Can a Catholic be (partially) Libertarian?

[Reep]

So what can I say to my libertarian friend who believes gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn’t harm anyone? How do I convince him that it is harmful?

You you have a couple ways to convince him it is harmful.

You might try persuasion by speaking to him about it.

If he still does not listen, you could enlist the government to declare his immoral behavior a crime and then punish him for it by imprisoning him or killing him.

I think Jesus’s example of the woman taken in adultery would rule out criminal punishment for what amounts to serious sexual sin.

As to “allowing” gay marriage, it should not be for the state to define marriage. Marriage is first a religious matter, and–even for non-believers–it is a social matter that should be outside the purvue of government.

So, from a libertarian perspective, the Church would never 'allow" or recognize gay marriage. But neither would it use force to make them chaste.

Try this post: God gives free will to make virtuous people

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I don’t mean Libertarian in the sense that “everything done by everyone” so I don’t believe in the legislation of activities that go against the church (homosexuality, contraception) hence why I put a ‘partially’ up there.

But when I mean libertarian, I mean the natural rights of the citizen come first and are to be uplifted and not to be interfered by the state for example, the state should not seize criminal’s property no matter how bad a crime he’s done and yet we see this being done here and there and they claim it to be lawful. This is a violation of our rights to property and in accordance with the 7th commandment is theft because there is no consent from the criminal.

Another example that is outside of doctrine, people are not allowed to wear color blue in said country. This regulation does not uplift the common good (because NOBODY benefits from this) and goes against our freedom of expression and thus, I am against said regulation.

But the question again, is it alright to be THIS kind of libertarian?

No, it’s quite impossible. I’m starting to wonder if one can even vote with a clear conscience.

ATB

 

[tomarin]

You you have a couple ways to convince him it is harmful.

You might try persuasion by speaking to him about it.

If he still does not listen, you could enlist the government to declare his immoral behavior a crime and then punish him for it by imprisoning him or killing him.

I think Jesus’s example of the woman taken in adultery would rule out criminal punishment for what amounts to serious sexual sin.

As to “allowing” gay marriage, it should not be for the state to define marriage. Marriage is first a religious matter, and–even for non-believers–it is a social matter that should be outside the purvue of government.

So, from a libertarian perspective, the Church would never 'allow" or recognize gay marriage. But neither would it use force to make them chaste.

Try this post: God gives free will to make virtuous people

Killing him might be considered a little heavy-handed, don’t you think? Do you often try to kill people with whom you have a polite disagreement?

 

[Reep]

Do I understand your ideal situation to be one in which I, as a free citizen, am empowered to advertise my heart surgery skills for hire in spite of the fact that I have no training in the matter?

You could try to do so, but what happens when prospective patients still want to see your medical school diploma or your surgical certification from a professional organization they trust? What happens when they go online and check your peer and patient reviews? You deceive yourself, if you think you are in good hands simply because the government has issued a license to your doctor.

I am more inclined toward private certification associations like the Underwriters Laboratories. I would love to see such trusted organizations certifying doctors, lawyers, architects, and heck, even barbers. It would be far superior to government licensing schemes which chiefly serve to raise the costs of service without raising quality or making anyone safer.

Regulating hair cutters admittedly gets awfully close to the nanny state line

No sir. The fact that unlicensed barbering is a criminal offense is way over the “nanny state line.” It’s off the cliff.

 

[Reep]

Killing him might be considered a little heavy-handed, don’t you think? Do you often try to kill people with whom you have a polite disagreement?

Heavy handed indeed. I would not DO ANYTHING to him. I was merely listing things that government does to people who break its laws. I included killing only because that was the very punishment which Jesus refused in the case of the woman taken in adultery.

As to polite disagreements, libertarians never approve the use of force (or the threat of force) against anyone except in defense of persons or their property. It is the state that claims the exclusive right to commit aggressive violence.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

This sounds a quite a bit like seizing the wealth to me, so let’s just call a spade a spade: I know that Gates’ kids didn’t earn the money, Gate’s did.

Some would say that to own something is to do with it what one pleases. Between Gate’s right to GIVE his money to whomever he wants (even his children) and ***yours and my right to take it ***by force, please excuse my non-participation in that scheme (which I consider legalized theft).

I prefer a positive remedy; a two-fold approach that does not simply level the field by recouping those gains that the rich ought not get in the first place.

First, I favor removing all laws that favor the rich and powerful. This is better than leaving such favors intact and trying to make up for it by taking more money from them. Let’s end all bailout loans, all subsidies, all monopoly treatment, wage and price controls and regulations designed to lock individuals and small competitors out of the market.

Second, I would like to see a free market in which anybody–especially the poor–can practice their occupations, subject only to the need to please the people they serve. They should be able to do it without government permission.

They shouldn’t need a license or government permission to practice a trade out of their homes; to sell their wares as a street vendor; to braid, cut, color hair or apply makeup; to have all the garage sales they want, to care for children in their homes, to bake & sell bread, to to use their vehicles to drive other people around inexpensively; to raise small animals in town; and on and on.

Such unshackling of individual initiative will create so many options for the poor that the wages for those who do not choose self-employment have to rise accordingly.

All of this can be done without taking a dime or pointing a gun at anyone.

Try this post: Criminal Barbering: the best bootleg haircuts ever

Wonderfully stated.

Yes, a Catholic can be a libertarian and be quite at ease with God’s gift of free will and natural law.

"The retribution of God from heaven is being revealed against the ungodliness and injustice of human beings who in their injustice hold back the truth. For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things." Rom 1:18-20

I would argue (anarchist even that I am) one has no right to freedom, God owns you and his choices are his, but when one is in a place where one has a responsibility or ability to affect change in a positive way, well, it’s a responsibility.

" He exists before all things and in him all things hold together, and he is the Head of the Body, that is, the Church. He is the Beginning, the first-born from the dead, so that he should be supreme in every way; because God wanted all fullness to be found in him and through him to reconcile all things to him, everything in heaven and everything on earth, by making peace through his death on the cross." Col 1:18-20

Side note, yes. Unless one would voluntarily offer taxes, it is theft. Many Americans do donate to charity, you know. It is far more ethical, economical and sensible.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t mean Libertarian in the sense that “everything done by everyone” so I don’t believe in the legislation of activities that go against the church (homosexuality, contraception) hence why I put a ‘partially’ up there.

But when I mean libertarian, I mean the natural rights of the citizen come first and are to be uplifted and not to be interfered by the state for example, the state should not seize criminal’s property no matter how bad a crime he’s done and yet we see this being done here and there and they claim it to be lawful. This is a violation of our rights to property and in accordance with the 7th commandment is theft because there is no consent from the criminal.

Another example that is outside of doctrine, people are not allowed to wear color blue in said country. This regulation does not uplift the common good (because NOBODY benefits from this) and goes against our freedom of expression and thus, I am against said regulation.

But the question again, is it alright to be THIS kind of libertarian?

That sounds fine.

In reference to the American Libertarian Party, I’d be careful in the sense that their image needs work, but it is largely the fault of their own members.

Throwing snow at Sean Hannity, 9-11 conspiracy nonsense, and a fundamental lack of understanding that so-called gay “marriage” is small government () says it all.

So just do your homework and don’t be rash.

 

[SuperLuigi]

No, it’s quite impossible. I’m starting to wonder if one can even vote with a clear conscience.

ATB

Of course one can!

But in the West it might come down to choosing the lesser evil in terms of upholding Catholic principles.

 

[WildCatholic]

I think one can take certain libertarian positions but obviously the more extreme ones like no drug laws would be a little more morally ambiguous and probably not prudent for a catholic to believe. I do think though that being a Libertarian can be problematic in regards to charity. Don’t get me wrong I think the Government shouldn’t provide as many handouts, but I know too many who say “People who take Govt” aid are lazy but then don’t do any charity themselves. I think Libertarianism might lead to this if it becomes too individualistic. But I think if a Libertarian believes more in subsidiarity and provides charity to those around him in order to keep the government out the handout business is fine and probably preferable (in fact I think that if people were to be more charitable we wouldn’t need as much government). So if you want government out of your life, don’t just do things for yourself. Do for others!

 

[catholictiger]

I don’t mean Libertarian in the sense that “everything done by everyone” so I don’t believe in the legislation of activities that go against the church (homosexuality, contraception) hence why I put a ‘partially’ up there.

But when I mean libertarian, I mean the natural rights of the citizen come first and are to be uplifted and not to be interfered by the state for example, the state should not seize criminal’s property no matter how bad a crime he’s done and yet we see this being done here and there and they claim it to be lawful. This is a violation of our rights to property and in accordance with the 7th commandment is theft because there is no consent from the criminal.

Another example that is outside of doctrine, people are not allowed to wear color blue in said country. This regulation does not uplift the common good (because NOBODY benefits from this) and goes against our freedom of expression and thus, I am against said regulation.

But the question again, is it alright to be THIS kind of libertarian?

I’ll say this, the fundamental problem with classical liberalism (the term JPII uses and others) is that it puts freedom in front of justice. The best way to describe it is this, justice is determined by this underlying force of justice, rather than the natural law guiding the principles of the state. For a purely economic theory there is nothing wrong with classic liberalism, but an issue becomes when the ideology of liberalism becomes the guiding force of all things that happen in society.
see JPII’s comment on Ideology.
“Faith is capable of generating culture… its certitude has nothing in common with the rigidity of ideological bias; it is the bright light of the truth that does not oppose the riches of the intelligence, but only the darkness of error. Christian faith enlightens and explains human existence in every context. Urged on by this inner richness, Christians spread it courageously and witness to it consistently.”
-John Paul II, “Wisdom, the Core of all Human Formation,” Address given October 4, 2001

Ideology even a so called Catholic ideology is not christian or Catholic. So someone can agree with many of the classic liberal view points, limited to no intervention of the state in the economy, freedom of mostly everything, etc. and not buy into the classic liberal ideology that everything is based on this idea of absolute freedom.

Another thing a major problem in our culture today is this radical individualism, I think classic liberalism plays into this, what matters is that every individual has close to absolute freedom, and some will say absolute freedom and it is the state’s job to make sure everyone has that absolute freedom. What I think the Church would rather suggest is that individualism goes against the very foundation of society, and that is the family and how we are interpersonal creatures. I also think the church promotes that the state is a part of the society, and government by justice and the natural law, the state promotes the common good. The State doesn’t have an end in itself, when it does many problems happen.

to make this simpler I would say this. A catholic can be a classic liberal as long as it doesn’t become an ideology. Classic liberalism in itself plays into this individualistic norm that is very present in our society, the Church, I believe, promotes a social society where people, who are interpersonal beings, work together to bring about the common good, governed by the natural law.

 

[tttsssfff]

Do some research on Catholicism and the idea of “subsidiarity” in government. This is a MUCH better principle than Libertarianism as you describe. Why on earth should government NOT seize the assets of, say, Bernie Madoff and use it to make at least partial restitution to his victims??

Subsidiarity, in a nutshell, says that things should be done at the lowest level of organization possible. The individual should be responsible for everything reasonably achievable by an individual. Where circumstances make that possible, it should be the family that steps in to assist. Where that is inadequate, it should be the church or circle of friends that assist. Where that is inadequate, it should be a local civic organization. Where that is inadequate, the local government should take measures. Where that is inadequate, county, then state, THEN federal government.

America once did work this way and thrived (imperfectly as in all human endeavors). Nowadays if you lose your job you go straight onto state and federally funded subsidized housing, food stamps and unemployment checks. No wonder things are falling apart.

The state can not be legitimate when it steals from it’s citizens through taxes.