Catholic Libertarianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChiRho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChiRho

Guest
a great lecture, by Tom Woods, a Catholic Libertarian and a member of the Mises Institute, the author of “The Church and the Market” and “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”

mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2004/Woods.mp3

about 40 mins long, so hope you enjoy lots of talking
 
. . . kind of an oxymoron.🙂
Why so?

There is nothing in the belief of libertarian philosophy that excludes morality.

Take a look at Representative Ron Paul from Texas. He is a Christian, a Libertarian, and his votes representing his district are clearly based on a moral foundation and he has been endorsed by and identified as a member of the Libertarian Party as well as being a member of the Republican Party.
 
Does not the Acton Institute promote a Christian Libertarianism? Lord Acton, after whom the Institute is named, was a Roman Catholic thinker.
 
Does not the Acton Institute promote a Christian Libertarianism? Lord Acton, after whom the Institute is named, was a Roman Catholic thinker.
I’m not familiar with it, but I know Lew Rockwell, and Woods (above) are Catholic, as well as Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist.
 
Yes!! Fans of Acton, Lew Rockwell, Mises, Tom Woods, and Ron Paul!! Add me to your buddy list guys 🙂
 
**NOTICE: **Please avoid mentioning (or otherwise referring to) specific candidates.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
 
i’m glad this came up as i was thinking about posting a question about potential conflicts between catholicism and libertarianism. i will listen to the lecture when i have a chance but first a question:

i don’t know much about libertarianism as a political philosophy or as a practical political program but i understand they are in favor of decriminalizing so-called victimless crimes. would this include prostitution and if so wouldn’t it be contrary to catholic teaching to condone such a thing?
 
i don’t know much about libertarianism as a political philosophy or as a practical political program but i understand they are in favor of decriminalizing so-called victimless crimes. would this include prostitution and if so wouldn’t it be contrary to catholic teaching to condone such a thing?
Just as there are differences in opinions of the supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties, there are also differences in opinions of supporters of the Libertarian Party.

On one extreme are those folks who want to legalize everything like abortion, prostitution, drug use, etc.

However from a more centrist position of the Libertarian movement there is generally a belief that the laws of the United States should reflect the US Constitution and the various state Constitutions. At a national level there is one Libertarian in congress who runs as a Libertarian and member of the Republican Party. He often votes contrary to the Republican Party on specific types of issues.

Generally those issues involve things like overreaching federal laws, taxation, federal laws that limit the rights of states to pass their own laws, federal issues that interfere in the rights of other sovereign nations, etc.

It is consistent for a Libertarian to be Christian, but certainly not all Libertarians are Christian. Many Libertarians strongly oppose issues like abortion and the war in Iraq. Similarly they also oppose large federal social programs as they believe that social programs are best handled at state and local levels where there is more control on how the money is spent.

For example, Libertarians generally oppose things like the Department of Education on the grounds that it is not a Constitutional issue and therefore belongs to the realm of state and local control. Realistically most of the funding of our schools are from local money right now, if you look at the whole structure of local school funding in your community you will see that very little of it comes from Federal sources, yet being an “Education Candidate” is often something we hear from people running for national office. It is one of those red herring issues, people vote on emotion not realizing that the Federal Government has very little to do with our local schools.

With regards to drugs, you will find many Libertarians who would support the decriminalization of some drugs, particularly marijuana. However, many of those same Libertarians who would decriminalize it on the Federal level would suggest that it is within the individual state’s rights to tax, regulate and control the same drug. So voting for a Libertarian does not mean free drugs for everyone.

A central theme to Libertarian thought is that CENTRALIZED control of all laws is wrong and that LOCAL and STATE controls of laws is better suited to representing the needs of the various states/localities. The Libertarians typically rest on the US Constitution for their divisions between State and Federal authority as the whole point of the US Constitution was to reserve for the people the rights of the people (states) and grant only limited powers to the federal government. The reality today is that much of our Federal law is beyond the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Understand too, that a Libertarian does not necessarily suggest that undoing the Federal law will result in “total” freedom, but rather than the law’s jurisdiction is rightfully moved down to the state and therefore the state can decide what is best for its people.
 
Just as there are differences in opinions of the supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties, there are also differences in opinions of supporters of the Libertarian Party.
Excellently put.👍 👍 👍
 
It is consistent for a Libertarian to be Christian, but certainly not all Libertarians are Christian. Many Libertarians strongly oppose issues like abortion and the war in Iraq. Similarly they also oppose large federal social programs as they believe that social programs are best handled at state and local levels where there is more control on how the money is spent.
thanks for the detailed explanation, i think it’s a fascinating topic. so there’s no necessary contradiciton in following libertarian political principles (small federal government, more local control) and being pro-life?

is that because the libertarian goal you outlined of returning governing power to local or state authorities and what i understand to be the short-term goal of the pro-life movement of returning the decision to allow legal abortions to the states appear to overlap?

(what i’m getting at is, some pro-lifers who feel that no abortion is ever warranted would presumably want to go further than this eventually but would happily accept the decision returning to the states as an improvement over what we have today.)

i have an image – almost certainly a caricature, actually – of libertarianism as promoting freedom from government intrusion to such an extent that the society becomes a kind of lawless free-for-all where everything is permitted.
 
thanks for the detailed explanation, i think it’s a fascinating topic. so there’s no necessary contradiciton in following libertarian political principles (small federal government, more local control) and being pro-life?

is that because the libertarian goal you outlined of returning governing power to local or state authorities and what i understand to be the short-term goal of the pro-life movement of returning the decision to allow legal abortions to the states appear to overlap?
There is no reason that a Libertarian cannot be Pro-Life. In fact there is a Pro-Life Libertarian elected to Congress right now.
 
i have an image – almost certainly a caricature, actually – of libertarianism as promoting freedom from government intrusion to such an extent that the society becomes a kind of lawless free-for-all where everything is permitted.
Libertarians do not suggest there be no laws or that there be a free-for-all society. They simply suggest that in many cases local control makes more sense than national control. Further they advocate the logic of the US Constitution for Federal laws and limits. Just because they don’t want federal intrusion does not mean they don’t want law. There is plenty of logic within Libertarianism for federal support of common defense, federal roads and many other things. On the local and state level you would still have laws preventing the free-for-all lawlessness, those laws would be enforced by local, county and state police just as they are now.

But there are many areas where there is no legitimate reason for the federal government to become involved, according to the Libertarian train of thought.
 
On the local and state level you would still have laws preventing the free-for-all lawlessness, those laws would be enforced by local, county and state police just as they are now.
what about, say child labor laws or food and drug safety laws? shouldn’t those be federal to ensure some level of consistency (and to avoid duplication of bureaucracy in every state government)?

i remember a few years ago hearing a radio interview with the libertarian party nominee for president (don’t remember his name) in which he scoffed at such laws, saying “when i was a kid i had a job as a paper boy and it was the best experience i ever had!” i think he was implying that it’s absurd to even have such laws.

to me the need for such laws is self-evident and his paper boy example certainly didn’t fit the description of the kind of labor that was outlawed (i.e. adult labor in factories) for children in response to real abuses in the victorian period.
 
40.png
tomarin:
…so there’s no necessary contradiciton in following libertarian political principles (small federal government, more local control) and being pro-life?
Libertarian Principle #1: Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.

You decide.
40.png
tomarin:
is that because the libertarian goal you outlined of returning governing power to local or state authorities and what i understand to be the short-term goal of the pro-life movement of returning the decision to allow legal abortions to the states appear to overlap?
The Libertarian route to a reduction in the number of abortions is this: Government should not interfere in the relationship between health care provision and patients.

If abortion is allowed to become a health care matter instead of a political matter, then women applying for abortion will be provided with sonograms of their unborn babies, plus all the information linking abortion to serious medical and psychiatric complications needing subsequent hospitalization. One such complication would be breast cancer.

At present all this information is withheld from women.
40.png
tomarin:
i have an image – almost certainly a caricature, actually – of libertarianism as promoting freedom from government intrusion to such an extent that the society becomes a kind of lawless free-for-all where everything is permitted.
In Ontario we already have a lawless free-for-all where everything is permitted for a selected few. This select few a friend of mine has named the New Family Compact. Catholics in Ontario should be very wary of the resurgence of Family Compact thinking here. It is like the seven demons who came back: Matthew 12:43.
 
what about, say child labor laws or food and drug safety laws? shouldn’t those be federal to ensure some level of consistency (and to avoid duplication of bureaucracy in every state government)?

i remember a few years ago hearing a radio interview with the libertarian party nominee for president (don’t remember his name) in which he scoffed at such laws, saying “when i was a kid i had a job as a paper boy and it was the best experience i ever had!” i think he was implying that it’s absurd to even have such laws.

to me the need for such laws is self-evident and his paper boy example certainly didn’t fit the description of the kind of labor that was outlawed (i.e. adult labor in factories) for children in response to real abuses in the victorian period.
Does ADULT labor now take the same form as in the 1800’s? No. Why? Because we are producing more with less effort now. Our labor buys more. A man who in 1840 would be working 15 hour days, 6 day weeks, in a mill with poisonous dust filling the air, would never accept such work now, because he can find a much better job. The same for a child. If a 12-year-old girl wants to improve her family’s finances, save for some cool stuff now, and save for a nice apartment when she turns 18 (or whatever age she would like to leave home), and a job seating customers in a family restaurant, say, 4 hours a day, three days a week, at five-seventy-five an hour, opens, she can evaluate the job and decide whether it sounds worth taking. If not, she will keep looking for a better situation. If so, she will take it and be glad to have it. In normal situations, if people may do waht they want, it just means more people get what they actually want. Libertarianism is for outlawing force and fraud. That’s it. If the restaurant lies to the girl about how hard the work is and cheats her on her paycheck, that is fraud. The one responsible would be prosecuted criminally for fraud.
 
In Ontario we already have a lawless free-for-all where everything is permitted for a selected few. This select few a friend of mine has named the New Family Compact. Catholics in Ontario should be very wary of the resurgence of Family Compact thinking here. It is like the seven demons who came back: Matthew 12:43.
i’ve been to canada a number of times and one of the very few faults i can find with the country is a willingness to tolerate what are, by american standards, very heavy-handed and moralistic laws about things such as smoking. apparently if a convenience store owner unwittingly sells cigarettes to a minor he loses his shop or something to that effect (at least according to one news broadcast i heard while visiting – this was probably 10 years ago).

there’s also the ridiculous inaccessibility of alcohol, as if it were some dangerous drug (well it is, but it’s a socially acceptable one). this seems to point to a similar mindset. the heavy hand of the nanny state is a degree or two heavier in the great white north – we’re moving in that direction down here, if that’s any consolation.

normally i find that those americans who boast loudest about the freedom found here are also the ones who are the most eager to give their rights away to the government, but in this one instance i found myself thinking a bit like them.
 
Does ADULT labor now take the same form as in the 1800’s? No. Why? Because we are producing more with less effort now. Our labor buys more. A man who in 1840 would be working 15 hour days, 6 day weeks, in a mill with poisonous dust filling the air, would never accept such work now, because he can find a much better job. The same for a child. If a 12-year-old girl wants to improve her family’s finances, save for some cool stuff now, and save for a nice apartment when she turns 18 (or whatever age she would like to leave home), and a job seating customers in a family restaurant, say, 4 hours a day, three days a week, at five-seventy-five an hour, opens, she can evaluate the job and decide whether it sounds worth taking.
so your point as i understand it is that everyone, minors included, has the right to transact their labor in the labor market. does that apply to prostitutes as well? or would you be fine with their activities being regulated (or not regulated) by local authorities – which is probably what exists now, hence the status quo.

i guess what i’m trying to articulate is my instinctual feeling that there’s something in the catholic idea of freedom – namely that we are free to do the right thing, but not to be licentious – that is at odds with what i perceive to be the libertarian attitude towards freedom, which seems much broader to me.

but i’m open to being persuaded i’m wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top