Catholicism and Libertarianism

[St_Francis]

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.

I won’t argue this point, as it is in libertarianism a side-point and we don’t seem to be getting anywhere with it.

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

See below.

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

OK… I have more to say on this point, but want to deal mainly with your last two points now … like many others in the US, I have a pretty full week!

How is granting an organization an exemption from God’s law not idolatry?

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

First you need to show that granting the government an exemption *is *against God’s law.

Then you need to show that it would be idolatry.

Asking me to disprove your position is the wrong way of going about it. It’s your job to prove your position, not mine to disprove it.

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.

It is not a fact that taxation is theft. You need to show that it is illmoral to take under *all *circumstances (not the Catholic position, so I think you’ll have a hard time with that).

 

[april32010]

“His election speaks to the acceptance of prostitution in rural Nevada, where it’s just understood,” Rocha said. "It goes back to a longstanding libertarian tradition, and laws reflect that. It’s different in urban Nevada, where prostitution is a mixed, controversial bag.

[huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/lance-gilman_n_2157943.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/lance-gilman_n_2157943.html)

 

[Reep]

It is not a fact that taxation is theft. You need to show that it is illmoral to take under *all *circumstances (not the Catholic position, so I think you’ll have a hard time with that).

Theft is defined as is the taking of another person’s property without that person’s permission or consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it. Theft is immoral even if done for a good purpose.

This still sounds a lot like taxation (except the part about using the stolen property for a good purpose, since the US government clearly spends significant amounts of tax revenue for evil purposes)

Blessed Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, taught: “Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.” See also Romans 3:8.

It would seem that any taking without consent would be enough to shift the burden onto the thief to explain why his particular brand of thievery is not wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

Theft is defined as is the taking of another person’s property without that person’s permission or consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it. Theft is immoral even if done for a good purpose.

This still sounds a lot like taxation (except the part about using the stolen property for a good purpose, since the US government clearly spends significant amounts of tax revenue for evil purposes)

Blessed Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, taught: “Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.” See also Romans 3:8.

It would seem that any taking without consent would be enough to shift the burden onto the thief to explain why his particular brand of thievery is not wrong.

d Then the Pharisees* went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech.
16
They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians,* saying, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status.
17

• Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?”
  18
  Knowing their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?
  19
• Show me the coin that pays the census tax.” Then they handed him the Roman coin.
  20
  He said to them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?”
  21
  e They replied, “Caesar’s.”* At that he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”
  22
  When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away.

From the CCC:

Respect for the goods of others

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; **tax evasion; **forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.

I guess that it is up to the libertarain to show why taxes are theft.

.

 

[Reep]

I guess that it is up to the libertarain to show why taxes are theft.
.

“Render to Caesar” is a repudiation of the idea that man owes his allegiance to the state. The state gets only what it is owed.

I will not admit for a moment that what the state demands is synonymous with what it is owed In fact precious little of what the state demands is just. I am surprised no one has whipped out Rom.13:6-7, where St Paul wrote:

*For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
*
It would be naive to assume too much in these verses. Without taking up too much space here, I would argue that–far from licking the Romans’ boots–St Paul is showing thinly vieled comtempt. I’m not dogmatic about it, but I believe St. Paul’s ridicule of the emperor may even have led to his death. See what you think. Click here: St Paul Tweaks the Emperor’s Nose.

 

[St_Francis]

“Render to Caesar” is a repudiation of the idea that man owes his allegiance to the state. The state gets only what it is owed.

I will not admit for a moment that what the state demands is synonymous with what it is owed In fact precious little of what the state demands is just. I am surprised no one has whipped out Rom.13:6-7, where St Paul wrote:

*For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
*
It would be naive to assume too much in these verses. Without taking up too much space here, I would argue that–far from licking the Romans’ boots–St Paul is showing thinly vieled comtempt. I’m not dogmatic about it, but I believe St. Paul’s ridicule of the emperor may even have led to his death. See what you think. Click here: St Paul Tweaks the Emperor’s Nose.

You know, we are Catholocs. We read the context rather than prooftexting and twisting the meaning so as to render the words supportive if whatever idea we come up with.

Let’s llok at tye context of what you quoted:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.
2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.
3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.
4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.
7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.

And let’s look at the fommentary by Fr Haydock, who used the writings and commentaries of the Early Church Fathers and others:

Let every soul, or every one, be subject, &c.[1] The Jews were apt to think themselves not subject to temporal princes, as to taxes, &c. and lest Christians should misconstrue their Christian liberty, he here teacheth them that every one (even priests and bishops, says S. Chrys.) must be subject and obedient to princes, even to heathens, as they were at that time, as to laws that regard the policy of the civil government, honouring them, obeying them, and their laws, as it is the will of God, because the power they act by is from God. So that to resist them, is to resist God. And every Christian must obey them even for conscience-sake. S. Chrys. takes notice that S. Paul does not say that there is no prince but from God, but only that there is no power but from God, meaning no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws. See hom. xxiii. Wi.

 

[Reep]

You know, we are Catholics. We read the context rather than prooftexting and twisting the meaning so as to render the words supportive if whatever idea we come up with.

Well, when one gets accused of “prooftexting” that usually means the thread is near its end. It’s sort of the Catholic forum equivalent of mentioning Hitler. [Uh-oh, did I just mention Hitler?]

Also, I never offered my speculation that St. Paul deliberately "tweaked the Emperor’s Nose" as anything but speculation. It is not a matter of Catholic teaching, just a fascinating story.

 

[april32010]

1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”15
By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

 

[april32010]

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

 

[jeannetherese]

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

Actually, gang violence precedes prohibition as the following research makes clear.
History of Street Gangs in the United States. Authors James C. Howell and John p. Moore. 2010.

www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/History-of-Street-Gangs.pdf

The National Gang Center (NGC) is a collaborative effort between the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
This partnership works to provide professionals in the field of gangs with tools that can be used in a comprehensive range of strategies to respond to street gangs, from prevention and intervention to criminal justice strategies such as suppression, prosecution, and re-entry.
James C. “Buddy” Howell is a Senior Research Associate with the National Gang Center™.
John P. Moore is a Senior Research Associate and Director of
the National Gang Center™.

 

[Reep]

1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”15
By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

Totally agree with every word here, April, but I hope we do not rush to embrace the idea that this authority must be aggressive government. There are other ways to secure agreement so that orders may be given and obedience expected. Authority based on reciprocity and trust is more powerful than that based on physical coercion. Such authority can be found in every institution: Think of the parents in a family, leaders of the Church, the Knights of Columbus or the Chamber of Commerce, or perhaps supervisors at work.

We should make every effort to accomplish societal ends without the use of aggressive violence by anyone, including government. The Catechism teaches that the use violence and force is the very sign of a government that does not respect the rights of its citizens. If a government "does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects.” CCC 1930

If that teaching does not send every Catholic in search of better ways to run our society (even if they still favor some government aggression*), then I don’t know what else to say.

*by “aggression” I do not mean to to use inflammatory language, but only to distinguish legimate force (i.e. defensive/protective force) from force used against people who are peaceable and just want to be left alone.

 

[april32010]

this (If a government "does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects) is why i quote the entire paragraph

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

 

[St_Francis]

Totally agree with every word here, April, but I hope we do not rush to embrace the idea that this authority must be aggressive government. There are other ways to secure agreement so that orders may be given and obedience expected. Authority based on reciprocity and trust is more powerful than that based on physical coercion. Such authority can be found in every institution: Think of the parents in a family, leaders of the Church, the Knights of Columbus or the Chamber of Commerce, or perhaps supervisors at work.

We should make every effort to accomplish societal ends without the use of aggressive violence by anyone, including government. The Catechism teaches that the use violence and force is the very sign of a government that does not respect the rights of its citizens. If a government "does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects.” CCC 1930

If that teaching does not send every Catholic in search of better ways to run our society (even if they still favor some government aggression), then I don’t know what else to say.*

*by “aggression” I do not mean to to use inflammatory language, but only to distinguish legimate force (i.e. defensive/protective force) from force used against people who are peaceable and just want to be left alone.

My problem with libertarianism is that I do not see it as the solution to the problem you cited (boded part).

It *seems *like the solution as long as one thinks of society as being basically good people with nasty government types taking over.

But we are all born with original sin, aand even those of us who have been baptized suffer from concupiscence.

Earlier in the thread, either you or Seeking mentioned “converts.” That struck me.

What I learned November 7th was that it is absurd for me to put my hopes in government, to think that everything will be fine if only this party or that person is elected. That would be like one person standing on the iceberg trying to turn the Titanic.

Libertairainism is insufficient because it doesn’t have enough substance. It is one-faceted, one solution to one problem. Rather than being the Solution to End All Problems, it is simply one among many solutions available to Catholics. And the reason for this is the same as for *all *the proposed political systems: they all stem from “Enlightenment” thought, which is at its heart a rebellion against God.

What we need is not no government or less government or more government or total government… what we need is *more Catholicism. *We in the West have used up all the Catholic social capital and are now seeing what happens when we turn away from God. It may not be that particular individuals in society deserve bad government, but overall, our society is reaping what it has sown, and it is not ljbertarianism which is the answer, even tho eventually something could emerge in a truly Catholic society which might look like libertarianism.

 

[april32010]

1896 Where sin has perverted the social climate, it is necessary to call for the conversion of hearts and appeal to the grace of God. Charity urges just reforms. There is no solution to the social question apart from the Gospel

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Until libertarianism became all the rage in America, there were plenty of legal restraints on crude and barbaric behavior. In the conservative 1950s, for example, if you proposed the libertarian notion that men should be allowed to marry men, it would be thought that you were joking. Or if you insisted it was no joke, you would be taken for lunatic. Today the Church’s or the States blessing on sodomy is taken by many libertarians as a right.

This example could be multiplied a hundred times very easily with reference to the libertarian plea for legalizing pornography, drugs, etc. Those of us old enough to remember a cleaner culture know we have become a dirty culture. Peter Kreeft said you could tell how evil a society has become by the ease with which it is possible to be evil, and to be drawn to evil. Libertarians wave the flag for easy and tolerant immorality, on the ground that liberty trumps everything else … including virtue.

 

[april32010]

What we need is not no government or less government or more government or total government… what we need is *more Catholicism. *We in the West have used up all the Catholic social capital and are now seeing what happens when we turn away from God. It may not be that particular individuals in society deserve bad government, but overall, our society is reaping what it has sown, and it is not ljbertarianism which is the answer, even tho eventually something could emerge in a truly Catholic society which might look like libertarianism.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Reep]

Libertairainism is insufficient because it doesn’t have enough substance. It is one-faceted, one solution to one problem. Rather than being the Solution to End All Problems, it is simply one among many solutions available to Catholics. And the reason for this is the same as for *all *the proposed political systems: they all stem from “Enlightenment” thought, which is at its heart a rebellion against God.

I would never want to suggest that libertarianism is any more than a political philosophy. It is concerned with mankind’s least common denominator, which almost all men can agree on: peace. This goal contrasts with the platforms of the political parties, which nobody can agree on.

To become fed up and disenchanted is almost inevitable if you experience enough election cycles. I think I took an excessively long time to figure out that getting to vote for new masters every four years was NEVER going change a thing. Never has. Never will.

In days past, liberty may have encouraged rebels against God; but in these evil days, the same liberty encourages us to resist a corrupt society and government. Liberty as liberty is a good, meant to used for the good, but like everything else in the world it can be abused.

Honestly, I have zero faith that aggressive government will ever be anything but corrupt. My wish would be to dial back its power to a degree that it really doesn’t affect peoples lives enough to even matter. Sure, it will always be full of crooks and busybodies, but let them scheme for pennies instead of trillions.

A truly limited government has a lot of appeal. I know, some of us would never tire of looking for ways to handle problems without the use of government violence, but perhaps many of us could agree that we have a long and common road back to a strictly limited government.

On the other hand, if the social welfare state, the empire and the general moral decay do not reverse, we can look forward to going over the falls together–and looking for the man on a white horse to save us.

What we need is not no government or less government or more government or total government… what we need is more Catholicism. We in the West have used up all the Catholic social capital and are now seeing what happens when we turn away from God. It may not be that particular individuals in society deserve bad government, but overall, our society is reaping what it has sown, and it is not ljbertarianism which is the answer, even tho eventually something could emerge in a truly Catholic society which might look like libertarianism.

I am heartened by what you write here, because no political system is the answer. Jesus Christ and His Church is the answer. Libertarianism appeals to me because it is the only system that respects my free will.

Beyond stopping me from harming others, libertarianism does not force me to be good. It allows me to freely choose a virtuous life. That it also allows me my bad choices is simply inherent in free will. God allows this. And I do not think any man has the right to step in and remove the freedom God gave me.

 

[gatorayd]

I used to like libertarianism a lot actually, but I realised that in the end, the highest virtue that the ideology proclaims is not goodness or love, but freedom (after property rights).

Besides, monarchism is the way to go - Christ was King after all. A traditional Catholic monarchy would have a limited government as well (in fact, I’ve seen that monarchism shares a lot of the arguments against the current system with libertarianism).

 

[St_Francis]

I used to like libertarianism a lot actually, but I realised that in the end, the highest virtue that the ideology proclaims is not goodness or love, but freedom (after property rights).

Besides, monarchism is the way to go - Christ was King after all. A traditional Catholic monarchy would have a limited government as well (in fact, I’ve seen that monarchism shares a lot of the arguments against the current system with libertarianism).

I think any system will work if the culture is basically Catholic or virtuous at least, and no system will work if the culture is not at least virtuous. The US has lost the virtue in its culture.

But a good monarchy definitely has some good points: the king will hopefully think long-term as the monarchy will be passed down or he will at a minimum have to live with the consequences, unlike our system now. Plus the king has (hopefully) been raised to reign.

And I recently read (well, listened to) GK Chesterton’s critique of an “expertology”–our expectations are raised by the idea that there is something special about the people running the government. (That is in his book Heretics.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Reep
**
Beyond stopping me from harming others, libertarianism does not force me to be good. It allows me to freely choose a virtuous life. That it also allows me my bad choices is simply inherent in free will. God allows this. And I do not think any man has the right to step in and remove the freedom God gave me. **

You have the freedom to be good or evil without being a libertarian. In point of fact, the law does rightly step in and prohibit evil behavior. That is without dispute, and the rightful existence of prisons for the condemned is also without dispute. Libertarianism cannot logically advocate evil behavior as a right without discrediting itself as a lawless philosophy. What it wants to do is widen the choices of wicked behavior that are not subject to legal restraint. That is the main reason that today, with the general success of libertarianism, we live in a society that makes it (supposedly) easier and easier to make evil choices without consequences to ourselves, while at the same time while turning our society into a moral sewer.

No one should kid himself that freedom is the ultimate good. Satan also was free to rebel, but what good did it do him? Obedience to righteous laws is the ultimate good … and that obedience, as Christ himself promised, will make us ultimately free.