Catholic Libertarianism

[melensdad]

Generally the Libertarian party would argue for economic freedom and international non-intervention. It also argues for market efficiency with regards to laws and regulations. If something like food safety was a common concern (it clearly is for most people) then the Libertarian view would be to start local and go up. So it would start at the city you live in and advocate food safety at restaurants and supermarkets. But those interact with business outside the community so then a state agency would become logical and as interstate trade occurred then a logical and efficient move would be to establish some sort of federal agency, perhaps we could call it the FDA? Hmm we already have an FDA so why would a Libertarian oppose such an agency? Well in principle I think a Libertarian would NOT oppose it, but in some specific instances it might oppose ACTIONS and POWERS that the FDA may try to impose. For example I thing the pure Libertarian would oppose the imposition of nutritional standards as being beyond the scope of what is necessary. However we Americans clearly ignore nutritional standards in a very real way, so the FDA imposing them has proved to be pointless!

Then looking at the Labor Law questions. . . no MINORS would probably not be allowed to sign contracts, to be employed in dangerous jobs, to be forced to work in sweat shops, etc. They are, after all, not of age. Libertarian thought does not, in a practical sense, mean that life is a free-for-all.

Again, take a look at folks like Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul and see what Rockwell says/write and how Dr Paul has voted to get an idea on how Libertarian thought can be practical and moral. Go back and read our US Constitution, because that is one of the guiding documents to the Libertarian movement here in the US.

 

[scottm]

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?

Ah, but certainly you can say “XYZ is wrong” without making a criminal case out of it, can’t you? I think so! And I think you are confusing “There is no legislation against XYZ” with “I condone XYZ.”

Let’s take as a given that prostitution is a sin. In most of the United States it is also a crime. Fornication is also a sin, but fornication is not a crime. The Libertarian looks at this and says, “Tell me what difference money makes to God? Tell me why God would punish sinners differently who passed money before engaging in that physical act?”

The correct answer is that the exchange of money made no difference to God, who treats the acts of prostitution and fornication the same. As a consequence of this, we humans should also treat the acts the same. We should not punish only one.

It is on this conclusion that the Libertarian proposes removing prostitution from the criminal statute. He is not saying prostitution is a good thing. He is saying let equals be treated as equals, and let the priest, not the policeman, thereafter lead us into morality.

 

[strngrnrth]

I’d suggest that laws on prostitution, the age of majority etc. be made in the referendum process on the state, county and city levels. Personally I believe in a graduated age of majority and a graduated definition of crime. For example, I’d say that many of what are now felonies, such as drug possession, ought to be misdemeanors or violations.
Prostitution is a sin, but whether it should lead to a tax-supported trial, jail time and a lifelong stigma should be up the voters of each city, IMHO. I’d choose to live in a town where it was illegal but where the enforcement was relatively gentle and low-cost, myself. Most prostitutes are just poor. What they need is a job. A pimp who bullies women into working for him is guilty of using force, and is committing a crime any libertarian would punish.
As for when a person can make an employment contract, I would prefer to live in a place where a child of eight can choose to work in a nonhazardous environment for an hour or two a day for a minimum wage of at least a few dollars an hour, with parental permission and easy access to an adult emergency contact person. Some kids would benefit from that, and I think I was one of those who would. At 12, kids should get a few more choices, and at 15 I think they should be able to work full-time with parental permission, part-time without. A few years later they should be able to contract their time at any rate, for any number of hours, and even be professionals if they have obtained training. But with local control, it would just depend on local voters.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…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…

No, it’s no consolation.

Some kind of equivocal slide in understanding seems to have happened between the thinking of the original Social Contract writers and what we have now.

In a nutshell, the way I understand it, is that folks decided that life is a jungle and that a social contract was necessary to band together against the dangers.

Somehow, some folks persuaded other folks that so much banding together had taken place that the jungle was gone and that now we lived in a rose garden – a utopia.

The thing asked of folks in return for ‘allowing’ them to continue living in their ‘rose garden’ was that they give up their fangs and claws.

Thing is that one day the folks that gave up their fangs and claws woke up and found that they had been duped. There never was a rose garden. They always have been in the jungle. And now they are standing fangless and clawless before the mouth of the ravenous tiger.



I suspect that some of the regulars in the Philosophy Forum might appreciate this in thread form. It would be an interesting discussion.

 

[abirdrrl]

CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The Catechism outright says that libertarianism isn’t compatible with Catholic teaching.

 

[melensdad]

The Catechism outright says that libertarianism isn’t compatible with Catholic teaching.

Please show me where it says that?

Further, please show me where Libertarianism is a purely economic model and cannot contain compassion or reasonable regulations and controls on society. No doubt there are extreme Libertarians who may advocate anarchy, but those are not true Libertarians. There are several prominent Catholic Libertarians, there are also Christian Libertarians. I do not see what you claim and am seeking clarification of your statement.