Catholicism and Libertarianism

[Al_Moritz]

Bingo.

Again, one can support certain libertarian positions merely as prudence. You cannot support them in principle.

For instance, I might be able to say “it’s a bad idea to tax income.” You can call this a libertarian position if you like, but it’s not what most libertarians believe. Most libertarians believe taxation is morally convertible with theft – not that it’s bad in practice but that it’s evil in principle. That is flatly contradictory with the Church’s teachings. You cannot, in that sense, be a good *principled *libertarian and a good Catholic at the same time.

Libertarianism is a very close cousin of leftism, an extremely pernicious vision. If you want to oppose liberalism (and every Catholic should) there are saner policy positions out there. Look into the reactionary/counterrevolutionary schools of thought such as are outlined in the “Orthosphere” and elsewhere.

 

[catholictiger]

old thread but as I have shown Catholicism and libertarianism aren’t compatible. The popes have made this clear over the last couple hundred years.

 

[Reep]

old thread but as I have shown Catholicism and libertarianism aren’t compatible. The popes have made this clear over the last couple hundred years.

Well, if we are summing up, I maintain that Catholicism and libertarianism are not only compatible but that it’s the best fit. Good thing too–because the way this country is going–the choice may soon be between liberty and totalitarianism. I am praying for liberty.

 

[catholictiger]

Well, if we are summing up, I maintain that Catholicism and libertarianism are not only compatible but that it’s the best fit. Good thing too–because the way this country is going–the choice may soon be between liberty and totalitarianism. I am praying for liberty.

how is Catholicism and libertarianism compatible if the church says the uncheck capitalism isn’t good.

 

[Spider42]

how is Catholicism and libertarianism compatible if the church says the uncheck capitalism isn’t good.

Excellent question. The Church also teaches that health care is a universal right and that civilian ownership of guns should be largely curtailed. And, of course, it teaches that we have specific obligations to the nation state under which we reside (CCC 2238-43).

Think about it this way, Catholicism is a divine hierarchy, with a constitutional obligation to obedience and submission of religious will and intellect (Lumen Gentium #25). I, myself, am under an Oath of Fealty. This resembles an ideology of little or no state and maximum individual free choice, how?

 

[Reep]

Originally Posted by Reep
Well, if we are summing up, I maintain that Catholicism and libertarianism are not only compatible but that it’s the best fit. Good thing too–because the way this country is going–the choice may soon be between liberty and totalitarianism. I am praying for liberty.

catholictiger wrote: how is Catholicism and libertarianism compatible if the church says the uncheck capitalism isn’t good.

I wasn’t actually inviting a rehash of all the excellent posts in this thread. I do invite you to re-read it. It’s just that every few pages someone gets in here and summarily announces that Catholics cannot be libertarian.

After this much reasoned argument, sometimes I just want to say “Yes, Catholics not only can be libertarian, they should be.” [Then I just drop a footnote to the previous twelve pages].

Yes, we still need to explore the ways we can do what needs doing without enlisting governmental violence. You disagree, I understand, but mere conclusions (yours or mine) do not advance the discussion.

BTW: The greatest evil of “unchecked capitalism” is not that it is free (it’s not), but because it is permitted to corrupt government. Business and government each use the other for its own advancement and we are the losers. A free market would look less like mercantilism and would more closely approximate the Church’s teachings on fair wages and prices than any scheme devised in Washington, D.C.

 

[Spider42]

BTW: The greatest evil of “unchecked capitalism” is not that it is free (it’s not), but because it is permitted to corrupt government. Business and government each use the other for its own advancement and we are the losers. A free market would look less like mercantilism and would more closely approximate the Church’s teachings on fair wages and prices than any scheme devised in Washington, D.C.

This is a good example of the tension. Rome, via the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, recently released a pastoral note that makes a very different argument. That unfettered markets always pull in the incorrect direction. This was reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI in a January, 2013 address.

So you are now stating, in absolute terms, that the Magisterium is wrong. This does not mean that you are not Catholic, or that you are a lesser Catholic, but it is dissent.

Something that has been noted in theological circles is that high profile Catholic libertarians, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Judge Napolitano, etc., are predominately promoters of the Tridentine Mass. That is, that their rejection of papal authority and Vatican II tends to be pretty extreme. Again, that’s not to say that we can judge who is and isn’t a Catholic in their heart, but it is interesting that modern libertarianism tends to be associated with thinking that is generally viewed as being somewhat schismatic.

 

[catholictiger]

I wasn’t actually inviting a rehash of all the excellent posts in this thread. I do invite you to re-read it. It’s just that every few pages someone gets in here and summarily announces that Catholics cannot be libertarian.

After this much reasoned argument, sometimes I just want to say “Yes, Catholics not only can be libertarian, they should be.” [Then I just drop a footnote to the previous twelve pages].

Yes, we still need to explore the ways we can do what needs doing without enlisting governmental violence. You disagree, I understand, but mere conclusions (yours or mine) do not advance the discussion.

I went back and reread (skimming mostly) all of your stuff and I want a discussion on ecomonic matters lets forget about all of the prostitutuion drugs porn and all of that discussion. I’ve been trying to turn this discussion to a more economic sided discussion. Mainly because I have a much deeper understanding of economics then the social issues and I think its a-little more vague then social issues. For me the Churches teaching on social issues are clear cut, only question is how to do make the society more Catholic. But economic issues aren’t as clear cut and require much discussion, because of this popes and theologians have spilled lots and lots of ink on this issue.

but no where have I said I support violent tactics by the government so don’t put words into my mouth. Granted I don’t know how to do it without violence, the Church can’t sit back and let drugs happen, prostitutuion happen, porn happen and abortion happen it has to step in. I guess the only violence that should be allowed is to stop killing. I have no issues with the government using violence to stopping one of the most evil practices known to man. But is it right to use violence to stop non violence. I say the only way if its the only way to stop a horrible practice. It should be a last resort.

but enough on social issues

BTW: The greatest evil of “unchecked capitalism” is not that it is free (it’s not), but because it is permitted to corrupt government. Business and government each use the other for its own advancement and we are the losers. A free market would look less like mercantilism and would more closely approximate the Church’s teachings on fair wages and prices than any scheme devised in Washington, D.C.

first of all I don’t disagree US government is in many coporations pockets that is no doubt, but if your using that as you logic for lets have government completely out of it then you logic fails. You can’t say that because this thing is wrong the only way to fix it is to remove it. There is no guarantee that it will work.

but about the fiar wages issue, I understand the ideas of supply and demand and how that would come out to a fair wage. The question is if the free market is let go without any interference from the Government would it promote the common good. Can you give me any guarantee that the poor would be helped in a truly free market system. Can the free market system do this

It is the duty of society, moreover, according to the circumstances prevailing in it, and in keeping with its role, to help the citizens to find sufficient employment.

or is it possible in a free market that people will be left for the dust because they are unwanted and there isn’t the demand for their labor.

now please note I’m far from a liberal who wants the government to come in and step on free market in every way possible. I, along with the church, realize that capitalism is the best way to bring about growth in a culture. BUT lasizee faire economics, at-least from my reading of papal documents and church documents, doesn’t line up with Catholic teaching, and this idea is a prominent idea in libertarianism.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

I hope you have at-least glanced at some of these documents I have posted above.

one last thing for libertarianism what is more important the good of the person or liberty?

 

[catholictiger]

This is a good example of the tension. Rome, via the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, recently released a pastoral note that makes a very different argument. That unfettered markets always pull in the incorrect direction. This was reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI in a January, 2013 address.

So you are now stating, in absolute terms, that the Magisterium is wrong. This does not mean that you are not Catholic, or that you are a lesser Catholic, but it is dissent.

Something that has been noted in theological circles is that high profile Catholic libertarians, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Judge Napolitano, etc., are predominately promoters of the Tridentine Mass. That is, that their rejection of papal authority and Vatican II tends to be pretty extreme. Again, that’s not to say that we can judge who is and isn’t a Catholic in their heart, but it is interesting that modern libertarianism tends to be associated with thinking that is generally viewed as being somewhat schismatic.

let me say a couple of things, from my knowledge Pope Benedict in no way has changed what a couple hundred of years of developing tradition has said. The developing tradition of the Catholic Church and economics has really come about since the industrial revolution and the Church has continued to have an ever growing understanding of economics and economic policy. If Benedict came out and changed a couple hundred years well alteast 100 years of theological development, you would be hearing alot about it not just from liberal types in the Church and in the Media who like to spin the popes words to make it fit their agenda and beliefs. You would hear it from prominent theologians both of the radical tradilonist camps, the moderate camps the conservatives camps, the reform of the reform camps and so on and so forth, but really his statement only peaked the ears of liberals.

Again the pope is speaking with a backing of 2000 years of a development of tradition and between 100 and 200 years of development of tradition of economic understanding. Also if he had the full intention to radically change the understanding of economics he wouldn’t do it in a general audience he would address it in a encylical and make it clear the development of doctrine has lead me to say this, what my predicessors before me have said no longer apply because of this development.

a classic of example of this happening is the radical change from vatican 1 to vatican 2, in vatican 1 the church rejected the modern world and warned the faithful about getting to tied into. Vatican 2 changed its tone completely and said that today’s church must minister to the Modern world.

I haven’t seen this happen in economic understanding yet.

btw

The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, “the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”.[726] The Church’s social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms “above all … give central place to the person’s desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person”.[727]

A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice: moderating the excessive profits of individual businesses, responding to consumers’ demands, bringing about a more efficient use and conservation of resources, rewarding entrepreneurship and innovation, making information available so that it is really possible to compare and purchase products in an atmosphere of healthy competition.

so either the council for justice and peace has taken a radically different direction then it did 8 years ago (6 or 7 when they made that statement)

or someone is misinterpreting what they said and misinterpreting it badly.

 

[catholictiger]

quick thing reep how does libertarianism mesh with this statement from the compendium, while it isn’t infallible it pretty much has the same authority that something like the Catechism would have

The fundamental task of the State in economic matters is that of determining an appropriate juridical framework for regulating economic affairs,

that doesn’t mesh with unchecked capitalism at-least in my view.

 

[Reep]

. . . .but no where have I said I support violent tactics by the government so don’t put words into my mouth. Granted I don’t know how to do it without violence, the Church can’t sit back and let drugs happen, prostitution happen, porn happen and abortion happen it has to step in.

I guess the only violence that should be allowed is to stop killing. I have no issues with the government using violence to stopping one of the most evil practices known to man. But is it right to use violence to stop non violence. I say the only way if its the only way to stop a horrible practice. It should be a last resort.

I’ve been trying to turn this discussion to a more economic sided discussion. Mainly because I have a much deeper understanding of economics then the social issues . . .

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

I hope you have at-least glanced at some of these documents I have posted above.

**one last thing **for libertarianism what is more important the good of the person or liberty?

Tiger, Thanks for your thoughtful response. On the vice/crime issue, we are not far apart. If you approve of state violence in preventing/punishing only the most horrible things* like murder*, then you may be more pacifist than me. Most libertarians would allow for self-defense of persons or property (either individually or collectively). Along with St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, we would criminalize only “murder, theft and such like.”

Finally, your question asking “what is more important, the good of the person or liberty?” I think liberty–meaning the absence of aggression–is a good in itself, but not the only good.

Libertarianism rests on the judgment that the** initiation of violence, by any actor, is immoral**, even if that violence is done for a good purpose. If this is true, then no balancing test of relative goods can justify doing evil that good may result. Romans 3:8.
**~~~~~~**

It would be good to discus the economic issues. I admit I am better versed in things related to the criminal law, but there may be some light that could come out of it. I have read all the documents you note above. I’ve found countless references that can be used to both support and/or oppose certain economic positions. I have great respect for those teachings, but would be careful to separate moral economic goals from the various licit means that may be used to achieve those goals. The Church-speaking-as-economist should not be stretched outside the context lest she be seen to say more than she actually says.

From the compendium: “The fundamental task of the State in economic matters is that of determining an appropriate juridical framework for regulating economic affairs”

This quote is a good example of Catholic social teaching that sets forth the ideal and then is used (by others) to support the corrupt or ineffective policies of government. One does not baptize the sins of unjust government by noting that government should (theoretically, at least) be just.

If there is an interest in working through economic issues, here is a short list of subjects in which government tends to involve itself. Perhaps some have some ideas on the appropriate use of government aggression used to promote the economic common good. I am sure there are more topics out there but here is a start:

Private Property & Stealing

• What is our duty to help the poor: charity or governmental force?
• The Free Market / Just Price / Price Controls / Price Gouging
• The Just Wage / Minimum Wage
• Occupational Licensing / Government-made monopolies
• Street Vending / Home-based business regulation

 

[devoutchristian]

Cafeteria Catholics can rationalize anything.

 

[Dage90]

If you read this article it explains that one of the most important parts of free-market economics is about the subjective theory of value and that it was actually the late Catholic scholastics who talked about it and it actually comes from a view of man made in the image and likeness of God.

blog.tifwe.org/the-myth-of-the-zero-sum-game/

 

[devoutchristian]

The Church doesn’t deny that the market should be free. It simply denies that libertine ideology is correct.

 

[Reep]

The Church doesn’t deny that the market should be free. It simply denies that libertine ideology is correct.

Ahem . . . A libertarian may be a libertine, but they are not the same thing. I have observed that libertines who claim to be libertarian often are not. For example: Joe Pothead gets the idea that a libertarian is not going to throw him in jail for having dope. Joe likes that. He starts telling people that HE is a libertarian too.

But if you talk to Joe a bit, you find that he’s fine with using government aggression against things he doesn’t like, such as religion, gun owners or home schoolers. I tell Joe, “You’re not a libertarian. You’re just a pothead.”

The test of a libertarian, of course, is not the approval or acceptance of personal vices, but the willingness to refrain from using the criminal justice system (police, guns & prisons) to punish those vices.

 

[devoutchristian]

The test of a libertarian, of course, is not the approval or acceptance of personal vices, but

wanting the government to accept said vices

 

[Reep]

The test of a libertarian, of course, is not the approval or acceptance of personal vices, but

wanting the government to accept said vices

To the contrary, libertarians don’t want the government to accept or reject. Government should mind its own business, as it should under a strictly limited constitutional government. You may like what they are doing at a given moment, but give it chance and they will be whipping your back a minute later. Better to leave the devil out of it than try to enlist him on your side.

An example may help. Right now, we are fighting a losing battle over government recognition of so-called “same-sex marriage.” It was a sad day when the state decided to involve itself in the religious & social institution of marriage. Now we have reached a point where the Ohio Bar Association can bluntly advise citizens: “There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio.”

The state’s motives have ALWAYS been corrupt, for** the original marriage licensing laws were created to serve the interests of eugenics theorists and racial bigots**, outlawing marriage between Caucasians, Asians and blacks, or marriage by persons considered unfit or mentally defective. Now these same corrupt legislatures are advancing even more destructive policies.

The government cannot be trusted in this and we are not going to turn it to our purposes. Marriage has existed for millenia without government permission. The Church does not need government to do marriage right. And now that it seems they are intent on doing it wrong, we need a government definition even less.

 

[90cacjdm]

I am getting into this conversation kinda late, i became a catholic libertarian (after a lot of research and prayer). i can tell i few things about why i became a “catholic libertarian” - I believe that abortion is murder, plain and simple, libertarians don’t like violence, and certainly don’t like murder. No one has a right to murder a defenseless human being. You cannot be a true libertarian and be “pro-choice”.

I read catholic teachings on the role of government. Catholics conveniently overlook that fact the role of government should be to promote the common good among all people, especially the poor. Because they overlook or ignore this, they become pro government on a LOT of issues, drugs, porn, charity, marriage, are the big one’s. I would be too, however, the reality of the situation, is that there is not one nation in the world that promotes the common good among all people, especially the poor. I read that we were a nation that promoted the common good a long time ago, but those days are gone. Realizing that, with a well formed Catholic conscience, I realize that the best current government we can have is a very limited government.

I am so grateful for my Catholic faith. We are blessed to have such a great Pope. I cannot explain how disappointed I am in the actions (or lack of ) of our Bishops in the United States. Catholic Charities are so dependent on the $3+ BILLION dollars that they receive from the government, they are Catholic in name only. The CCHD is a great example of “Catholic in name only.” People no longer attend church. I have never heard a priest have a sermon on birth control or homosexuality. I believe the Bishops are so afraid that the government will cut their funding , that they remain silent when the Church is in great need of revival. During the election they said they remained silent on the HHS mandate because they did not know who was going to win. Come on. Anyway, this is the reason why I am a Libertarian Catholic. You cannot put your faith in a government that does not promote the common good among all people, especially the poor.

I spoke with my “Catholic” friend. Though I’ve always struggled with my tithe, I put my faith in God and HE provides. I asked him about his. He said that he pays his taxes.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the mentality of today’s world. The Government is our god. They make the morals. If its legal, it moral. The only out of this is with a lot of prayer. I know libertarianism is a needed step to live a Catholic life right now.

Peace, Joe

 

[devoutchristian]

Better to leave the devil out of it than try to enlist him on your side.

The government is not the devil.

An example may help. Right now, we are fighting a losing battle over government recognition of so-called “same-sex marriage.” It was a sad day when the state decided to involve itself in the religious & social institution of marriage. Now we have reached a point where the Ohio Bar Association can bluntly advise citizens: “There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio.”

The state’s motives have ALWAYS been corrupt, for** the original marriage licensing laws were created to serve the interests of eugenics theorists and racial bigots**, outlawing marriage between Caucasians, Asians and blacks, or marriage by persons considered unfit or mentally defective. Now these same corrupt legislatures are advancing even more destructive policies.

The government cannot be trusted in this and we are not going to turn it to our purposes. Marriage has existed for millenia without government permission. The Church does not need government to do marriage right. And now that it seems they are intent on doing it wrong, we need a government definition even less.

I agree that the government should have stayed out of the granting (as opposed to the recognition) of marriages.

You cannot be a true libertarian and be “pro-choice”.

No True Scotsman Fallacy

 

[catholictiger]

Tiger, Thanks for your thoughtful response. On the vice/crime issue, we are not far apart. If you approve of state violence in preventing/punishing only the most horrible things* like murder*, then you may be more pacifist than me. Most libertarians would allow for self-defense of persons or property (either individually or collectively). Along with St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, we would criminalize only “murder, theft and such like.”

I actually don’t really know what is the best way to approach the violence issue. I’m not a pacifist and sorry if I came off that way. Violence and government is something I haven’t dealt with much yet.

Finally, your question asking “what is more important, the good of the person or liberty?” I think liberty–meaning the absence of aggression–is a good in itself, but not the only good.

so if liberty is more important then the human person can a human person be forgotten or even sacrificed in the name of freedom. If liberty is more important than an issue that concerns more liberty or a better common good for the people you would choose liberty even if it hurts the common Good. I, and I believe the church, think the human being should be the
center focus of all policy of all ideologies and such. All human beings have a capox dei or capacity for God and all men are created in the image and likeness of god. Because of this all men should be treated fairly. There can never be a time where something like freedom should be promoted when it hurts a human person. The common good must be reached and in order for it to be reached the common good of all people be meet not a collective common good but each individuals common good. If 19,999 have their common goods met but 1 person doesn’t have it met in this case the common good isn’t fulfilled.

Libertarianism rests on the judgment that the** initiation of violence, by any actor, is immoral**, even if that violence is done for a good purpose. If this is true, then no balancing test of relative goods can justify doing evil that good may result. Romans 3:8.

don’t have much issue with that statement as long as non initiation of violence helps society reach the common good.

**~~~~~~**

This quote is a good example of Catholic social teaching that sets forth the ideal and then is used (by others) to support the corrupt or ineffective policies of government. One does not baptize the sins of unjust government by noting that government should (theoretically, at least) be just.

how we interpret documents is huge agree.

If there is an interest in working through economic issues, here is a short list of subjects in which government tends to involve itself. Perhaps some have some ideas on the appropriate use of government aggression used to promote the economic common good. I am sure there are more topics out there but here is a start:

I will go through each

Private Property & Stealing

Private property is a good thing and should be promoted, and should also be protected we are in complete agreement. The only place on this issue that you and I may seperate is on the issue of universal destination of goods. A property owner should use his goods in a way that benefits society as a whole, and I believe when necessary Government should step in and stop someone who may be hurting the society. I know libertarian agrees with me here but how much can government step in to stop bad use of property and does that line up with Catholic teaching

What is our duty to help the poor: charity or governmental force?

here is how I see this issue. Charity should be the greatest helper of the poor and the government should only step in to help them when absolutely necessary. I’m fine with government giving grants or funding a charity who may be doing a great service to the poor but struggles to get funding, but if a charity is self sufficient government should assist them.

The Free Market / Just Price / Price Controls / Price Gouging

free market good thing very good and the church promotes it.

the laws of supply and demand will almost always give us the best price and just price for products and services. Any government action interrupts the balance of supply and demand and causes surpluses or deficits.

The Just Wage / Minimum Wage

the just wage is, I believe, the wage where a person is able to provide basic necessities for himself and his family. Any wage that wouldn’t allow him to not provide for himself and his family despite the fact that he/she may work a full work week is unjust.

I don’t know if a basic law of supply and demand can meet this just wage. For example lets say 5$ a week and 40 hours a week is what is required to provide for a family of 3 or fewer. Most people will work for 2 or 3$ an hour 1.50 or less it will be hard to find someone who is willing to work for that. A factory is willing to hire a large amount of people at 3$ an hour. So the law of supply and demand is met a equilibrium is met and the market of labor is in balance. But those people won’t be able to provide for their families. Even though creating a minimum wage will cause there to be a surplus demand and shortage of supply for jobs those who do have work at the minimum wage will be able to provide for their family. If someone
doesn’t have a sufficient wage to provide for his family then he has no freedom.

Occupational Licensing / Government-made monopolies

Street Vending / Home-based business regulation

what are you getting at with these two things?