Catholicism and Libertarianism

[seekerofanswers]

It seems to me that there are a number of myths that many Catholics believe about libertarians and libertarianism. For those of you who might fall into this category, I encourage you to read the following article. Even if it doesn’t convince you to become a libertarian, at least you will understand where we Catholic libertarians are coming from.

libertarianchristians.com/2012/01/05/6-myths-catholics-tell-about-libertarians/

 

[zro_x]

It seems to me that there are a number of myths that many Catholics believe about libertarians and libertarianism. For those of you who might fall into this category, I encourage you to read the following article. Even if it doesn’t convince you to become a libertarian, at least you will understand where we Catholic libertarians are coming from.

libertarianchristians.com/2012/01/05/6-myths-catholics-tell-about-libertarians/

I’m glad you posted this. As a Catholic with some libertarian tendencies, I know where you’re coming from.

 

[waanju]

Is it weird that my first though was about metaphysical libertarianism? I was like DUH! OF course we do! Free Will! Who says we DON’T think this?
Then I clicked the link and felt silly.

 

[april32010]

Mind you, there is nothing to prevent a private voluntary organization, such as a family or church or club or business from discouraging or denouncing such behavior in its members of employees. Indeed, libertarianism argues strongly in favor of private organizations like churches and families and businesses being free to demand whatever behavior they wish from their own members and employees.
This situation, of course, is what has predominated historically in Christendom. Drug laws, for example are an invention of the 20th century. Did Christians walk around high on drugs every day prior to the prohibition of marijuana use in the 1930s? Obviously not. Indeed one could argue that drug use is far more prevalent among Christians now than it was before drugs were made illegal. Saint Thomas Aquinas famously spoke against civil governments attempting to outlaw human vice. His contention that “[a]ccordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred,” wasn’t a declaration that moral vices like prostitution were morally permissible. It was simply a recognition of the fact that to have the state outlaw a vice was often a cure worse than the disease.

above the article linked,below of course is the Catechism of the Catholic Church

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
–the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;
–the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
–the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
–the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
–in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
–the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
–the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority

 

[St_Francis]

Frankly in the first paragraph I see a flaw. The end of government, like the end of all human relationships, is to help others to attain Heaven. This is what the Catholoc Church teaches. Libertairianism seems to ignore that.

Sure Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas said we couldn’t outlaw everything. But where did they say that therefore we shouldn’t outlaw anything?

I think the rise of libertarianism just goes to show how fall our society has fallen: that it is so difficult to outlaw pornography, drugs, etc., just goes to show how far away from God’s truth we are. The fact that libertarians cannot agree on the issue of abortion is evidence that this is a political philosophy which is not in the least Catholic and which has no basis in Catholic thinking, even if they do cherry-pick some Doctors of the Church for some appropriate phrases.

Moreover, it seems that libertarianism has no room for the weak and the needy. It seems that the only way government would be involved in any human activoty is if physical or financial harm can be proven. This is an extremely limited role for the government. Libertarianism seems to propose too limited a role for government to be acceptable to Catholics.

 

[april32010]

Frankly in the first paragraph I see a flaw. The end of government, like the end of all human relationships, is to help others to attain Heaven. This is what the Catholoc Church teaches. Libertairianism seems to ignore that.

Sure Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas said we couldn’t outlaw everything. But where did they say that therefore we shouldn’t outlaw anything?

I think the rise of libertarianism just goes to show how fall our society has fallen: that it is so difficult to outlaw pornography, drugs, etc., just goes to show how far away from God’s truth we are. The fact that libertarians cannot agree on the issue of abortion is evidence that this is a political philosophy which is not in the least Catholic and which has no basis in Catholic thinking, even if they do cherry-pick some Doctors of the Church for some appropriate phrases.

Moreover, it seems that libertarianism has no room for the weak and the needy. It seems that the only way government would be involved in any human activoty is if physical or financial harm can be proven. This is an extremely limited role for the government. Libertarianism seems to propose too limited a role for government to be acceptable to Catholics.

 

[seekerofanswers]

I think the rise of libertarianism just goes to show how fall our society has fallen: that it is so difficult to outlaw pornography, drugs, etc., just goes to show how far away from God’s truth we are.

Isn’t it more effective to try to convert people rather than to legislate morality? Making pornography, drugs, etc. illegal only makes rebellion seem more appealing to the rebellious types. The only way to stop the use of these things is by helping people on a personal level. If they refuse to be helped and continue with their actions, then that is ultimately their decision, so long as they are not doing damage to another person or their property.

The fact that libertarians cannot agree on the issue of abortion is evidence that this is a political philosophy which is not in the least Catholic and which has no basis in Catholic thinking

This is wholly untrue. True libertarians recognize the inherent pro-life stance of libertarianism. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Catholic libertarian and host of “Freedom Watch”, is also pro-life. Ron Paul, despite not being Catholic, is also a pro-life libertarian. Pro-choice libertarians are often the result of liberals who have converted to libertarianism who refuse to give up their pro-choice views.

Moreover, it seems that libertarianism has no room for the weak and the needy. It seems that the only way government would be involved in any human activoty is if physical or financial harm can be proven. This is an extremely limited role for the government. Libertarianism seems to propose too limited a role for government to be acceptable to Catholics.

Jesus did not call upon us to be “Robin Hoods” and steal from the rich to give to the poor. On the contrary, he simply asked the rich man to give all that he had to the poor. Also, on a side note, in pure libertarianism, there is no copyright law. While this may seem problematic at first, but even Thomas Jefferson opposed copyright and patent law:

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

In the absence of copyright and patent law, although only the purist libertarians advocate for this, monopolies are impossible, increasing the financial well-being for the most people.

Hopefully that clears things up

 

[JerryZ]

It seems to me that there are a number of myths that many Catholics believe about libertarians and libertarianism. For those of you who might fall into this category, I encourage you to read the following article. Even if it doesn’t convince you to become a libertarian, at least you will understand where we Catholic libertarians are coming from.

libertarianchristians.com/2012/01/05/6-myths-catholics-tell-about-libertarians/

Unfortunately many “libertarians” espouse liberalization of drugs, same sex marriage others going to the complete of any kind of government.
That is what many in Europe call themselves the “Radical Party”
Of course these views are not what the Church teaches as human beings are not ready yet to eliminate some form of government to regulate and control our fallen nature.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Isn’t it more effective to try to convert people rather than to legislate morality? Making pornography, drugs, etc. illegal only makes rebellion seem more appealing to the rebellious types. The only way to stop the use of these things is by helping people on a personal level. If they refuse to be helped and continue with their actions, then that is ultimately their decision, so long as they are not doing damage to another person or their property.

I think it is important to realize that the “or” here is not exclusive. We absolutely must help individuals with whatever problems are influencing their desire to wish to harm themselves this way. But that does not mean we cannot directly stop the harm as well when we can. If you see someone trying to cutting themselves with knives, you take them to counseling, but not before you take the knives away.

Jesus did not call upon us to be “Robin Hoods” and steal from the rich to give to the poor. On the contrary, he simply asked the rich man to give all that he had to the poor.

This is of course true. But there’s a balance. There is a certain amount of money that it is just for the government to take, and it is just for the government to use that money to help the poor.

It would be unjust for the government not to help the poor when it can, and it would be unjust for the government to take too much from its citizens.

I am sympathetic to the idea of allowing most charity to be privatized. (In fact, I think it would be pretty awesome if a certain amount of charitable giving was deducted directly from one’s tax bill rather than one’s taxable income.) But at the same time, the government is there and is uniquely able to help in some ways, and so should do so.

To me, it seems as though libertarians too often end up at one extreme or the other when balance is required. Then again, that can be said of most political groups (except mine of course, cough cough).

 

[St_Francis]

Isn’t it more effective to try to convert people rather than to legislate morality? *Making pornography, drugs, etc. illegal only makes rebellion seem more appealing to the rebellious types. *The only way to stop the use of these things is by helping people on a personal level. *If they refuse to be helped and continue with their actions, then that is ultimately their decision, so long as they are not doing damage to another person or their property.

Well, no, I don’t think that. St Augustine thought it disagreed with the decision to outlaw Donatism until a former Donatist came to him and said how grateful he was for the law as he had just been going along with the crowd and the law gave him a jolt and made it easier for him to tell his friends he wasn’t doing it any more.

I don’t agree with the basis on which the US is set, and I am not sure whether the way we are handling drugs is the right way; it may not be. But that is not a sufficient reason to toss too much of government out.*

This is wholly untrue. *True libertarians recognize the inherent pro-life stance of libertarianism. *Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Catholic libertarian and host of “Freedom Watch”, is also pro-life. *Ron Paul, despite not being Catholic, is also a pro-life libertarian. *Pro-choice libertarians are often the result of liberals who have converted to libertarianism who refuse to give up their pro-choice views.

Would the libertarians who disagree with the pro-life stance agree that the true libertarians are the one who are pro-life? Or would they say that they themselves are the true libertarians?

Jesus did not call upon us to be “Robin Hoods” and steal from the rich to give to the poor. *On the contrary, he simply asked the rich man to give all that he had to the poor.

It’s not like the only choices are between the libertarians and the welfare-state progressives. I have my disagreements with the current policies in the US, but again, i don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

*Also, on a side note, in pure libertarianism, there is no copyright law. *While this may seem problematic at first, but even Thomas Jefferson opposed copyright and patent law:

Yes, on another thread I argued against the incredible length to which the government extended copyright for Disney Corp (which would probably have Walt Disney spinning in his grave!), but a laborer is worthy of his hire and I do believe in copyright and patent protection.

 

[Nan_S]

“Pure” libertarianism has a certain appeal. I used to follow Michael Reagan, and he put up a very good defense about what libertarianism was supposed to be.

The problem I have with it is that it tends to attract short-sighted nutballs and those nutballs get nominated for public office. No thanks.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Unfortunately many “libertarians” espouse liberalization of drugs

Why is this unfortunate? Libertarians recognize that prohibition is the problem. When alcohol was prohibited, we had the Al Capones and horrendous gang violence, not to mention the fact that alcohol use did not fall. The same is true for drugs. Today, drug prohibition causes horrendous gang violence. Not only that, but it actually increases drug use. This may seem counter-intuitive, but take Portugal as an example, when it decriminalized drug use, the death rates from drugs and teen use rates both fell: Time - Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

same sex marriage

True libertarians aren’t actually advocating for the legalization of same sex marriage. This is a common misconception. True libertarians, like Ron Paul, advocate for an end to marriage licensing and government regulation of marriage. This is not the same as granting certain marriage rights and recognitions. In fact, it moves the concept of marriage out of the secular sphere and puts it back in the hands of the Church.

That is what many in Europe call themselves the “Radical Party”

I may have misunderstood what you are saying here, but many libertarian parties refer to themselves as libertarian:
libertarianpartyuk.com/
libertariskparti.dk/
p-lib.es/
liberisti.org/

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Why is this unfortunate? Libertarians recognize that prohibition is the problem. When alcohol was prohibited, we had the Al Capones and horrendous gang violence, not to mention the fact that alcohol use did not fall. The same is true for drugs. Today, drug prohibition causes horrendous gang violence. Not only that, but it actually increases drug use. This may seem counter-intuitive, but take Portugal as an example, when it decriminalized drug use, the death rates from drugs and teen use rates both fell: Time - Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

“Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10-20%.[4][5][6] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[7] And, yet another study examining “mortality, mental health and crime statistics” found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[8]”

Wikipedia, but I think it’s probably accurate. The real problem with the prohibition is that it outlawed something that oughtn’t have been outlawed, as well as the fact that it tried to immediately stop something that was already entrenched as a normal part of life, not that it completely failed. And illegal drugs are different from alcohol.

 

[seekerofanswers]

I think it is important to realize that the “or” here is not exclusive. We absolutely must help individuals with whatever problems are influencing their desire to wish to harm themselves this way. But that does not mean we cannot directly stop the harm as well when we can. If you see someone trying to cutting themselves with knives, you take them to counseling, but not before you take the knives away.

Ok, but this still is managed best at a personal level. Banning drugs doesn’t keep drugs away from people, in fact, it causes usage to increase if anything (see my previous post).

This is of course true. But there’s a balance. There is a certain amount of money that it is just for the government to take, and it is just for the government to use that money to help the poor.

Why must we have this balance? This is a moral issue. We must not be in the “middle of the road” when it comes to moral issues. Instead, we must stand firmly against all coercion and theft.

and it would be unjust for the government to take too much from its citizens

So a little bit of stealing is ok? Where do you draw the line? I say: when the stealing starts.

I am sympathetic to the idea of allowing most charity to be privatized. (In fact, I think it would be pretty awesome if a certain amount of charitable giving was deducted directly from one’s tax bill rather than one’s taxable income.)

Agreed

But at the same time, the government is there and is uniquely able to help in some ways, and so should do so.

The reason it is uniquely able to help is that it has a unique source of funding: theft.

To me, it seems as though libertarians too often end up at one extreme or the other when balance is required. Then again, that can be said of most political groups (except mine of course, cough cough).

When it comes to moral issues, balance is not the answer. We do not want a balance between morality and immorality, so why encourage a balance between no theft and lots of theft?

 

[seekerofanswers]

Would the libertarians who disagree with the pro-life stance agree that the true libertarians are the one who are pro-life? Or would they say that they themselves are the true libertarians?

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.

It’s not like the only choices are between the libertarians and the welfare-state progressives. I have my disagreements with the current policies in the US, but again, i don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

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

 

[seekerofanswers]

And illegal drugs are different from alcohol.

You cannot deny that prohibition has caused an increase in gang violence in both cases. Or can you? Feel free to try to prove me wrong

 

[seekerofanswers]

tends to attract short-sighted nutballs

Just about every ideology ends up attracting some of these people.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

When it comes to moral issues, balance is not the answer. We do not want a balance between morality and immorality, so why encourage a balance between no theft and lots of theft?

True in that we should help the poor because it’s right, and we should not murder because it’s wrong, etc etc. But moderate taxation is not theft. Governments are necessary, and it is right that they fund themselves. Taxation beyond what a person should contribute to society is theft and is absolutely wrong.

I am definitely not a left-winger in support of the nanny state at all. (My general opinion that residents of government subsidized housing and similar should be randomly and regularly required to take drug tests and be imprisoned and then evicted on a fail tends to really, really annoy some people, for example.) I do not think that taxes should be raised to unreasonable levels for any reason. I tend to think that “reasonable levels” are relatively low. And I completely agree that most charity should be done privately.

It’s not a matter of balancing theft with giving. It’s a matter of finding out how much taxation is justified by society as it is, and using that tax money appropriately. If the government could be phased out of charity altogether, well and good. But I tend to think that’s unlikely, because:

The reason it is uniquely able to help is that it has a unique source of funding: theft.

In fact, the reason why I think the government is uniquely situated to help is not because it can take money, but because it is organized, geographically spread out, and can go nearly anywhere without opposition. In earlier times (and perhaps in some places today), the Church had this property and better carried out charity. I think that was better from a charity perspective, but it had its downsides as well (some members of the Church got too tied up in government and worldly concerns, and corruption ensued).

And there are groups like Red Cross that do help out immensely and are geographically spread out and such, but as things are now they aren’t sufficient. And they don’t have police power. Of course, you could give them police power, but then they’d essentially be part of …

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You cannot deny that prohibition has caused an increase in gang violence in both cases. Or can you? Feel free to try to prove me wrong

No, I don’t deny that. The prohibition of alcohol was poorly executed and stupid to begin with. The prohibition of drugs may or may not be poorly executed in any particular aspect, and almost has certainly led to an increase in violence. I just deny that it was a bad idea to start with, because I think that drugs ought to be prohibited.

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

 

[Trurl]

Rather interesting thread, but there are some very important points which are not mentioned either in the article or in the posts.

Number one is that the word “libertarian” is a relatively new concoction, when the original one: “liberal” has become a “cussword”. The original phrase was “classic liberal”, meaning that the goverment should be “chased out” from our pocketbooks and from our bedrooms. But the true libertarian stance is not just generally anti-goverment, it is anti-authoritarian, and anti-coersion. The author is mistaken when he wishes to limit the unpalatable and undesirable authority to the goverment. (Also, no libertarian would advocate the total elimination of the goverment, since they understand that the goverment - and some coersion - is necessary in establishing a working society. No sane person would advocate the private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, for example).

But even more important that catholicism and libertarianism are like fire and water. 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”.

Nevertheless, it is good so see that some catholics are not hostile to “liberty”. Let’s hope that their number will keep on growing.