Catholicism and Libertarianism

[St_Francis]

They would probably call themselves the true libertarians and would be just as opinionated against pro-life libertarians as pro-life conservatives, but many do understand why some libertarians are pro-life.

Well, I see this as a huge problem! I find the fact that libertarianism is so very stripped-down that one can be a good libertarian either way alarming.

In terms of morality in government, though, isn’t libertarianism our only choice? *Why must we settle partway between no theft and theft?

I used to believe this. I read Ayn Rand and Harry Browne and the like. The problem is that it is wrong.*

Those in authority have obligations and consequent rights that regular people don’t have.

But when you look at it, there are some people in our society who are allowed to put people into a small room and lock them up, where most of us are not. We have no problem with that and in fact are probably relieved when it’s a serial kuller who is locked up. But if I went and did that ti someone, I in turn could have it done to me. The government has the authority to “kidnap” people and hold them against their wills and I do not have that authority.

Well, if the government has the obligation to do certain things for us, then they have the right to require that we pay for those things to be done. Taxation in general is not thedt–in fact, not paying workers their wages is a sin that cries out to Heaven for justice! That’s right, right there alongside sodomy and not caring for widows and orphans.

The main problem I see with any proposed “system” for governing is that they all propose an infinte solution for finite problems, resulting in a continual swing from extreme to extreme. The fact that the “systems” are not firmly grounded in Catholic teaching is also a problem!

GK Chesterton says this: When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. --*Orthodoxy, *“The Suicide of Thought”

 

[seekerofanswers]

Governments are necessary, and it is right that they fund themselves.

Think about what a government is, though. A government is simply an organization that claims authority over a certain area. Think about it this way: “If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.” - Lysander Spooner

If the government could be phased out of charity altogether, well and good.

We need to think about which is morally correct: stealing and potentially having fewer poor people, or not stealing and leaving everything up to the market and charity.

 

[seekerofanswers]

That some idiots will start killing people over it is a separate though related and unfortunate matter.

It is entirely related! Gang violence is a result of drug prohibition. Banning drugs, then, causes more deaths, which I view as unacceptable.

 

[seekerofanswers]

After all catholicism is the quintessential authoritarian system, which is the exact opposite of what libertarians advocate. There is no “freedom of religion” in the ten commandments, on the very contrary you are commanded and coerced by the ultimate authority (God) that you must “love” him and obey him. Those who profess to be both catholics and libertarians conveniently forget about this “minor” coersion. After all “libertarianism” is about freedom to do anything and everything as long as it does not hurt others. As the slogan goes: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.

But Catholicism isn’t a system of government, it is a religion. Certainly, God wants all Catholics to love and obey him. Catholic libertarians are actually the only ones who obey him to the fullest extent, because they recognize that legislating morality requires theft, which makes it inherently immoral. Legislating morality is inherently immoral, be it through the legislation of charitable programs or the legislation of moral law.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Well, I see this as a huge problem! I find the fact that libertarianism is so very stripped-down that one can be a good libertarian either way alarming.

I agree with you here, but remember that there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans.

We have no problem with that and in fact are probably relieved when it’s a serial kuller who is locked up. But if I went and did that ti someone, I in turn could have it done to me. The government has the authority to “kidnap” people and hold them against their wills and I do not have that authority.

Well, if the government has the obligation to do certain things for us, then they have the right to require that we pay for those things to be done.

Many libertarians would say that the only responsibility of government should be to protect people’s life and liberty. Others believe that police forces should be privatized and localized (anarcho-capitalism). On principle, I would agree with the latter, but both are a huge step better than our current system. If you believe that the only responsibility of government should be to protect people’s life and liberty, then congratulations, you are a Catholic libertarian.

 

[Reep]

there are some people in our society who are allowed to put people into a small room and lock them up, where most of us are not. We have no problem with that and in fact are probably relieved when it’s a serial kuller who is locked up. But if I went and did that ti someone, I in turn could have it done to me. The government has the authority to “kidnap” people and hold them against their wills and I do not have that authority.

Well, actually, you (and I) do have an inherent right and duty to “kidnap” and lock up a serial killer. Where do you suppose “some people in our society” got the right to arrest killers? It was not God that hired them to wear their guns and badges. “Consent of the governed” means we delegate our God-given right to self-defense to others (like our local sheriff). That gives him certain powers that he exercises by and upon our authority

Well, if the government has the obligation to do certain things for us, then they have the right to require that we pay for those things to be done. Taxation in general is not theft–in fact, not paying workers their wages is a sin that cries out to Heaven for justice! That’s right, right there alongside sodomy and not caring for widows and orphans.

There is no problem when the sheriff merely protects us and keeps the peace, for it is moral for us to hire him to do that which we may morally do for ourselves. We cross the line, however, when we pretend that the sheriff has been delegated powers which we never possessed. These powers are illegimate because no man–no hundred men–have the right to do them. I would include among these forbidden actions, battering down my neighbor’s door to stop him from . . .

Drinking
Gambling
Smoking tobacco
Smoking marijuana
Committing adultery
Consuming raw milk
Running a home business
Looking at pornography
and other miscellaneous vices

… or just taking his property/money from him without his consent (by definition, a theft).

It does not matter who commits these break-ins, kidnappings & thefts. It is still immoral. But government is special, isn’t it? It gets a pass on the use of violence, even when it exceeds its rightfully delegated powers–not because it is right–but because it can. In violence it “lives, and moves and has its being.” Violence is the soul and essence of government. [See article here (freeisbeautiful.net - This website is for sale! - freeisbeautiful Resources and Information.). We should all be looking for ways to diminish this violence, not ways to justify it.

---

As to the comment about not paying the workers being an injustice . . . Which workers would those be? Do I have the right to fire them if I don’t like what they are doing to me?

 

[St_Francis]

Well, actually, you (and I) do have an inherent right and duty to “kidnap” and lock up a serial killer. Where do you suppose “some people in our society” got the right to arrest killers? It was not God that hired them to wear their guns and badges. “Consent of the governed” means we delegate our God-given right to self-defense to others (like our local sheriff). That gives him certain powers that he exercises by and upon our authority

*You know that it is Catholic teaching that authority derives from Christ? Ultimately those in the government are subject not to the people but to God. If the people want to the government to do something wrong, the government has no authority to do that.

I have no more right to kidnap and lock up a serial killer than Dexter does to kill them. I have the right to immediate self-defense, I may even have the right to capture him, but at that point I would need to contact the police, not keep the murderer in my basement. Why? Because I don’t have the authority to do that, and the government does.

There is no problem when the sheriff merely protects us and keeps the peace, for it is moral for us to hire him to do that which we may morally do for ourselves. We cross the line, however, when we pretend that the sheriff has been delegated powers which we never possessed. These powers are illegimate because no man–no hundred men–have the right to do them. I would include among these forbidden actions, battering down my neighbor’s door to stop him from . . .

Drinking
Gambling
Smoking tobacco
Smoking marijuana
Committing adultery
Consuming raw milk
Running a home business
Looking at pornography
and other miscellaneous vices

*… or just taking his property/money from him without his consent (by definition, a theft).

It does not matter who commits these break-ins, kidnappings & thefts. It is still immoral. But government is special, isn’t it? It gets a pass on the use of violence, even when it exceeds its rightfully delegated powers–not because it is right–but because it can. In violence it “lives, and moves and has its being.” Violence is the soul and essence of government. [See article here (freeisbeautiful.net - This website is for sale! - freeisbeautiful Resources and Information.). We should all be looking for ways to diminish this violence, not ways to justify it.

I agree with you that the current US government goes to far in certain areas (keeping “drug money,” taking people’s property for non-payment of taxes withot due process, etc); however, I disagree with you about their lack of right to do so. The government has the authority to do things which we ourselves do not, in that the end of government is to ensure a situation in which people can live justly and peaceably, as Francisco Suarez says.*

You seem to be following the classical libaral ideas that the government is formed by a geoup of people getting together and deciding to create the government for their own convenience, but this is not the case and is not in line with Catholic thought, which is that government exists as a function of human nature and flows from that nature. Thus government works as oil does in a car, serving to fill in gaps and smooth relations between people.

For example, I do not have the right to do any more than ask my neighbors to turn down the volume of their party at 3AM in Tuesday night, but the government, acting as the institutional branch of society, does. The fact that one might claim that we do not have the right to enforce certain extremes on our neighbor such as monitoring his drinking does not mean that we have no right corporately to do anything at all about anything he does in his own home.

---

As to the comment about not paying the workers being an injustice . . . *Which workers would those be? Do I have the right to fire them if I don’t like what they are doing to me?

That was in reference to patent and copyright. If someone takes the time to write a book or paint a work of art or go through 2000 options to invent the light bulb, that person has worked and deserves some fruit for his labor, if others are willing to buy the product.*

If someone works, obtains some money and invests it in some stocks, should I be able to take his stocks? Then why should i be able to take the investment someone makes in a different way?*

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with you here, but remember that there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans.

Is someone arguing that either the Democratic proposed system or the Republican is a perfect system to which Catholics should adhere? No. We all see that they are each flawed.

I do not see how a political system can be proposed as one to which Catholics ought to adhere if it does not contain a consistent ethic which would value all innocent human life and abjure things like abortion. The lack of any basis on which to say one way or the other of libertarianism indicates a serious lack within it.

Many libertarians would say that the only responsibility of government should be to protect people’s life and liberty.

But many popes would disagree.

Others believe that police forces should be privatized and localized (anarcho-capitalism).

I have never liked that term anarcho-capitalism. It makes me think of spiders. I am assuming that you are not proposing this…

On principle, I would agree with the latter,

…Or at least not in this conversation

but both are a huge step better than our current system. If you believe that the only responsibility of government should be to protect people’s life and liberty, then congratulations, you are a Catholic libertarian.

Oh, dear, I guess I am not a libertarian, then

 

[Reep]

The government has the authority to do things which we ourselves do not, in that the end of government is to ensure a situation in which people can live justly and peaceably . . .

In a libertarian society, peace and justice would be formost, and vigorously enforced. It’s all the other meddling that government loves that needs to disappear. So no, government does not have authority to do what we ourselves do not not.

[Note: If you and I and a serial killer were on an island, you and I would have every right to do whatever necessary to protect ourselves. The fact that we delegate this to the sheriff is a mere expediency]

For example, I do not have the right to do any more than ask my neighbors to turn down the volume of their party at 3AM in Tuesday night, but the government, acting as the institutional branch of society, does. The fact that one might claim that we do not have the right to enforce certain extremes on our neighbor such as monitoring his drinking does not mean that we have no right corporately to do anything at all about anything he does in his own home.

Why did you have to postulate a situation where the neighbor is actually causing me a harm (disturbing the peace, to be exact)? Heck, I agree with you on that one!

. . . in reference to patent and copyright. If someone takes the time to write a book or paint a work of art or go through 2000 options to invent the light bulb, that person has worked and deserves some fruit for his labor, if others are willing to buy the product.*

If someone works, obtains some money and invests it in some stocks, should I be able to take his stocks? Then why should i be able to take the investment someone makes in a different way?*

Sorry I misunderstood your copyright/patent issue reference. The trouble with intellectual property, is that it is an unorthodox sort of property. If I write a book, it is mine. If you steal it from me, you are a thief. If I show it to you and you copy it down and then give it back, are you a thief? How about if you start selling copies?

What if you don’t copy it, but you start telling everyone what it says. Could that be wrong too?

If you take a high view of IP and say the book (and all copies) are the author’s property, then it will be protected even in an libertarian society. The weird thing is that most governments do protect copyright and act–for a time–as if it were your property. But if it really is your property, why do they not protect your book the same way they protect your wedding ring?

Instead they say, "We will punish whoever steals your book until the year 20__. then after that they can steal it all they want. Is that strict justice? Just thinking out loud.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Is someone arguing that either the Democratic proposed system or the Republican is a perfect system to which Catholics should adhere? No. We all see that they are each flawed.

I do not see how a political system can be proposed as one to which Catholics ought to adhere if it does not contain a consistent ethic which would value all innocent human life and abjure things like abortion. The lack of any basis on which to say one way or the other of libertarianism indicates a serious lack within it.

Libertarianism is an ideology, just like conservatism and liberalism. You pointed out that you dislike libertarianism because some libertarians have pro-choice stances. I pointed out that some liberals and conservatives do too. This doesn’t mean that there is no “consistent ethic”, the ethic remains the same: no aggression. The problem is not with the ethic at the heart of libertarianism, it is with how certain people, namely liberal converts to libertarianism (as I explained earlier), interpret it.

I have never liked that term anarcho-capitalism. It makes me think of spiders. I am assuming that you are not proposing this…

Anarcho-capitalism is just the purest form of libertarianism. People just tend to freak out when libertarians go so far as to propose the privatization of defense. And no, it’s not arachno-capitalism. Would that be a system where spiders own capital?

Oh, dear, I guess I am not a libertarian, then

Hopefully you will at least come to understand where we are coming from and why we believe that non-aggression is inherently Catholic.

 

[St_Francis]

Libertarianism is an ideology, just like conservatism and liberalism. *You pointed out that you dislike libertarianism because some libertarians have pro-choice stances. *I pointed out that some liberals and conservatives do too. *This doesn’t mean that there is no “consistent ethic”, the ethic remains the same: no aggression. *The problem is not with the ethic at the heart of libertarianism, it is with how certain people, namely liberal converts to libertarianism (as I explained earlier), interpret it.

Neither conservatism nor liberalism make any claim to Catholics as you are doing for libertarianism.

The lack of depth to libertarian thinking allows some to put abortion into the list of things not to be interfered with.*

In fact, the whole of libertarianism seems to reject Catholic teaching on human nature and government authority and the obligations of citizens.

Anarcho-capitalism is just the purest form of libertarianism. *People just tend to freak out when libertarians go so far as to propose the privatization of defense. *

Yeah, I had a free-market anarchist try to convince me that an adequate defense would arise spontaneously if our nation was attacked.*

And no, it’s not arachno-capitalism. *Would that be a system where spiders own capital?

That’s why it scares me “I don’t like spiders and snakes…”

Hopefully you will at least come to understand where we are coming from and why we believe that non-aggression is inherently Catholic.

The Chesterton quote pointed out the problem with a lack of balance. One cannot emphasize one or two virtues while excluding others. While “non-aggression” itself may be inherently Catholic, it is embedded in a rich and deep context. Moreover, it is not the government’s place to be non-aggressive–it seems that your definition and that of the Church differ in many areas when it come to political studies.

 

[seekerofanswers]

The lack of depth to libertarian thinking allows some to put abortion into the list of things not to be interfered with.

This has nothing to do with “lack of depth”, it has everything to do with some people failing to believe that life starts at conception.

Yeah, I had a free-market anarchist try to convince me that an adequate defense would arise spontaneously if our nation was attacked.

If our nation was attacked? If there are no governments, who would be attacking who?

Moreover, it is not the government’s place to be non-aggressive–it seems that your definition and that of the Church differ in many areas when it come to political studies.

Why do we grant the government an exception? In doing so, aren’t we idolizing the government by putting it above God’s law?

 

[St_Francis]

In a libertarian society, peace and justice would be formost, and vigorously enforced. It’s all the other meddling that government loves that needs to disappear. So no, government does not have authority to do what we ourselves do not not.

This is simply not Catholic thinking.

[Note: If you and I and a serial killer were on an island, you and I would have every right to do whatever necessary to protect ourselves. The fact that we delegate this to the sheriff is a mere expediency]

Of course. Government is nothing more than the institutional arm of society. If there are only two people, then there is no need for a formal institutionalization.

Why did you have to postulate a situation where the neighbor is actually causing me a harm (disturbing the peace, to be exact)? Heck, I agree with you on that one!

OK, adultery is much more of a danger to society, and yet you are against doing anything about that. People merely making noise one night is nothing compared to the dangers of rampant adultery.

Sorry I misunderstood your copyright/patent issue reference. The trouble with intellectual property, is that it is an unorthodox sort of property. If I write a book, it is mine. If you steal it from me, you are a thief. If I show it to you and you copy it down and then give it back, are you a thief? *How about if you start selling copies? *

Yes, because a calf belongs with its mother. That was the original basis for copyright law–and that didn’t even have to do with copying something the owner had written, by a Catholic judge, in a Catholic nation, between two Catholics, about a Catholic book.

[quoye]What if you don’t copy it, but you start telling everyone what it says. Could that be wrong too?
How does this apply to copyright? Everyone knows that spoilers are very rude, but other than that, the point is not relevant.

If you take a high view of IP and say the book (and all copies) are the author’s property, then itwill be protected even in an libertarian society. The weird thing is that most governments do protect copyright and act–for a time–as if it were your property. But if it really is your property, why do they not protect your book the same way they protect your wedding ring?

Instead they say, "We will punish whoever steals your book until the year 20__. then after that they can steal it all they want. Is that strict justice? Just thinking out loud.

I don’t say IP is exactly like regular property, just that people have a right to compensation.*

 

[Reep]

This is simply not Catholic thinking.

Support please. Its hard to argue with conclusions

Reep wrote: Why did you have to postulate a situation where the neighbor is actually causing me a harm (disturbing the peace, to be exact)? Heck, I agree with you on that one!

St Francis responded: OK, adultery is much more of a danger to society, and yet you are against doing anything about that. People merely making noise one night is nothing compared to the dangers of rampant adultery.
Excellent. Now we’re back into libertarian territory. Yes, adultery is worse than a loud party, but I absolutely oppose breaking down doors to stop it. I oppose prison sentences for those who practice it.

Is it true that you really do want local law enforcement doing those sorts of things on your behalf? Can you show me where the church would advocate such meddling in private conduct? I even recall Jesus saving a woman who was about to be executed for adultery? [Not that he approved in anyway of her conduct] Would you argue with St. Augustine who argued that prostitution should not be punished as a crime? Here is more if you are interested:

St. Augustine, vice and the criminal law – Part 1

St. Augustine, vice and the criminal law – Part 2

http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/not-every-vice1.jpg

 

[St_Francis]

Support please. Its hard to argue with conclusions

You wrote: *So no, government does not have authority to do what we ourselves do not not.

You need to show that that is in line with Catholic thinking.

One way in which Catholics think that governments have authority that individuals do not is wrt war, where St Thomas Aquinas said that only governments have the the authority to wage war.

Excellent. Now we’re back into libertarian territory. Yes, adultery is worse than a loud party, but I absolutely oppose breaking down doors to stop it. I oppose prison sentences for those who practice it.

Breaking down doors is not really practiced as much in real life as on tv, and prison sentences are not the only means of punishment. However, I would not be adverse to legal sanctions against those committing adultery.*

Is it true that you really do want local law enforcement doing those sorts of things on your behalf?

Breaking down doors or prosecuting adulterers? Well, it doesn’t matter as I have no problem with either.

Can you show me where the church would advocate such meddling in private conduct?

Tye Church leaves these things up to the prudential judgement of those in civil authority. There used to be legal repercussions for breach or promise and for alienation of affections, and I never heard that the Church was against that.

Moreover, marriage is currently the one legal contract which can be broken at will, by only one party, with no repercussions. And yet it is the most important “contract” for our society. This is a terrible situation.

*I even recall Jesus saving a woman who was about to be executed for adultery? [Not that he approved in anyway of her conduct]

We do not know anything about the situation regarding the woman caught in adultery except for that the men who were going to stone her (and what about the man involved???) were pretty upset about Christ’s action of writing and suggesting that the one without sin should be the first to cast the stone. Hmmmm, sounds like something fishy was going on.

And I notice that even you agree that Christ did not approve of her action.

So let me explain that it is not that I think libertarianism is wrong per se, but that it is not always appropriate. There is a range of types and amounts of government acceptable to the Church, and what is needed in a society varies according to time, place, and culture. I do not think that the US form is applicable everywhere and think that it is wrong to try to impose it on others.*

Moreover, there are many things which we do in this country with which I disagree. But that does not mean that i see things as an either/or sityation. The fact that I do not like tye overwheming violations of subsidiarity committed by the federal government does not mean that I think we should do away with the federal government altogether. The fact that I think that we should legally react to adultery and other violations of the marriage contract does not mean that I think our only recourse is breaking down doors and throwing people in prison.

Would you argue with St. Augustine who argued that prostitution should not be punished as a crime? Here is more if you are interested:

I have already mentioned one time when St Augustine disagreed with a law’s being made and later changed his mind. But i think that if St Augustine said that, he probably had a good idea of what was going on in his time and place, much better than I have.

From the article you linked to:*Not only does he reject the notion that criminal punishment removes an interior disposition to evil, he goes on to assert the opposite. He writes that, “prohibition increases the desire of illicit action.” [City of God, XIII:5.] This cannot be denied, for the attractiveness of “forbidden fruit” goes back all the way to the garden of Eden and is especially enticing to less mature individuals. Teenage rebellion is a testament to this proposition.

So what is the solution? To prohibit something increases its attractiveness, so we just allow everyone to do whatever they want on the grounds that prohibition will only increase the attractiveness of the activity?

(BTW, I have not read City of God, so I am not commenting a lot on St Augustine’s comment, because I don’t know the context nor the tenor of the entire work.)

 

[St_Francis]

This has nothing to do with “lack of depth”, it has everything to do with some people failing to believe that life starts at conception.

Well, yes, I think it does. If the libertarian system does not clarify a basic feature of human nature, then it is lacking something.

If our nation was attacked? If there are no governments, who would be attacking who?

What precisely are you proposing–that free-market anarchism be simulataneously imposed on the entire world, along with complete demilitarization?

Why do we grant the government an exception? In doing so, aren’t we idolizing the government by putting it above God’s law?

Where in God’s law does it prohibit allowing the government to do something that individuals do not have the right to do?

 

[seekerofanswers]

Well, yes, I think it does. If the libertarian system does not clarify a basic feature of human nature, then it is lacking something.

Is Christianity lacking something because there are a number of sects of Christians that interpret the Bible differently? No. Just because someone can incorrectly interpret the principle of non-aggression does not mean that there is anything wrong with libertarianism. That would be like saying that because protestants exist, there is something wrong with Christianity.

What precisely are you proposing–that free-market anarchism be simultaneously imposed on the entire world, along with complete demilitarization?

Libertarianism in its purest form would be global free-market anarchism.

Where in God’s law does it prohibit allowing the government to do something that individuals do not have the right to do?

“You shall not have other gods besides me.” - Exodus 20:3

The government is simply a group of individuals, so granting the government extra rights is elevating people to a position above that of a person.

“You shall not steal.” - Exodus 20:15

The government is funded entirely through theft, euphemistically named “taxation”.

 

[St_Francis]

Is Christianity lacking something because there are a number of sects of Christians that interpret the Bible differently? No. Just because someone can incorrectly interpret the principle of non-aggression does not mean that there is anything wrong with libertarianism. That would be like saying that because protestants exist, there is something wrong with Christianity.

You’re right: I put that badly. Libertarianism does not appear to have a system under which a prohibition on abortion is resonable while Catholicism does. As long as a libertarrian accepts the Catholic reasoning on abortion, then he would be a pro-life libertarian. However, there seems to be nothing within libertarianism itself on which to base a legal prohibition on abortion.

This bothers me because this thread is presenting libertarianism as a political system which has something unique about it which would attract a serious Catholic.

Libertarianism in its purest form would be global free-market anarchism.

As an aside, do libertarians generally agree with this idea?

I still find it difficult to take seriously a proposal of a political system which would demand that it be equally, simultaneously, and completely accepted in every part of this world.

“You shall not have other gods besides me.” - Exodus 20:3

The government is simply a group of individuals, so granting the government extra rights is elevating people to a position above that of a person.

Is this the Catholic position?

“You shall not steal.” - Exodus 20:15

The government is funded entirely through theft, euphemistically named “taxation”.

Is this the Catholic position?

 

[seekerofanswers]

You’re right: I put that badly. Libertarianism does not appear to have a system under which a prohibition on abortion is resonable while Catholicism does. As long as a libertarrian accepts the Catholic reasoning on abortion, then he would be a pro-life libertarian. However, there seems to be nothing within libertarianism itself on which to base a legal prohibition on abortion.

If one allows the government to be solely for the protection of life and property, as an alternative to anarchism, then the pro-life position can be included. This is the pragmatic libertarian position, not the pure libertarianism position.

This bothers me because this thread is presenting libertarianism as a political system which has something unique about it which would attract a serious Catholic.

The reason it should attract serious Catholics is that it greatly reduces or eliminates government theft.

As an aside, do libertarians generally agree with this idea?

Most libertarians would take a more pragmatic stance. When it comes to electoral politics, I do as well.

I still find it difficult to take seriously a proposal of a political system which would demand that it be equally, simultaneously, and completely accepted in every part of this world.

Absolutely true. I simply stated that global free-market anarchism is the purest form of libertarianism, not that it is implementable at this time. The most readily implementable form of libertarianism is the pragmatic form of libertarianism, as I described above: “the government to be solely for the protection of life and property”.

Is this the Catholic position?

Probably not, but I wish it was. How is granting an organization an exemption from God’s law not idolatry?

Is this the Catholic position?

It is not a position, it is a fact. The government doesn’t earn income from anything besides theft. That is to say, donations to the government are uncommon.

 

[seekerofanswers]

I should point out, however, that even in pragmatic libertarianism, the government doesn’t really have to steal, because nearly everyone wouldn’t disapprove of paying a government that defends life and property. So in the cases of pragmatic and pure libertarianism, the government isn’t elevated above God’s law against theft.