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture–is false and illusory if the right to life … is not defended

I used to think like you do before I found out about the Church’s teaching. Of course this right cannot be fulfilled if their is no food or shelter, etc., but if we do have it (and we do), we must provide others with it. Besides if someone dying of hunger is being denied food, or a homeless person is being denied shelter, even if the weather conditions are dangerous, I believe these people are breaking the non-aggression principle (admittedly, a flexible version), because they are aggressing against that person’s life by not giving him what he needs to survive, so force can be justified in such a case (taxation). Of course these are hypotheticals, but we must respect these rights because they are human persons made in the image of God, and the Church has constantly affirmed these human rights.
Peace.

 

[Entwhistler]

“Everyone has rights to food, clothing, shelter, health, work, and other things that are needed to give someone a basic sense of humanity,”

The problem is that if there is a “right to work” then there is no stopping someone from forcing a business owner to hire a guy he doesn’t want to hire. “Sorry dude, this man has a Right to a job, and, by golly, he’s going to get one.”

Anyway, there are so many ways for someone to make money nowadays. You can basically create your own job on the internet.

 

[Illmatic15]

The problem is that if there is a “right to work” then there is no stopping someone from forcing a business owner to hire a guy he doesn’t want to hire. “Sorry dude, this man has a Right to a job, and, by golly, he’s going to get one.”

Anyway, there are so many ways for someone to make money nowadays. You can basically create your own job on the internet.

I myself used to be confused as to just what the Vatican meant by a “right to work”, but it turns out that it doesn’t consist in forcing people to hire. In fact, I found a great article on catholic.com that has references from John Paul II’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church that helped to explain it:

Rather, the duty upon the State is one of sustaining “business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in times of crisis.” The principle of subsidiarity is here of critical importance. (Compendium, No. 291) Employment is to be the result of “an open process” and not government diktats, a process essentially free yet responsible, which does not forget the solidarity among men. There is ample room here for private, for-profit initiative, but also for non-profit, volunteer-type arrangements, the so-called “third sector” between private enterprise and public authority.

Here’s the article link:
catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=44643
So, what the Church means by “right to work” is an indirect role of the state, in that they guarantee employment by creating the conditions necessary for it, with an emphasis on subsidiarity.

 

[Entwhistler]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up Illmatic15. However, I’m still uncomfortable with the “right to work” language. That creates too much confusion.

 

[Paragon468]

The problem is that if there is a “right to work” then there is no stopping someone from forcing a business owner to hire a guy he doesn’t want to hire. “Sorry dude, this man has a Right to a job, and, by golly, he’s going to get one.”

The “right to healthcare” has the same problem: it implies that a doctor or healthcare worker can be forced to provide his services for somebody. That’s slavery, plain and simple. I suppose in practicality there will almost always be healthcare providers willing to aid you, but in theory it certainly has flaws.

Illmatic’s explanation seems to make sense: it’s not so much a right to work/healthcare, etc., so much as a right to have potential access to these things. People shouldn’t be purposely excluded from these things.

 

[PseuTonym]

I noticed that and found it very odd that people would vote themselves into slavery. Oh well…some people** need** to be ruled or governed.

Alternatively, in the absence of conscription, the people of Switzerland doubt that, in case of war, the government of Switzerland would have the capacity to successfully perform its legitimate function of protecting the people of Switzerland from aggressive foreign military forces. Switzerland is a small country with a small population, and surrounded by larger countries that have more resources. So that point of view seems plausible.

It seems to me that you are moving the goalposts when you begin with the consent of the governed as a standard, and end with criticism of the governed. How does criticizing the voters of Switzerland support your claims, or provide any insights or facts that could be helpful in this discussion?

I would think it would be obvious…

A function of a proper government is “to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.”

A proper government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor. The government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.

Can you have a right that nobody has a right to enforce? If you do not seek patent protection, then nobody will recognize any intellectual property rights for a patent that allegedly exists but was never secured.

I think that you are inventing a story involving legal fictions, and that it would be better to speak in clearer language. However, perhaps that is a matter of taste.

More substantive is the problem that the institutional framework needs to go beyond the list ”courts, police, military” that you have been repeating, although I acknowledge that you have provided some variation by listing the same set of three items in various different sequences.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Alternatively, in the absence of conscription, the people of Switzerland doubt that,

Doubt what? Voting themselves into slavery or the need to be ruled?

It seems to me that you are moving the goalposts when you begin with the consent of the governed as a standard, and end with criticism of the governed.

I am criticizing those who established or support an improper government.

How does criticizing the voters of Switzerland support your claims, or provide any insights or facts that could be helpful in this discussion?

Remember, you are the one who brought up Switzerland. I was discussing governmental spreading of the wealth.

Can you have a right that nobody has a right to enforce? If you do not seek patent protection, then nobody will recognize any intellectual property rights for a patent that allegedly exists but was never secured.

Rights are not enforced. They are protected by a proper government.

I think that you are inventing a story involving legal fictions, and that it would be better to speak in clearer language. However, perhaps that is a matter of taste.

I get the feeling that you are having a hard time admitting that I am right and are choosing to have a comprehension problem.

More substantive is the problem that the institutional framework needs to go beyond the list ”courts, police, military” that you have been repeating, although I acknowledge that you have provided some variation by listing the same set of three items in various different sequences.

If a government was established by consent of the governed and LIMITED to ”courts, police, military” …why, on Earth, would the “institutional framework” need to go beyond that???

 

[PseuTonym]

The only functions of a proper government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

You should provide your source or at least indicate that you are paraphrasing or quoting somebody when you quote almost word-for-word, including the final nineteen words exactly as written.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Link:
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

 

[PseuTonym]

But perhaps if there was no tax code or IRS and people knew that their taxes ONLY supported the proper functions of a government (the military, police & fire protection and the court system) then they would be happy to freely contribute a fair portion of their wealth to support such a government.

I presume that the above is an indication of what you might say when you are thinking for yourself. You went off the script of military, police, and courts. A local county or municipal government may have a fire department, and there is no reason to believe that such a government is using a fire department as a pretext to extract taxes from people. Nobody is being metaphorically robbed to pay for the costs of a fire department, because a fire department is legitimate. At least, you thought that it was legitimate and you proposed it yourself, without being prompted by anything posted here in this thread.

Do you not accept that it is legitimate for governments to pursue the following goals or have the following institutions, offices, agencies, or authorities?

1. A patent and trademark office,
2. The issuing of passports so that people can travel outside the one country where they happen to have been born,
3. A process for people to acquire official citizenship so that they can vote in referendums and elections,
4. Animal control,
5. Coroners,
6. Prisons, prison guards, parole officers.

 

[JackVk]

You should provide your source or at least indicate that you are paraphrasing or quoting somebody when you quote almost word-for-word, including the final nineteen words exactly as written.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Link:
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

Hear, hear! It is not the State’s job to micromanage and lord it over its citizens. And tla link to an Ayn Rand website? I’m not a huge fan of Miss Rand, but she was consistent if nothing else.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You should provide your source or at least indicate that you are paraphrasing or quoting somebody when you quote almost word-for-word, including the final nineteen words exactly as written.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Link:
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

Yes, you are right. I did neglect to provide the source. It is a quote from Ayn Rand.

Now would you be kind enough to tell us if you agree or disagree with the quote.

 

[SWolf]

Hear, hear! It is not the State’s job to micromanage and lord it over its citizens. And tla link to an Ayn Rand website? I’m not a huge fan of Miss Rand, but she was consistent if nothing else.

If one doesn’t like Rand, Bastiat says the same thing.

Reading “The Law” by Bastiat solidified my minarchist views.

 

[PseuTonym]

Yes, you are right. I did neglect to provide the source. It is a quote from Ayn Rand.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I would say that figuratively speaking you have bent over backwards by saying “you are right.” It is possible that we agree about something and that we are both wrong. So it is safer to stick to the general rule of never telling me that I am right, and instead telling me that you agree with me on some particular point.

Now would you be kind enough to tell us if you agree or disagree with the quote.

I would like to know what entity authorized the collection and spending of money that paid for the Marshall Plan. Was it the courts? Was it the military? Was it the police?

Perhaps the words that you quoted were written after the Marshall Plan, and the author wants everybody to believe that never again will it be either necessary nor legitimate for there to be something like the Marshall Plan.

Okay, let us talk about the present. Salman Rushdie arranges to visit you. Will your local police provide 24-hour protection for Salman Rushdie? Alternatively, is it the obligation of the police of the country where he now lives to travel with him? Another possibility is that the words that you quoted are not for the present. They are for a hypothetical future when there is a single government of the world.

These are big issues. Previously, I considered some smaller issues in the following thread:
The functions of a proper government
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=962097

I would appreciate it if you would visit that thread and make a contribution. Perhaps you could discuss such things as the question of what government agency or office handles defectors, refugees, and people who are seeking asylum. For example, according to wikipedia …

Yuri Bezmeno (KGB propaganda agent) left India, his KGB station, disguised as a hippie, went to Greece, was debriefed in the United States, but refused to stay in the US because of KGB infiltration of the CIA, and was granted asylum in Canada

Victor Kravchenko (a Soviet engineer) witnessed horrors of Holodomor; defected when serving in the Soviet Purchasing Agency in Washington DC in the United States

Miloš Forman (a Czech film director and actor) defected to USA when the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded the country to end the Prague Spring.
According to the website Internet Movie Database, Forman directed the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Link:
imdb.com/title/tt0073486/

Viktor Korchnoi (a Soviet chess player) was the first Soviet Grandmaster to defect.

Imre Lakatos (a philosopher of science) fled to Vienna, Austria and later to the UK after the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Do you not accept that it is legitimate for governments to pursue the following goals or have the following institutions, offices, agencies, or authorities?

Absolutely not!

A government has no business following “goals”.

A government is an agent or servant of the people. It does not establish “goals”

Everything below could be a legitimate function of a government IF those functions were authorized.

If really necessary, 1, 2, and 3 below could be easily be handled within an objective legal system.

4, 5, and 6 would do better if privatized.

1. A patent and trademark office,
2. The issuing of passports so that people can travel outside the one country where they happen to have been born,
3. A process for people to acquire official citizenship so that they can vote in referendums and elections,
4. Animal control,
5. Coroners,
6. Prisons, prison guards, parole officers.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So it is safer to stick to the general rule of never telling me that I am right, and instead telling me that you agree with me on some particular point.

No. If I did that… I believe it would only go to your head.

I would like to know what entity authorized the collection and spending of money that paid for the Marshall Plan. Was it the courts? Was it the military? Was it the police?

It was the United States Congress.

Perhaps the words that you quoted were written after the Marshall Plan, and the author wants everybody to believe that never again will it be either necessary nor legitimate for there to be something like the Marshall Plan.

The words I quoted were from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged written by Rand in 1957 and again quoted in her book* For the New Intellectual* written in 1963. Well after the Marshall Plan proved to be such a failure.

The Marshall Plan, like all “give-away” programs was neither legitimate or necessary.

Okay, let us talk about the present. Salman Rushdie arranges to visit you. Will your local police provide 24-hour protection for Salman Rushdie? Alternatively, is it the obligation of the police of the country where he now lives to travel with him? Another possibility is that the words that you quoted are not for the present. They are for a hypothetical future when there is a single government of the world.

These are big issues. Previously, I considered some smaller issues in the following thread:
The functions of a proper government
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=962097

I would appreciate it if you would visit that thread and make a contribution. Perhaps you could discuss such things as the question of what government agency or office handles defectors, refugees, and people who are seeking asylum. For example, according to wikipedia …

Yuri Bezmeno (KGB propaganda agent) left India, his KGB station, disguised as a hippie, went to Greece, was debriefed in the United States, but refused to stay in the US because of KGB infiltration of the CIA, and was granted asylum in Canada

Victor Kravchenko (a Soviet engineer) witnessed horrors of Holodomor; defected when serving in the Soviet Purchasing Agency in Washington DC in the United States

Miloš Forman (a Czech film director and actor) defected to USA when the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded the country to end the Prague Spring.
According to the website Internet Movie Database, Forman directed the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Link:
imdb.com/title/tt0073486/

Viktor Korchnoi (a Soviet chess player) was the first Soviet Grandmaster to defect.

Imre Lakatos (a philosopher of science) fled to Vienna, Austria and later to the UK after the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

If the Founding Fathers of a government decided that it would be necessary to establish an agency to provide security for Salman Rushdie and additional agencies to provide services for former KGB goons and other political defectors…then whatever agencies they authorized would be legitimate.

 

[SWolf]

The words I quoted were from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged written by Rand in 1957 and again quoted in her book* For the New Intellectual* written in 1963. Well after the Marshall Plan proved to be such a failure.

The Marshall Plan, like all “give-away” programs was neither legitimate or necessary.

Yup.

The Marshall Plan is one of those sacrosanct myths that are lionized in school textbooks. Too bad the myth has nothing to do with the facts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A government has no business following “goals”.

A government is an agent or servant of the people. It does not establish “goals”

When a government has the support of the people, the people empower that government to act on their behalf. That is their right. And when they do that, they expect that government to actualize their goals. For example, people in the 1950s wanted to have an improved cross-country highway system. The government did establish a goal of creating the Interstate Highway System. This was an entirely proper function of government, as it did express the will of the people.

I suppose you could complain that some of the people perhaps did not want the Interstate Highway System built with their tax dollars, but were forced to do so anyway. The government can never please everyone, even when it does nothing. The fact is, if you are going to allow for an effective government, you have to allow for the possibility that some people may not like what that government does.

Everything below could be a legitimate function of a government IF those functions were authorized.

Perhaps you have an ultra-strict interpretation of what it means for a function to be authorized. When the people support their government, they are implicitly authorizing what it is doing.

4, 5, and 6 would do better if privatized.

That may be your opinion, and it may even be true. But that does not invalidate a people’s decision to support their government in doing 4, 5 and 6.