Catholicism and Libertarianism

[TEPO]

We don’t need to change our government in any way -the last thing we need to do is to allow the middle class to have a voice.

The middle class should be divided up between supporters of the wealthy and the poor. It’s the only way that the Democrats and republicans can retain power for decades to come… Divide and Conquer!

 

[TEPO]

As Catholics, we are only supposed to care for the poor, not the middle class and only the rich can organize our society properly.

Let’s put those middle classers to work for the benefit of the common good!

 

[RyanBlack]

The problem with Catholics promoting libertarianism is that it simply is not supported by Catholic teaching. A quick read of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, particularly in its discussions about the responsibility of the state to contribute to the common good, makes this obvious.

Also, free will is often misused to support libertarianism. Free will, rightly understood, is not license to do whatever you wish; rather, it is freedom to do the good–freedom to choose God. When people argue that governmental systems other than libertarianism are in violation of their free will, they are not arguing from a Catholic understanding of free will, in my opinion. What they are actually arguing for is license to do whatever they wish, and to refrain from doing whatever they do not wish to do. Sorry, an element of coercion/compulsion on the part of the state is necessitated by human selfishness and sin.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Gatorayd hit the nail on the head when he said that libertarianism has the wrong priorities (liberty and property rights). We learn from our Faith that there must be balance: we cannot put less important things over more important things: then you end up with neither.

In addition, having as one’s goal nothing more than the least common denominator is… flattening. Excluding differences between us means everything becomes more and more circumscribed. Just look at how religion works in the US: where once Protestant Christianity informed and enriched public discourse, excluding it from the public square because of differences has reduced public discourse to the pragmatic and utilitarian, to the point where we kill our babies and contemplate killing those who need too great a level of care.

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.

Well, this may be too big a topic too big for this thread, but I thought the representative system we originally had had some good features.

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.

Well… but liberty doesn’t replace corruption with what is needed as a corrective, nor is liberty the sole possible motivator for resisting a corrupt society.

All in all, holiness will not only encourage us to resist corruption but *also *give us a better goal.

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.

One thing I was surprised to learn is that Church teaching as well as natural law restrain government endeavors.

I notice that many libertarians hark back to a time in the US when we did have more liberty, but look what has happened; our liberty has been eroded little by little. And this, ino, is what happens when our prioroties are not in their correct place. Just to mention one thing, with libertarianism, the flaws of the invisible hand theory are completely ignored.

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.

I think you are talking about the Man on a donkey, no?

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.

A truly virtuous society is that not because of the laws but because of the culture. A virtuous society provides a framework in which virtue can not only be easier to choose, but also thrive. Additionally, when virtue is valued, people are able to be open aboit their attraction to virtue.

I think that the minimalist approach libertarianism proposes in no way encourages virtue and could even aid vice by its adulation of liberty.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

St. Francis
**
I think that the minimalist approach libertarianism proposes in no way encourages virtue and could even aid vice by its adulation of liberty. **

 

[seekerofanswers]

Hello there thread, sorry about the length of time since my last post.

What I have learned from this thread:

Many Catholics (and probably the Catechism) teach that it is ok for the state to steal because it provides for the “common good”, keeps societal order, and legislates morality.

Why this saddens me:

It means that Catholics and the Catholic Church are putting the state above God and God’s law. Allowing taxation on the grounds of providing for the “common good”, keeping societal order, and legislating morality does not make taxation acceptable. Taxation is when the state takes money from its citizens, taking money from people is theft, and theft is immoral.

P.S. “Render unto Caesar” is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. If this is not what the Church teaches, then I disagree with the Church’s interpretation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seek**er

It means that Catholics and the Catholic Church are putting the state above God and God’s law. Allowing taxation on the grounds of providing for the “common good”, keeping societal order, and legislating morality does not make taxation acceptable. Taxation is when the state takes money from its citizens, taking money from people is theft, and theft is immoral.**

Taxes as such are not intrinsically immoral even if they are a hateful fact of life. What these taxes are used for is what can be grossly immoral. When the Catholic Church through its bishops supports federal health insurance, it concedes to the state power over life and death, not to mention all kinds of claimed “rights” that are morally destructive or perverse (such as abortion pills that Catholic institutions are now obliged by law to pay for).

As the power of the state grows larger and larger, the influence of the Church will grow smaller and smaller. We have seen this in China where so-called Catholic bishops are appointed by the Chinese government, rather than by the authentic Catholic Church. You would think the Church bureaucracy had learned this (never to be forgotten) lesson during the reign of the Nazi socialists.

 

[RyanBlack]

Hello there thread, sorry about the length of time since my last post.

What I have learned from this thread:

Many Catholics (and probably the Catechism) teach that it is ok for the state to steal because it provides for the “common good”, keeps societal order, and legislates morality.

Why this saddens me:

It means that Catholics and the Catholic Church are putting the state above God and God’s law. Allowing taxation on the grounds of providing for the “common good”, keeping societal order, and legislating morality does not make taxation acceptable. Taxation is when the state takes money from its citizens, taking money from people is theft, and theft is immoral.

P.S. “Render unto Caesar” is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. If this is not what the Church teaches, then I disagree with the Church’s interpretation.

The claim you make that taxation is theft is supported neither by Holy Scripture, nor by Church teaching, nor by common sense, for that matter. Taxation is not theft, and it is absurd to argue that it is. Government is necessary for the ordering of society, and government cannot operate without money. One can certainly argue about what particular level of taxations is appropriate or moral, but the argument that taxation is equivalent to theft is unsustainable, particularly in light of the fact that taxes are used to provide services to the same people who pay them.

 

[St_Francis]

Hello there thread, sorry about the length of time since my last post.

What I have learned from this thread:

Many Catholics (and probably the Catechism) teach that it is ok for the state to steal because it provides for the “common good”, keeps societal order, and legislates morality.

Why this saddens me:

It means that Catholics and the Catholic Church are putting the state above God and God’s law. Allowing taxation on the grounds of providing for the “common good”, keeping societal order, and legislating morality does not make taxation acceptable. Taxation is when the state takes money from its citizens, taking money from people is theft, and theft is immoral.

Where does our money or wealth ultimately come from? Do you think that God, Who was kind enough to create all that we have or can use to generate wealth will have no say in what we do with it?

God created everything; He created us. And He created us with a certain nature: to be social beings, to require the context that being in society gives us. And He also created us with a need for order and peace and justice in which to thrive. and an organizing principle for that society of *God-given *authority.

And to this end, because what we have was given to us by God and is therefore not entirely our own, and because whatever we have would probably not be in our possession without the peace and order which is achived in society by the authority, for these reasons, taxation is *not *theft.

You are setting yourself up against Christ Himself, through His Church. You are reading about a political system designed by *anti-*Catholics! You are setting yourself against people more learned than you are, more holy than you are, for your own personal opinion.

This is what is sad, not that the Church, which is the Body of Christ Who died for us on the cross, disagrees with you, but that you would set yourself against the Church!

P.S. “Render unto Caesar” is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. If this is not what the Church teaches, then I disagree with the Church’s interpretation.

Try reading what the Church has to say about these issues rather than what Lew Rockwell.com has to say.

 

[seekerofanswers]

neither by Holy Scripture

Of course not, why would Scripture have to define taxation as theft when they are inherently the same?

Taxation is not theft, and it is absurd to argue that it is. Government is necessary for the ordering of society

This is an unsupported opinion.

taxes are used to provide services to the same people who pay them.

If this was true then the government wouldn’t be necessary, as all services could be provided in the free market.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Where does our money or wealth ultimately come from? Do you think that God, Who was kind enough to create all that we have or can use to generate wealth will have no say in what we do with it?

God can absolutely have a say in what we do with it, through us. God is not the state, however, and I hope you are not making this argument.

And He also created us with a need for order and peace and justice in which to thrive.

The state is inherently violent. You are required to pay taxes at gunpoint and required to follow all laws at gunpoint. God never called Christians to push their views onto others using violence, which is exactly what the state does.

And to this end, because what we have was given to us by God and is therefore not entirely our own, and because whatever we have would probably not be in our possession without the peace and order which is achived in society by the authority, for these reasons, taxation is *not *theft.

Do you see peace and order? All I see is perpetual violence caused by the state. Wars, abusive police, etc. The state is anti-peace.

You are setting yourself up against Christ Himself, through His Church. You are reading about a political system designed by *anti-*Catholics! You are setting yourself against people more learned than you are, more holy than you are, for your own personal opinion.

I don’t believe this is true and frankly, I find it rather offensive. If I thought Christ wanted an authoritative, coercive, and violent state, I would support it. I am not putting my opinions before Christ. Plus, libertarians are not anti-Catholic, there are a number of prominent Catholic libertarians and Catholic anti-statists (Thomas Woods, Andrew Napolitano, Dorothy Day, Jeffrey Tucker, Lew Rockwell, Philip Berrigan, Ivan Illich, etc).

Try reading what the Church has to say about these issues rather than what Lew Rockwell.com has to say.

Do you believe Lew Rockwell and all other Catholic libertarians should not be a Catholic because of their political views?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I don’t believe this is true and frankly, I find it rather offensive. If I thought Christ wanted an authoritative, coercive, and violent state, I would support it. I am not putting my opinions before Christ. Plus, libertarians are not anti-Catholic, there are a number of prominent Catholic libertarians and Catholic anti-statists (Thomas Woods, Andrew Napolitano, Dorothy Day, Jeffrey Tucker, Lew Rockwell, Philip Berrigan, Ivan Illich, etc).

What may get lost in all this discussion is that elements of libertarianism may be very close to elements of political conservatism, but other elements of libertarianism are also very close to radical moral liberalism. Ayn Rand was a political libertarian by virtue of opposing the growth of government power over human affairs. But she was also a radical moral libertarian by virtue of supporting causes that are hardly conservative, such as atheism and homosexuality.

I do not believe Dorothy Day, if she were living today, would be marching in a parade for same-sex marriage, any more than she would be marching for abortion rights (though she had an abortion in her youth). Is Andrew Napolitano on record supporting same-sex marriage or abortion rights?

 

[seekerofanswers]

What may get lost in all this discussion is that elements of libertarianism may be very close to elements of political conservatism, but other elements of libertarianism are also very close to radical moral liberalism.

Libertarianism is conservatism without the legislation of morality. Legislating morality is not something that we are called to do.

Ayn Rand was a political libertarian by virtue of opposing the growth of government power over human affairs. But she was also a radical moral libertarian by virtue of supporting causes that are hardly conservative, such as atheism and homosexuality.

You can believe gay marriage is immoral but not want it banned. I also believe lying is immoral but I don’t believe it should be banned. Ayn Rand had different reasons than I or any other Christian libertarian for supporting libertarianism, as she did not believe that homosexuality is immoral. Christian libertarians just don’t believe it should be banned (and don’t believe that marriage licensing should exist).

I do not believe Dorothy Day, if she were living today, would be marching in a parade for same-sex marriage, any more than she would be marching for abortion rights (though she had an abortion in her youth)

Neither am I. Dorothy Day believed that taxation was immoral and believed in voluntary government.

“If we render unto God all the things that belong to God, there would be nothing left for Caesar.” - Dorothy Day

Is Andrew Napolitano on record supporting same-sex marriage or abortion rights?

No, he is a pro-life libertarian. He doesn’t believe in marriage licenses either, so he is opposed to banning gay marriage.

 

[RyanBlack]

SeekerofAnswers,

Whether you like it or not, your view of government in general, and taxes in particular, are not supported by Church teaching. I suggest that you read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. This work makes it quite clear that libertarianism cannot be supported by Church teaching, and neither can the anti-tax, anti-government, common-sense defying claims you are making. Your perfectly entitled to those opinions, but they are simply not supported by Church teaching; rather, they are refuted by Church teaching.

 

[RyanBlack]

Of course not, why would Scripture have to define taxation as theft when they are inherently the same?

This is an unsupported opinion.

If this was true then the government wouldn’t be necessary, as all services could be provided in the free market.

Scripture specifically shows that tax is not theft. In spite of what you claimed earlier, our Lord’s words demonstrate it. “Render unto Caesar **what is **Caesar’s” Our Lord did not say, render unto Caesar what Caesar steals from you." Furthermore, St. Paul wrote “Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.” Clearly, you view that taxation is theft is anti-scriptural.

If you think that government is unnecessary for the ordering of society, particularly of the large societies that exist in today’s world, I suggest you go live somewhere where government is largely non-functioning. Perhaps such areas of the world would be more to your liking, with their lack of civilization and their unchecked violence.

As for all of those services being provided by the free market, since when does a free market provide for a public system of roads like that which exists in the USA, just to name one important aspect of our infrastructure?

Libertarianism-at least a strict libertarianism, cannot be supported by Church teaching, since the Church teaches that the state has a positive duty to contribute to the common good. Furthermore, libertarianism is a naive absurity–unless what you really desire is to live in a primitive culture. Modern societies as we know them would not exist under libertarian visions of the state. Standing armed forces could not be maintained (I for one am horrified at the idea of what those most intent on their wickedness cold accomplish were it not for the military might of the United States). Necessary, but unprofitable infrastructure, such as roadways, would not be built. The poor and vulnerable would not receive protection from the unchecked forces of unregulated markets (by the way, I do support capitalism–with reasonable regulations). Masses of people would not have the opportunity to receive an education. There would be far fewer hospitals, universities, and so on. This is what a true, consistent libertarianism offers-basically a recipe for keeping wealth, power, and the comforts of civilization in the hands of a very tiny elite. No thanks, I’ll pass.

 

[Brendan]

Isn’t it more effective to try to convert people rather than to legislate morality?

Actually, no.

As Aquinas noted, the purpose of civil law to to make manifest the Natural Law.

In a truely well run society, the Civil Law will mirror the Natural Law. Therefore, what are violations of the Natural Law ( contraception, abortion, pornography, fornication and adultery) should likewise be violations of the civil law.

 

[Brendan]

Libertarianism is conservatism without the legislation of morality. Legislating morality is not something that we are called to do…

Actually, no.

As Aquinas noted, the purpose of civil law to to make manifest the Natural Law.

In a truely well run society, the Civil Law will mirror the Natural Law. Therefore, what are violations of the Natural Law ( contraception, abortion,rape, theft, pornography, fornication and adultery, homosexual acts) should likewise be violations of the civil law.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Scripture specifically shows that tax is not theft. In spite of what you claimed earlier, our Lord’s words demonstrate it. “Render unto Caesar **what is **Caesar’s”

The Lord also called us to turn the other cheek. This doesn’t mean that the act of hitting someone is morally acceptable.

Furthermore, St. Paul wrote “Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.” Clearly, you view that taxation is theft is anti-scriptural.

You make the assumption that taxes are due, why?

If you think that government is unnecessary for the ordering of society, particularly of the large societies that exist in today’s world, I suggest you go live somewhere where government is largely non-functioning. Perhaps such areas of the world would be more to your liking, with their lack of civilization and their unchecked violence.

Unchecked violence? Sounds like government is involved to me. In a truly voluntary society, violence doesn’t exist. This is why voluntaryism, which is the core of libertarianism, is the most civilized form of government. The violence in “anarchist” countries like Somalia is caused by conflict between government and citizens.

As for all of those services being provided by the free market, since when does a free market provide for a public system of roads like that which exists in the USA, just to name one important aspect of our infrastructure?

The free market would provide a system of roads more efficiently. Fun fact: the first road for solely automobile use built in the US was actually privately built.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Motor_Parkway
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Toll_Road

Necessary, but unprofitable infrastructure, such as roadways, would not be built.

If there is demand for it, it will be built. Also, see above.

The poor and vulnerable would not receive protection from the unchecked forces of unregulated markets (by the way, I do support capitalism–with reasonable regulations).

In the absence of government, big corporations do not have a competitive advantage in the first place. The only way corporations have an advantage in the market is that force is applied by government in their advantage to keep out competitors. In a true free market, they would not have that advantage. As it is now, people cannot compete and get around the regulators that they have bought off. Adding more regulation just perpetuates the problem.

Masses of people would not have the opportunity to receive an education.

Education would be localized.

There would be far fewer hospitals, universities, and so on.

Are you saying you support government-run healthcare and universities?

Ron Paul on working in a Catholic hospital before government got involved in healthcare. They “never turned anyone away”

This is what a true, consistent libertarianism offers-basically a recipe for keeping wealth, power, and the comforts of civilization in the hands of a very tiny elite. No thanks, I’ll pass.

What you are referring to is corporatism and corporate socialism, where profits are kept and losses are socialized. Concentrated wealth cannot exist in a truly free market.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker
**
In a truly voluntary society, violence doesn’t exist.**

That notion is biblically defeated. Cain and Abel lived in a truly voluntary society!

Our nature is to seek peace. But by original sin there is no guarantee of it under any system.
**
Education would be localized.**

But would still be public if it is to be available to all. How would public schools be possible without taxation?

 

[seekerofanswers]

In a truly voluntary society, violence doesn’t exist.

Whoops, meant to say that violence is condemned under voluntarily recognized law.