Catholic and libertarian? Pope’s top adviser says they’re incompatible

[lutheran_farmer]

If we had a true free market economy, your suggestion of the workers and employers deriving mutual benefits would theoretically work. We don’t have a true free market. We have an oligarchy system.

 

[Seraphim73]

If we had a true free market economy, your suggestion of the workers and employers deriving mutual benefits would theoretically work. We don’t have a true free market. We have an oligarchy system.

You are right. We have a system where powerful elites in government, business and unions all scratch each other’s backs with no regard for looking out for us. That being said we are closer to a free market than in many. Also if you look around the world today generally speaking the freer the economy is in a country the most prosperous it’s people are.

 

[isaacalsop]

Without being able to see a complete version of it on the Vatican’s official website I have to treat the article as hearsay.

Because I do not see a full copy of your post quoted above on the Vatican website, Im going to have to consider what you said heresy. Grow up.

 

[ProVobis]

Respectfully my Lutheran friend, where is there a libertarian society. Why not question the Central banking that is tearing our world apart? Why is this omitted in every economic statement?

Precisely. Even the previous Fed Chairman had many concerns about the moral hazards that came with every Fed move. At least he acknowledged that much.

As Rothschild once said, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, I care not who makes the laws.”

 

[ProVobis]

True, but judgement in terms of our eternal destiny is intrinsically linked with how we treat others and as said, we are not merely a collection of individuals in heaven.

Nor in the other place, I hear. But who knows?

 

[minkymurph]

Nor in the other place, I hear. But who knows?

An incohesive collection of individuals with competing agendas and no established perception of a common good may be a libertarian concept of heaven, but it is not to my knowledge the Catholic concept.

 

[Michael_C]

My point was that under a communist regime, there was resistance. Are you familiar with the Solidarity movement? It was non-aggressive.

Are child labor laws considered aggressive?

Where are you coming up with aggression?

The government operates with a monopoly on force. Everything they do is with the threat of force.

if you look up NAP (Non aggression Principle) you can better understand the philosophy of Libertarianism. The morality is completely in line with Catholic teaching.

 

[Michael_C]

If we had a true free market economy, your suggestion of the workers and employers deriving mutual benefits would theoretically work. We don’t have a true free market. We have an oligarchy system.

Great post! We’ve found common ground my CATHOLIC friend.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

That being said we are closer to a free market than in many. Also if you look around the world today generally speaking the freer the economy is in a country the most prosperous it’s people are.

I think this is a circular fallacy.

If you find a country where people are generally rich and prosperous, you find and focus on aspects of it that resemble a free market and say the success is down to that.

If you find a country where people are generally poor and under-noursihed, you search for, find and focus on aspects of that country where the market is controlled.

Thus you always find the evidence to back your beliefs.

It could just as well work the other way around, as all countries have areas that are controlled and areas that are not and you can pick and switch which of these you consider important and which you don’t so that your original premise is always satisfied

 

[minkymurph]

You are right. We have a system where powerful elites in government, business and unions all scratch each other’s backs with no regard for looking out for us. That being said we are closer to a free market than in many. Also if you look around the world today generally speaking the freer the economy is in a country the most prosperous it’s people are.

Does that not depend on how one defines freedom?

Libertarians argue people in poor countries are free if no one is interfering with them and lack of resources does not constitute lack of freedom.

If you are correct, and prosperity and access to resources is intrinsically linked to freedom, and actually dependent on these elements, then the libertarian argument fails.

I would also argue libertarian arguments further fail as they do not address the disparity of power you mention. For this reason libertarian theory lends itself to abuse of power, backscratching and elitism.

 

[minkymurph]

I think this is a circular fallacy.

If you find a country where people are generally rich and prosperous, you find and focus on aspects of it that resemble a free market and say the success is down to that.

If you find a country where people are generally poor and under-noursihed, you search for, find and focus on aspects of that country where the market is controlled.

Thus you always find the evidence to back your beliefs.

It could just as well work the other way around, as all countries have areas that are controlled and areas that are not and you can pick and switch which of these you consider important and which you don’t so that your original premise is always satisfied

It is also a fact the wealth of rich prosperous countries is controlled by a minority of the population, As such, they stand to gain the most benefit from a free market. Low taxes benefit the most wealthy to the greatest extent. They are of minimal benefit to those on a low wage.

 

[ProVobis]

An incohesive collection of individuals with competing agendas and no established perception of a common good may be a libertarian concept of heaven, but it is not to my knowledge the Catholic concept.

So egalitarianism (Ayn Rand’s opposite of libertarianism) is the Catholic concept? How can that be when the Law of Distribution says there’ll always be the poor and the rich and Christ Himself said the poor will always be among us, or something to that effect?

 

[Michael_C]

It is also a fact the wealth of rich prosperous countries is controlled by a minority of the population, As such, they stand to gain the most benefit from a free market. Low taxes benefit the most wealthy to the greatest extent. They are of minimal benefit to those on a low wage.

I agree with your first point regarding who controls the wealth. I disagree with your second point. The richest among us work against a free market using government as a weapon to crush competition.

 

[Seraphim73]

I think this is a circular fallacy.

If you find a country where people are generally rich and prosperous, you find and focus on aspects of it that resemble a free market and say the success is down to that.

If you find a country where people are generally poor and under-noursihed, you search for, find and focus on aspects of that country where the market is controlled.

Thus you always find the evidence to back your beliefs.

It could just as well work the other way around, as all countries have areas that are controlled and areas that are not and you can pick and switch which of these you consider important and which you don’t so that your original premise is always satisfied

It’s not circular at all. You speak as though there are no objective measurements of how free an economy is and how prosperous a people are. There certainly are many objective measurements. Here is one example.

It is also quite easy from an historical perspective to track the adoption of laissez-faire principles and the almost uninterrupted growth in prosperity and quality of life in those areas where it was adopted.

 

[Seraphim73]

It is also a fact the wealth of rich prosperous countries is controlled by a minority of the population, As such, they stand to gain the most benefit from a free market. Low taxes benefit the most wealthy to the greatest extent. They are of minimal benefit to those on a low wage.

I think it’s all a matter of perspective my friend. Who is really paying the most, the rich person who has to pay an extra $100,000 in taxes a year or the low income person who lost his job because that rich person had to scale back his business to afford the tax hike? One is marginally less well off but the other has lost everything including the ability to buy even food for his family.

This is not a zero sum game. Yes some people benefit more and some less, after all this is still planet earth and these are still human beings we are talking about. No two humans have the same talents, drive, abilities and interest. But if people are allowed to freely pursue their own economic self interest invariably there is value added and wealth is created, wealth that benefits everyone.

 

[minkymurph]

So egalitarianism (Ayn Rand’s opposite of libertarianism) is the Catholic concept? How can that be when the Law of Distribution says there’ll always be the poor and the rich and Christ Himself said the poor will always be among us, or something to that effect?

I cannot comment on Amy Rand as I have never read any of her writings. As I have never read any of her writings, I cannot say whether it is a Catholic concept or not.

It is true Jesus said the poor will always be with us, but he said that in the context of the opportunity to assist the poor is always present, and while we may have a moral (not legal) obligation to assist the poor, this in itself does not mean we are not entitled to enjoy what the poor do not simply because we have and they do not. I say this because what Jesus said was in response to Judas when he suggested pouring oil on Jesus head was a waste of money. It is not wrong to dispose another to luxury in their honour. What would be wrong is to dispose another to luxury because of their position with complete disregard for the poor for own’s own ends.

 

[minkymurph]

I agree with your first point regarding who controls the wealth. I disagree with your second point. The richest among us work against a free market using government as a weapon to crush competition.

Apologies if that is what you thought I meant. It’s not exactly what I meant. The rich use the free market for their own self-interest, not for the interest of competition. There is evidence they will work against the free market and use their influence with government as a weapon against it. I can quote you a case I studied as a student as evidence of this. There was a big hoo-ha about it in my part of the world because the connotation was a government minister attempted to use the media and his position to manipulate the judiciary.

 

[minkymurph]

I think it’s all a matter of perspective my friend. Who is really paying the most, the rich person who has to pay an extra $100,000 in taxes a year or the low income person who lost his job because that rich person had to scale back his business to afford the tax hike? One is marginally less well off but the other has lost everything including the ability to buy even food for his family.

This is true. I would argue it is a matter of balance. There is nothing to gain from crippling business with unnecessary taxes. As you quite rightly say, it harms everyone. Business should be allowed to flourish because it is to everyone’s benefit. Government should seek to facilitate business for the good of everyone rather than think up unnecessary and restrictive rules for the sake of them to boost the national economy through taxes. It maddens me in my part of the world they have no economic vision and think up rules that are not needed and restrict prosperity for everyone because of their lack of economic vision. I don’t think businesses should be crippled with taxes because they are an easy target. Any more than I think the motorist should be crippled by what amounts to a tax under the guise of safety and being green when we all know it’s about generating revenue. What I argue is government should act to restrain disparity of power to prevent unfairness, and prevent individuals being exploited unfairly for another’s gain.

This is not a zero sum game. Yes some people benefit more and some less, after all this is still planet earth and these are still human beings we are talking about. No two humans have the same talents, drive, abilities and interest. But if people are allowed to freely pursue their own economic self interest invariably there is value added and wealth is created, wealth that benefits everyone.

I wholeheartedly agree. I firmly believe in economic autonomy. One cannot be autonomous unless one ability to generate income and have a certain degree of control over it. I wholeheartedly agree people should freely pursue their own economic self-interest - not be allowed, the right to. If we are not interested in ourselves, how are we to be interested in others?

Wealth does create benefits but wealth is also power. This is were libertarian theory falls down which I have covered. Suffice to say Catholicism is not compatible with creating wealth to the unnecessary detriment of others out of pure self-interest.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

It’s not circular at all. You speak as though there are no objective measurements of how free an economy is and how prosperous a people are. There certainly are many objective measurements. Here is one example.

Not really, a study set up by an agency with a clear agenda and thus able to tailor its criteria to produce the result it is looking for. That’s hardly an objective measurement, any more than the Heritage Foundation is not an unbiassed or objective study group.

It is also quite easy from an historical perspective to track the adoption of laissez-faire principles and the almost uninterrupted growth in prosperity and quality of life in those areas where it was adopted.

Factoid: In post war Japan the government basically told industries what to make and what not to make and with who to cooperate and with who to compete. Only through this policy could Japanese industry come up to speed so quickly. Once industries were strong, the rules were relaxed and finally abolished. The results are not too positive, with Japan slowing falling back and facing all sorts of problems today. Something quite similar is going to happen in China, as the early steps are quite comparable.

Don’t get me wrong. Freedom is a wonderful thing for those who benefit from it. But please lets stop deluding ourselves that it’s the end to all problems. Quite often libertarians are quite selective about the type of freedom they want and the type of stuff they want governments to do for them. Basically anything that disadvantages them is bad and anything that advantages them is good. That’s a hypocritical way of understanding freedom.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

This is true. I would argue it is a matter of balance. There is nothing to gain from crippling business with unnecessary taxes. As you quite rightly say, it harms everyone. Business should be allowed to flourish because it is to everyone’s benefit. Government should seek to facilitate business for the good of everyone rather than think up unnecessary and restrictive rules for the sake of them to boost the national economy through taxes.

I think one should be careful not to confuse the common good with an individual’s good.

Suppose a rich businessman says, the government has no right to tax me even a penny because it is my right to hang on to the fruits of my own labour, every last one of them.

OK, but the guys he’s employing, they’ve been educated in schools payed by taxpayer money. The trucks that deliver his goods, run on roads payed by taxpayer money, when his shop catches fire, he expects fire service, police what have you. Many of his customers are on welfare. The list continues.

So basically this libertarian businessman is a hypocrite. If he were to employ only home schooled employees, and find other ways of not touching any government infrastructure at any point, then I would willingly concede, let him keep the fruits of his labour. But please, all this halfway house stuff is just a self service mentality. Most libertarians are only libertarians when and as far as it suits their personal benefit and not a step further. That’s precisely what you’re asking for when you build a system based on greed. Greedy people only look out for themselves and not for the others.