Can a Catholic be (partially) Libertarian?

[Antonio_022]

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?

 

[migueltojose]

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?

Absolutely. I believe God is libertarian.
He gave us free will.
People need to have the choice.
Be convinced, develop convictions, then make the right choices.
Either through education, evangelization and enlightenment…
or through conforming to the norm (assuming the norms are based accordingly).

We can not legislate or force people to follow Church teaching.
We have to convince them and they have to choose.
And that’s libertarian.

 

[Amandil]

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 guess its ok to be that kind of libertarian, the rub is that you’ll get slack for not being a “consistent” libertarian, that is, by not being more “liberal” towards the citizen’s “rights” being infringed upon by the government(i.e. homosexual conduct, abortion, prostitution, gambling, etc).

I used to be a libertarian but then I found G.K. Chesterton and his Distributism. It’s much more firmly grounded in Catholic social ethic while maintaining the subsidiarity of the government. It argues against the overt exploitation of human labor from pure capitalism and at the same time safeguards private ownership against attempts at socialism/communism.

 

[Petaro]

I believe you can be a good catholic and yet be “small” government. There are indeed too many silly bits of legislation that could be used illegitimately.
You do mention the taking of criminals’ possessions. In Australia we have legislation bases on confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
If a man is ostensibly an office worker, but is really a drug baron and is found with three mansions on the water overlooking the Opera House on Sydney Harbour another holiday house on the beach at Surfers Paradise, two Bentley cars and a Spider, as well as a cruiser the Court can decide that these are proceeds of his drug activities and not his job as a clerk.
This has prove to be in the interests of justice and seems to be to be quite legitimate.

 

[Nelka]

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?

Is this the part where we can’t deport a criminal?

 

[SerbCath]

Well, the American TFP seems to be basically an entire group of Catholics who take libertarian positions. I am thinking about joining, once I finish my conversion.

 

[christofirst]

How many people are true Libertarians, as opposed to being reactionaries against specific laws which are not to their liking? If God is such a Libertarian, why did He give us the 10 Commandments, which have grown to become the whole Mosaic Law, and now the enormously detailed Code of Canon Law? I can understand people feeling bogged down with so many laws, and where government is concerned, some of these laws may be opposed to the common good, and should be brought into question. As a reaction against unjust, possibly unnecessary laws, a Catholic can certainly hold what are considered to be Libertarian ideas, but I think one can only go so far. This is not Utopia. People clearly need laws to maintain a civil society, so the addition of “partially” is necessary.

 

[manualman]

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.

 

[Amandil]

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.

Perfect example of why I’m a Distributist:
distributistreview.com/mag/test-2/

 

[manualman]

Perfect example of why I’m a Distributist:
distributistreview.com/mag/test-2/

Me too,but I have the name. People hear it and instantly think you’re a communist revolutionary (Oh, sheesh. This dufus wants to seize all the means of production and probably expects that the government would actually then distribute it evenly to everybody. What a dope). If that were what Distributism IS, the reaction would be correct. But it’s not, so it really ought to get a name that doesn’t freak people out.

 

[tomarin]

Me too,but I have the name. People hear it and instantly think you’re a communist revolutionary (Oh, sheesh. This dufus wants to seize all the means of production and probably expects that the government would actually then distribute it evenly to everybody. What a dope). If that were what Distributism IS, the reaction would be correct. But it’s not, so it really ought to get a name that doesn’t freak people out.

Where I live, everyone is a communist revolutionary, so distributism is a selling point.

 

[tomarin]

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 think of libertarianism as essentially the doctrine that each individual and his or her family is a law unto themselves. I could be wrong however but that seems to be the gist of it to me. It’s anarchism plus property rights.

The spirit of libertarianism seems to me to be totally at odds with the spirit of the beatitudes.

A libertarian friend of mine, with whom I usually agree on many things, recently told me that as long as gay marriage doesn’t harm anyone, he doesn’t see any reason it should be illegal, and that he regards people who have a problem with gay marriage as bigots. So … the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

 

[migueltojose]

How many people are true Libertarians, as opposed to being reactionaries against specific laws which are not to their liking? If God is such a Libertarian, why did He give us the 10 Commandments, which have grown to become the whole Mosaic Law, and now the enormously detailed Code of Canon Law? I can understand people feeling bogged down with so many laws, and where government is concerned, some of these laws may be opposed to the common good, and should be brought into question. As a reaction against unjust, possibly unnecessary laws, a Catholic can certainly hold what are considered to be Libertarian ideas, but I think one can only go so far. This is not Utopia. People clearly need laws to maintain a civil society, so the addition of “partially” is necessary.

It certainly was nice and helpful of God to give us the 10 commandments for guidance. But he also gave us “free will”. I’m not disagreeing with what but how. Tell people what to do, force people how to behave, legislate morality… OR educate, evangelize and enlighten and allow people to choose. It is not all up to the “choosers” to choose well, it is also up to society to guide and direct the choosers so that they can choose well. But, it is still a choice.

We have too many self righteous (left) or sanctimonious (right) people telling us what to do. I do not like being told what to do. Convince me. I’m from Missouri. Show me.

Conformity has a negative connotation these days but a certain amount of conformity is good and necessary. There are leaders and followers and dawdlers. Social norms set upper and lower control limits on acceptable behavior. Some people need more guidance than others… so if the choices are to far removed from their daily lives or to abstract or ethereal for them to handle… conformity is good.

Our focus on individualism has extended or practically removed our limits on acceptable behavior. Not good.

 

[Antonio_022]

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.

Hm? I could consider this…

This system sounds so much better than straight up anarchy (Feminists. When will they ever learn) but I think some ideals of libertarianism should be considered for example the use of political party for reform of unjust laws etc.

 

[Reep]

Me too,but I have the name. People hear it and instantly think you’re a communist revolutionary (Oh, sheesh. This dufus wants to seize all the means of production and probably expects that the government would actually then distribute it evenly to everybody. What a dope). If that were what Distributism IS, the reaction would be correct. But it’s not, so it really ought to get a name that doesn’t freak people out.

As a distributist, how would you make it happen? How would you get the means of production out of the hands of the fat cats and get it into the hands of the many? Would you use governmental violence to accomplish this?

After the capital is evenly spread out, how would you keep owners from selling out and going back to their wages, like the proverbial dog back to his vomit?

 

[Reep]

I think of libertarianism as essentially the doctrine that each individual and his or her family is a law unto themselves. I could be wrong however but that seems to be the gist of it to me. It’s anarchism plus property rights.

The spirit of libertarianism seems to me to be totally at odds with the spirit of the beatitudes.

Libertarianism does not have to be at odds. It’s more about respecting others’ freedom as long as they are not hurting anyone else. For me it is about the golden rule and .Romans 3:8 (that we may never do evil that good may come of it)
http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/dont-tread-on-neighbor300.jpg

 

[manualman]

As a distributist, how would you make it happen? How would you get the means of production out of the hands of the fat cats and get it into the hands of the many? Would you use governmental violence to accomplish this?

After the capital is evenly spread out, how would you keep owners from selling out and going back to their wages, like the proverbial dog back to his vomit?

You’re my Exhibit A for why the idea needs a new name. No Distributist proposes a Bolshevik style seizing of wealth and distributing it to everybody.

But, for starters, we could examine the way we collect taxes and modify those methods significantly. This presupposes that we both agree that a government is NEEDED and that government services have to be paid for somehow. (Military, roads, ports, some level of regulatory oversight, etc). Right now we have a situation where a family that makes $130,000 in total income via wages pays much more in taxes than a family that brings in $130,000 in capital gains. That’s idiotic and is structurally designed to make the rich get richer and make it harder for the non-rich to make it there. That’s practically the definition of capitalism. The system is rigged to benefit those who have capital to invest rather than those who go out there and bust their butts working or building their own business. That system should be turned on its head. Right now we have a flat tax on capital gains and a graduated tax on wages. A Distributist system would have a graduated tax on capital gains. It would also place a graduated tax on corporate income so that small companies would get an offset against the market power of mega corporations.

A distributist system would probably end trust fund tax shelters and impose a hefty estate tax on estates over $7-10 million. Bill Gates certainly earned what he’s got, but when he and his wife die, and the kids inherit the fortune it should be assessed a significant tax. After all, THEY didn’t earn it, why not tax unearned income much higher than earned income? You want to minimize taxes on behavior to be encouraged and shift more of the necessary tax burden to activities that don’t put a damper on economic growth. Estate taxes fit that description perfectly.

Am I doing class warfare and punishing the rich? Certainly not. I’m imposing the costs of government according to who can afford to pay it, what areas cause the least damage to the economy and assigning that burden in such a way that, in the long run, the system inherently offsets many of the historical problems of capitalism in which those already rich enjoy massive advantages in the acquisition of further wealth compared to those without such insider access.

The problems with socialism and communism are not so much the idea of trying to spread the wealth, but the fact that they both rely on the integrity of individuals in the government to have the best interest of the public in mind. This makes them destined to fail since such power will always corrupt said government officials in the long run. But if you design a SYSTEM that innately offsets the advantages of the rich to level the playing field, then you actually unleash MORE of the power of free markets by taking away some of the power of the wealthy to restrict competition and artificially restrict supplies. You aren’t reliant on specific people in government to behaves nobly. The system does it structurally instead of relying on people to decide specific cases.

 

[Reep]

You’re my Exhibit A for why the idea needs a new name. No Distributist proposes a Bolshevik style seizing of wealth and distributing it to everybody.

. . . . A Distributist system would have a graduated tax on capital gains. . . . A distributist system would probably end trust fund tax shelters and impose a hefty estate tax on estates over $7-10 million. Bill Gates certainly earned what he’s got, but when he and his wife die, and the kids inherit the fortune it should be assessed a significant tax. After all, THEY didn’t earn it . . . Am I doing class warfare and punishing the rich? . . . .

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

 

[tomarin]

Libertarianism does not have to be at odds. It’s more about respecting others’ freedom as long as they are not hurting anyone else. For me it is about the golden rule and Romans 3:8 (that we may never do evil that good may come of it).

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?

 

[manualman]

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).

Right now, today, if Gates decided to give you a million dollars, you’d have to report it as income and pay taxes on it. So your objection is spilt milk, already a done deal. We just have the strange double standard that says that if he decides to give that money to somebody upon his DEATH, that maybe that is different somehow and not deserving to be taxed. Weird.

I get it. You hate taxes and consider them legalized robbery. But unless you’ve somehow figured out how to achieve necessary government services for free, the question is not whether we should impose taxes, but how we should impose taxes. Hopefully we’d agree at least on the principle that taxes should be designed to minimize the suppressive effect on the economy that taxes tend to have generally. It’s my assertion that an estate tax on estates beyond some reasonable level at which a family business can be passed on is an example of a way to minimize the overall economic downsides of taxation.

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? That I should be able to advertise myself as a hazardous waste disposal contractor simply by virtue of the fact that I have a rather large vacant property behind my house that nobody watches terribly closely? Such Ayn Randian dreams seem to inspire a lot of daydreams among people, but they don’t, IMO, bear much scrutiny in the real world. I tend to think it’s personally reasonable that regulations now in place allow me to buy a Flowbie and give myself my own haircut, but require certain basic training in sanitation practices for anybody who wants to offer them commercially. Perhaps coincidentally enough, neither I nor anybody in my family has ever gotten head lice. Or NOT coincidentally… Regulating hair cutters admittedly gets awfully close to the nanny state line, but any student of history should be able to see what happens when there is NO regulatory oversight by the state. Countless toxic contaminated sites across the country bear witness to what happens when you leave it up to the individual to learn what the right thing to do is and to do it. They key, IMO, is to find the magic 80/20 line where you get 80% of the benefits of regulation and oversight out of only 20% of the bureaucracy and stifling oversight of said bureaucrats. Then don’t let the monster off its leash.