A question for Catholic libertarians

[SWolf]

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.

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.

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.

Who is “the people”?

If a majority is attained through 52 percent of the vote, can they terrorize the other 48 percent and still be acting in the interests of “the people”?

This is why a pure democracy is such a horrible system, and why an extremely limited republic with strict enumerated powers is vastly superior.

For example, there were thousands of miles of roads maintained by private companies before the Interstate Highway System. The feds had no need to be involved, even if a percentage of “the people” wanted it.

The Government does not exist to exert the will of the majority, but to safeguard the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property.

 

[PseuTonym]

It’s one thing to advocate for the elimination of a tax or even to fight against 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.

Without freedom of speech, there is no right to advocate for the elimination of a tax. So there is a problem for Libertarians who place a high value on freedom of speech. A government could enact legislation that prohibits them from advocating for the elimination of a tax.

It is interesting that the focus here is on the liberty to keep all of the income that one earns. One could also discuss the liberty to earn money. For example, a writer who earns a significant percentage of his or her income by writing novels has a financial incentive to support freedom of speech.

I presume that most people in democratic countries – in contrast with such a novelist – do not depend in an obvious way upon freedom of speech for their ability to earn income. Most people in democratic countries do not call themselves “Libertarians.” However, it may be a fact that most people in democratic countries place a high value on freedom of speech.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Who is “the people”?

If a majority is attained through 52 percent of the vote, can they terrorize the other 48 percent and still be acting in the interests of “the people”?

If the 52 percent and the 48 percent are so thoroughly at odds with each other over what to do that they have to “terrorize” the others, there is no system of government, libertarian, limited, or otherwise, under which these people can live together. They are a disfunctional nation. So complaining that democracy does not serve this nation well is a red herring.

This is why a pure democracy is such a horrible system, and why an extremely limited republic with strict enumerated powers is vastly superior.

What if those “strictly enumerated powers” amount to establishing a democracy?

For example, there were thousands of miles of roads maintained by private companies before the Interstate Highway System. The feds had no need to be involved, even if a percentage of “the people” wanted it.

It is only your speculation that private companies might have created a highway system as good as we have now. It has never happened in history, so I suspect your speculation is wrong.

The Government does not exist to exert the will of the majority, but to safeguard the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property.

The government exists for whatever reason the people establish it to exist. There is no reason to think that the three purposes you listed are intrinsically better than others. Those three purposes can be corrupted just as easily as corrupting the “will of the majority” in a democracy.

 

[SWolf]

If the 52 percent and the 48 percent are so thoroughly at odds with each other over what to do that they have to “terrorize” the others, there is no system of government, libertarian, limited, or otherwise, under which these people can live together. They are a disfunctional nation. So complaining that democracy does not serve this nation well is a red herring.

It sums up the United States quite nicely.

What if those “strictly enumerated powers” amount to establishing a democracy?

It is only your speculation that private companies might have created a highway system as good as we have now. It has never happened in history, so I suspect your speculation is wrong.

Seriously?

Private highways have been around since antiquity. Private railroads far surpassed government subsidized railroads in quality.

The government exists for whatever reason the people establish it to exist. There is no reason to think that the three purposes you listed are intrinsically better than others. Those three purposes can be corrupted just as easily as corrupting the “will of the majority” in a democracy.

There’s “the people” again. Replace “the people” with “the majority” and it’s much more accurate, and much more ominous.

Those powers are intrinsically better than others.

The government is force, and the only morally legitimate use of force is to repel force. To use the point of the gun to impose the will and goals of the powers in government is tyrannical.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Bastiat

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Private highways have been around since antiquity. Private railroads far surpassed government subsidized railroads in quality.

The highways of antiquity have existed, but have never achieved the coverage and extent of today’s public roads. And don’t change the subject by equating railroads with roads. Roads are a public resource that anyone can drive on with their car. Railroads are built for the use of railway companies. My example of the Interstate Highway System stands as an example of a successful government program that goes beyond your three purposes.

There’s “the people” again. Replace “the people” with “the majority” and it’s much more accurate, and much more ominous.

Those powers are intrinsically better than others.

So you say. It sounds more ominous only to radical libertarians. To others it sounds pretty good.

The government is force, and the only morally legitimate use of force is to repel force.

Again, so you say. Non-libertarians would disagree with your opinion.

To use the point of the gun to impose the will and goals of the powers in government is tyrannical.

A well-functioning democracy mostly achieves voluntary compliance. It is rarely necessary to resort to the point of a gun. But for those few anti-social individuals, it may be necessary. Just look at how the point of a gun is sometimes necessary, even in the kind of government you prefer, to protect property rights. I don’t think you object so much to the government using the point of a gun as you object to their doing it for purposes other than the ones you think the only valid ones.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Bastiat

I agree with this. I also claim that there are other natural laws besides these three that existed before government, and government makes laws in recognition of those things too.

 

[PseuTonym]

…] the only morally legitimate use of force is to repel force.

I see a couple of different ways of interpreting that:
#1 If it is morally legitimate to use force to repel X, then X is literally force.

#2 If it is morally legitimate to use force to repel X, then X is a violation of somebody’s rights.

If you mean #1, then we might be able to construct what seem to be counter-examples to your claim.

Example #1: Do you want emergency personnel to check a database before entering your home, because the government does not have the right to post a sign indicating that a building is a condemned building or death trap? If there is an error in the database, then is it okay if emergency personnel arrive on the scene to see whether they can assist anybody outside the building, but they refuse to enter?

Example #2: Computer hacking to gain unauthorized access to valuable information or to transfer funds without authorization seems to be something that might involve technical knowledge, and keyboarding rather than force.

Example #3: We have expectations about what substances foods may contain, and about labels. A cola might contain caffeine, but we do not anticipate that one slice of bread might have the same effect as either a sleeping pill or two cups of coffee.

Example #4: A publisher prints copies of a book without authorization from the copyright owner. No force is needed. The publisher simply buys a single copy of the book and does not enter into any contractual agreement to refrain from selling copies of it.

If you mean #2, then we have the complication of needing a way to determine whether or not any given potential or alleged action is or was a violation of somebody’s rights.

 

[PseuTonym]

If you mean #2, then we have the complication of needing a way to determine whether or not any given potential or alleged action is or was a violation of somebody’s rights.

Perhaps I should explain the above words.

Suppose that you are contemplating yourself pursuing some course of action. Alternatively, suppose that you are proposing to others that they pursue a course of action (perhaps with you as a participant). In both cases, you want to know that the action would not violate anybody’s rights. In both cases, what you are contemplating or proposing is what I would call a “potential action.”

Now, suppose that a court of law is considering an allegation that some defendant did something. In that case, what the defendant allegedly did is an example of an “alleged action.” The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the alleged action actually occurred. The plaintiff also has another burden, and that other burden depends upon whether or not the plaintiff is the government.

For example, a murdered person cannot become a plaintiff and sue the defendant for murder, so the government becomes the plaintiff in such a case. However, the example of murder is simply the most extreme and obvious case where the government becomes the plaintiff in pursuit of justice for the community. Another example would be the SEC as plaintiff in a civil (rather than criminal) lawsuit against Michael Milken for a variety of violations of securities regulations in a complicated lifestyle of defrauding the taxpayers by selling junk bonds to S and Ls, insurance companies, etc.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It is interesting that the focus here is on the liberty to keep all of the income that one earns. One could also discuss the liberty to earn money. For example, a writer who earns a significant percentage of his or her income by writing novels has a financial incentive to support freedom of speech.

Of course the focus is on the liberty/freedom to keep ALL the income one earns…it is simple logic.

I keep what I earn…you keep what you earn. If you disagree, please tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to build roads. The Interstate Highway system was authorized by an interpretation of the “regulation of interstate commerce” clause.

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.

If that were the case…people could “authorize” the government to begin segregating schools again.

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.

People have the right to support ANY Function of government they choose as long as that function is legal and does not violate the rights of others.

Our government was established to do certain things within the limitations placed on it by the Constitution. If 100% of the people insisted that the government establish Christianity as the national religion…would that “authorize” the government to do so?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to build roads. The Interstate Highway system was authorized by an interpretation of the “regulation of interstate commerce” clause.

Even though I used the US highway system as an example, I was really addressing the more general issue of what it is appropriate for a government anywhere to do. But sticking with the US, you will have a hard time finding a single congressman or senator or Supreme Court Justice who thinks that the National Highway System was a bad overreach of government power. So I would find it very surprising if you found out something about the constitution that was not understood by all those legislators and judges who have made the study of government, and our constitution in particular, their life’s work.

If that were the case…people could “authorize” the government to begin segregating schools again.

They could do just that. It would be an unjust law and based on what most people believe not about race, it would be quickly repealed. But not because it was an inappropriate thing to make a law about. It would be repealed because it does not conform to people’s current sense of justice.

People have the right to support ANY Function of government they choose as long as that function is legal and does not violate the rights of others.

Since there is wide latitude for the interpretation of the phrase “the rights of others”, your statement is vague. It can be neither attacked nor defended in its present form.

Our government was established to do certain things within the limitations placed on it by the Constitution. If 100% of the people insisted that the government establish Christianity as the national religion…would that “authorize” the government to do so?

If 100% of the people wanted to establish Christianity as the national religion, I am quite sure there would be a successful constitutional amendment making it quite legal.

 

[Tomdstone]

It would be an unjust law .

Why is separate but equal unjust?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why is separate but equal unjust?

Ask Zoltan, who was the one who raised that example of something that could never be authorized by law.

All I meant by that was that the people would declare it unjust, today. Obviously there was a time when the people thought otherwise.

 

[Tom_Baum]

If 100% of the people wanted to establish Christianity as the national religion, I am quite sure there would be a successful constitutional amendment making it quite legal.

There may very well “be a successful constitutional amendment making it quite legal”, however, it should be overthrown by the Supreme Court since it would be unconstitutional.

What you have written concerning this is, I believe, a good example of why this country is a republic instead of a democracy since “pure democracy” can degenerate into nothing more than “mob rule”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There may very well “be a successful constitutional amendment making it quite legal”, however, it should be overthrown by the Supreme Court since it would be unconstitutional…

A change brought about by a constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional, even when it contradicts the existing constitution. The 21st amendment was a direct contradiction to the 18th amendment.

 

[Tom_Baum]

A change brought about by a constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional, even when it contradicts the existing constitution. The 21st amendment was a direct contradiction to the 18th amendment.

So, in other words, are you saying that the constitution is basically meaningless?

Are you also saying that “all of the rights” in the “Bill of Rights” are just a temporary whim to be wiped out when convenient?

You may have a point there and your “point” may just become reality faster than you or anyone else may think possible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, in other words, are you saying that the constitution is basically meaningless?

Are you also saying that “all of the rights” in the “Bill of Rights” are just a temporary whim to be wiped out when convenient?

Of course it isn’t meaningless. That’s why the process for amending the constitution is so difficult, compared to just passing a law. This ensures that only amendments with widespread support get passed, and only after lots of deliberation. That said, one wonders how the 18th amendment got passed, when it seems that it never did enjoy universal support.

You may have a point there and your “point” may just become reality faster than you or anyone else may think possible.

Not sure what point you think is my point, but my point is already reality.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Even though I used the US highway system as an example, I was really addressing the more general issue of what it is appropriate for a government anywhere to do. But sticking with the US, you will have a hard time finding a single congressman or senator or Supreme Court Justice who thinks that the National Highway System was a bad overreach of government power. So I would find it very surprising if you found out something about the constitution that was not understood by all those legislators and judges who have made the study of government, and our constitution in particular, their life’s work.

I know you were addressing more general issues of what is appropriate for a government to do…but you chose one of the best examples of what a government should NOT be involved in. (Remember the “Freeway Revolts” in 1970?)

Quote:
If that were the case…people could “authorize” the government to begin segregating schools again.

They could do just that. It would be an unjust law and based on what most people believe not about race, it would be quickly repealed. But not because it was an inappropriate thing to make a law about. It would be repealed because it does not conform to people’s current sense of justice.

It would be repealed because it would be unconstitutional not because of public opinion or people’s feelings about race.

Quote:
People have the right to support ANY Function of government they choose as long as that function is legal and does not violate the rights of others.

Since there is wide latitude for the interpretation of the phrase “the rights of others”, your statement is vague. It can be neither attacked nor defended in its present form.

Notice also, the term “legal”. That is not vague…is it?

If 100% of the people wanted to establish Christianity as the national religion, I am quite sure there would be a successful constitutional amendment making it quite legal.

That’s true, and that is how our Constitutional Republic is designed to work. However, part of the first amendment would have to be repealed.

Constitutionalists, like myself, caution against amendments. Laws, passed through the legislative process, that meet Constitutional muster are more efficient.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I know you were addressing more general issues of what is appropriate for a government to do…but you chose one of the best examples of what a government should NOT be involved in. (Remember the “Freeway Revolts” in 1970?)

There will always be somebody who disagrees with some action of government. And if there are enough of them, hopefully they will be heard. In the case of the Freeway Revolts, they were heard, and many projects were scaled back or altered to address the concerns of those revolting. But even those who revolted were not claiming that government should not build any roads at all. They were only complaining about certain highway projects that adversely affected local areas of their concern. I’ll bet that even if you asked them at the time “Should the government stop all road building?” most of them would say no. So this does not prove your point.

It would be repealed because it would be unconstitutional not because of public opinion or people’s feelings about race.

Yes, it is currently unconstitutional. But when you asked if the people could somehow “authorize the government to begin segregating schools again.” I assumed you were referring to any and all means the people have to authorize their government to do things. And one of those things is a constitutional amendment. So if there was enough popular support for segregation, they probably would pass a constitutional amendment making segregation legal. Then it would be legal and constitutional.

Notice also, the term “legal”. That is not vague…is it?

So you want me to address your assertion that
*People have the right to support ANY Function of government they choose as long as that function is legal and does not violate the rights of others. *
You are right inthat “legal” is not vague here. But it is of zero force. If the people authorize a function by a constitutional amendment, it is, by definition, legal. So the requirement that the function be “legal” can be gotten around. Any function can be made legal.

That’s true, and that is how our Constitutional Republic is designed to work. However, part of the first amendment would have to be repealed.

Obviously.

Constitutionalists, like myself, caution against amendments. Laws, passed through the legislative process, that meet Constitutional muster are more efficient.

It is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There will always be somebody who disagrees with some action of government. And if there are enough of them, hopefully they will be heard. In the case of the Freeway Revolts, they were heard, and many projects were scaled back or altered to address the concerns of those revolting. But even those who revolted were not claiming that government should not build any roads at all. They were only complaining about certain highway projects that adversely affected local areas of their concern. I’ll bet that even if you asked them at the time “Should the government stop all road building?” most of them would say no. So this does not prove your point.

The “points” are moot. The Federal government is out of the road building business. After the Interstate Highway system was completed and paid for by gasoline taxes the maintenance and upkeep was turned over to the states. The Highway Trust Fund has been raided for every conceivable project EXCEPT roads and bridges and this is why the highway infrastructure is crumbling. Guess what…we are still paying Federal gasoline taxes.

Let’s keep in mind that “the People” did not vote in this project. There were many who saw it as a subsidy for the trucking industry and its unions at the expense of more efficient railroads.

This was a government project that assumed too blithely that collective-decision-making procedures accurately discover the public’s’ true demand for public goods; it overlooks the perverse incentives in the political arena that prompt government officials to act in ways that are inconsistent with the “public good”; and it turns a blind eye to the many creative ways that private persons have, through the years, organized themselves voluntarily to supply “public goods” that, allegedly, would never be supplied privately. The Golden gate Bridge is a prime example.

Yes, it is currently unconstitutional. But when you asked if the people could somehow “authorize the government to begin segregating schools again.” I assumed you were referring to any and all means the people have to authorize their government to do things. And one of those things is a constitutional amendment. So if there was enough popular support for segregation, they probably would pass a constitutional amendment making segregation legal. Then it would be legal and constitutional.

You began using the term “authorized by the people” The citizens of the United States do not authorize our government to do anything. The people elect representatives who, in congress, pass laws granting powers to the government that must be within the limits of our Constitution. The people have elected representatives who reject the Constitution and have created countless illegitimate programs, projects, and agencies that were never authorized by the Constitution. Consequently we have a bloated government existing on deficit spending…doing nothing and growing every minute.

So you want me to address your assertion that
*People have the right to support ANY Function of government they choose as long as that function is legal and does not violate the rights of others. *
You are right inthat “legal” is not vague here. But it is of zero force. If the people authorize a function by a constitutional amendment, it is, by definition, legal. So the requirement that the function be “legal” can be gotten around. Any function can be made legal.

Only by the repeal of another amendment or a complete re-write of the Constitution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The “points” are moot. The Federal government is out of the road building business. After the Interstate Highway system was completed and paid for by gasoline taxes the maintenance and upkeep was turned over to the states.

That does no harm to my point that it is appropriate for government to build roads. State governments are governments too.

Let’s keep in mind that “the People” did not vote in this project. There were many who saw it as a subsidy for the trucking industry and its unions at the expense of more efficient railroads.

In a representative democracy the people rarely vote directly for anything. This project is nothing special in that regard. And although some may have seen this project as a bad idea, it is clear that most people today agree it was a good idea to build roads.

You began using the term “authorized by the people” The citizens of the United States do not authorize our government to do anything. The people elect representatives who, in congress, pass laws granting powers to the government that must be within the limits of our Constitution.

That constitutes authorizing the government to do things.

Only by the repeal of another amendment or a complete re-write of the Constitution.

That depends on the extent to which the proposed new provision conflicts with the existing constitution. I cannot conceive of an change so far reaching as to require a total rewrite. For any reasonable change, a single amendment would do. However these changes we have been discussing are purely hypothetical, in answer to the purely hypothetical question of whether the people could authorize their government to reinstitute segregation, which you raised, for some reason.