Catholicism and Libertarianism

[seekerofanswers]

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

voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/schoolsforall.html

 

[RyanBlack]

You make the assumption that taxes are due, why?.

Because Holy Scripture clearly states so. St. Paul would not give the command to pay taxes to whom they are due if they were not actually due to someone. Furthermore, the Church teaches as much. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (379) states:

In his pronouncement on the paying of taxes to Caesar (cf. Mk 12:13-17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26), he affirms that we must give to God what is God’s, implicitly condemning every attempt at making temporal power divine or absolute: God alone can demand everything from man. At the same time, temporal power has the right to its due: Jesus does not consider it unjust to pay taxes to Caesar.

Your argument that taxation equals theft is simply counter both to Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Church. For you to state otherwise is a misrepresentation of Church teaching.

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.

This vision of a truly voluntary society devoid of violence is a utopian vision, and that is the problem that lies at the heart of libertarianism–it is a utopian vision. Truly voluntary societies do not and cannot exist–for the simple reality of human sinfulness. An element of coercion–as much as I hate to admit it, because I despire being coerced–is necessary for civilization to exist. Without an element of coercion, there is nothing to keep violence in check.

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…

How can the free market possibly provide for the sort of infrastructures modern, developed societies have? The answer is that they cannot. The sort of infrastructure we have is impossible without both the coordination of government authority and the coercive power of government. Regarding the latter, I’m specifically referring to the coercive power of eminent domain. Unless we want to grant private corporations the power of eminent domain, the infrastructure that makes our economies possible would not exist apart from the power of the government to seize private property for public use (consider the exercise of eminent domain that is involved in creating our transportation systems).

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

Where there is both demand and the ability to pay, combined with the ability to seize private property for public use. Free markets alone simply don’t suffice to satisfy every public need.

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.

I don’t think your argument here is supported by history. The developed nations of the world have had experiments with unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism, and rejected it, for good reason. Which government forces created monopolies such as Standard Oil?

Education would be localized…

It would be localized, sure. And it would be limited to those locales where the people possess the resources to provide it, kind of like what happens now in countries that do not provide universal public eduction. Again, no thanks, I’ll pass.

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”.

I am not interested in government-run healthcare or universities. I do, however, support taxpayer subsidized universities and hospitals, apart from which many people would never receive hospital treatment (Catholic hospitals are not found in every community, there wasn’t one within an hour’s drive of where I grew up) or a university education.

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.

I think this statement, at least insofar as it is construed as a universal law, is based on your dogmatic commitment to libertarianism, and not on actual historical fact. What anti-freemarket government forces caused the concentration of oil industry wealth in the hands of the Rockefeller family, for example, prior to the era of regulation?

 

[RyanBlack]

voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/schoolsforall.html

I read it, and I’m entirely unimpressed and unpersuaded. Just as charitable organizations and private individuals have shown themselves to be inadequate to address the needs the poor in society, they would show themselves inadequate to address the needs of the poor to receive an education, particularly in those communities where nearly everyone is either poor,or of very modest means.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Jesus does not consider it unjust to pay taxes to Caesar.

I do not consider it unjust to pay taxes, I consider it unjust to impose taxes.

Without an element of coercion, there is nothing to keep violence in check.

Coercion is violence.

How can the free market possibly provide for the sort of infrastructures modern, developed societies have? The answer is that they cannot.

This is simply not true. The Evidence

I don’t think your argument here is supported by history. The developed nations of the world have had experiments with unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism, and rejected it, for good reason.

Voluntaryism and pure free markets have never been tried.

Which government forces created monopolies such as Standard Oil?

Patent monopolies, protective tariffs, etc… Government Influence on Standard Oil

I think this statement, at least insofar as it is construed as a universal law, is based on your dogmatic commitment to libertarianism, and not on actual historical fact.

Nope, based on economic law. Imploding Monopolies

 

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by RyanBlack
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

And yet you maintain that tolls are due? Why?

 

[seekerofanswers]

And yet you maintain that tolls are due? Why?

Tolls are due to road companies because they are directly providing you with a service that you are directly paying for. My point was that St. Paul does not say to who or what taxes are due.

 

[RyanBlack]

I do not consider it unjust to pay taxes, I consider it unjust to impose taxes.

The Church does not agree with you.

Coercion is violence.

Coercion is necessary, because of the reality of human sinfulness, as well as because of human weakness. I do not like having to use coercion with my son, but if I do not, he will likely not survive until his next birthday, much less until adulthood. It’s not pretty or comfortable, but it’s necessary. I’m very thankful that the government uses coercion in the form of laws, and in the form of prisons for those who have no regard for the law.

This is simply not true. The Evidence

Please tell me how aspects of our infrastructure such as the interstate system could exist without the power of eminent domain? Your vision of a society without the coercive power of government is a utopian fantasy.

Voluntaryism and pure free markets have never been tried.

Because the overwhelming majority of us have the good sense to see that voluntarism and purely free markets are not possible, because of human sinfulness.

Patent monopolies, protective tariffs, etc… Government Influence on Standard Oil

I’m opposed neither to patents, nor to tariffs, but what foreign oil was prevented from coming into the United States at the time John D. Rockefeller was building his Standard Oil Empire?

Nope, based on economic law. Imploding Monopolies

But you said that a truly free market has never been tried, so how can you know that what you are asserting as an effect of a truly free market would actually be the case?

 

[Brendan]

Tolls are due to road companies because they are directly providing you with a service that you are directly paying for. My point was that St. Paul does not say to who or what taxes are due.

He neither states who or for what tolls are due for, either.

You want to attempt to authoritatively answer in regards to tolls, but do not let the Church answer for what and to whom taxes are due.

Why do you set your self above the authority of the Church in regards to the interpretation of Scripture. Are your academic credentials in Theology greater than the combined Magisterium?

 

[seekerofanswers]

The Church does not agree with you.

If this is true then what do you suggest Catholic libertarians do? (Besides renouncing their libertarian beliefs, assume that those remain and are held with the belief that Jesus agrees with them).

Coercion is necessary, because of the reality of human sinfulness, as well as because of human weakness. I do not like having to use coercion with my son, but if I do not, he will likely not survive until his next birthday, much less until adulthood. It’s not pretty or comfortable, but it’s necessary. I’m very thankful that the government uses coercion in the form of laws, and in the form of prisons for those who have no regard for the law.

If people living in the same area decide to accept a law against, say, murder, and voluntarily pay private defense forces to uphold the law, that is a society free of coercion. Laws against coercion are good unless they are upheld with dollars acquired using coercion (which makes the laws inherently ironic).

Please tell me how aspects of our infrastructure such as the interstate system could exist without the power of eminent domain?

The sale and purchase of land by private companies who build roads and charge a fee for their use.

Your vision of a society without the coercive power of government is a utopian fantasy.

I could say this about your morality-legislating ideals for government, but it wouldn’t help my argument since it is an unsupported statement of opinion.

Because the overwhelming majority of us have the good sense to see that voluntarism and purely free markets are not possible, because of human sinfulness.

See my second response.

I’m opposed neither to patents, nor to tariffs, but what foreign oil was prevented from coming into the United States at the time John D. Rockefeller was building his Standard Oil Empire?

“In 1984, kerosene was placed on the free list, yet with a catch: if another country had a tariff on the goods of the US, then the kerosene tariff on that country was 40 percent. As D.T. Armentano explains, tariffs restrict foreign competition, which is a vital section of the free market (after all, foreign competition is simply business which is outside of the arbitrarily-drawn line of a given country). The hindering of possibly more efficient foreign competitors shielded Standard Oil from pressure to lower its prices even further. Indeed, abroad Standard Oil was forced to lower its prices to compete with Russian oil, yet the protective tariffs prevented the same from occurring in the US. This is another example of government intervention during the Gilded Age distorting market forces and creating inefficient, less competitive scenarios.” - Mises Institute (taken from the link I posted last time)

But you said that a truly free market has never been tried, so how can you know that what you are asserting as an effect of a truly free market would actually be the case?

Economic laws can still be applied to political ideologies that have never been tried, which is exactly what is done in the video I posted.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Why do you set your self above the authority of the Church in regards to the interpretation of Scripture. Are your academic credentials in Theology greater than the combined Magisterium?

I am in no way making that case, I just don’t understand how the Church comes to the conclusions it does about the morality of taxation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

**I just don’t understand how the Church comes to the conclusions it does about the morality of taxation. **

The rightness of the Church’s teachings does not depend on whether you can understand them. If that were so, every child would be free to repudiate most of what the Church teaches.

Again, as Catholics we are not free to follow our own nose unless it guides us down the path to Rome.

 

[seekerofanswers]

The rightness of the Church’s teachings does not depend on whether you can understand them. If that were so, every child would be free to repudiate most of what the Church teaches. Again, as Catholics we are not free to follow our own nose unless it guides us down the path to Rome.

I am trying to understand Church teachings and all you do is tell me that my understanding doesn’t change the Church’s rightness? How does this help me understand?

Also, what do you tell all the Catholics who have political views that conflict with Church teaching? Should they be asked to leave the Church? I’m talking about the Catholics who don’t believe that same-sex marriage is immoral or support Planned Parenthood funding, for example.

 

[catholictiger]

some qoutes to consider in this thread

first

If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others

does libertarianism agree with this

this may call for government taxes, government intervention for those who are very poor

both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,”

again a call for government to feed the poor, which may mean that we tax people who can be taxed so we can feed the poor.

Among the basic rights of the human person is to be numbered the right of freely founding unions for working people. These should be able truly to represent them and to contribute to the organizing of economic life in the right way. Included is the right of freely taking part in the activity of these unions without risk of reprisal. Through this orderly participation joined to progressive economic and social formation, all will grow day by day in the awareness of their own function and responsibility, and thus they will be brought to feel that they are comrades in the whole task of economic development and in the attainment of the universal common good according to their capacities and aptitudes.

this is another point that must be considered, I suspect that every libertarian I would talk to would be against unions not for them.

It is the duty of society, moreover, according to the circumstances prevailing in it, and in keeping with its role, to help the citizens to find sufficient employment. Finally, remuneration for labor is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good.(6)

now this could be a libertarian argument, because the free enterprise does provide the best chance for employment.

Economic development must remain under man’s determination and must not be left to the judgment of a few men or groups possessing too much economic power or of the political community alone or of certain more powerful nations.

Growth is not to be left solely to a kind of mechanical course of the economic activity of individuals, nor to the authority of government. For this reason, doctrines which obstruct the necessary reforms under the guise of a false liberty, and those which subordinate the basic rights of individual persons and groups to the collective organization of production must be shown to be erroneous.(4)

seems contrary to the ideas of libertarianism

all these quotes come from Gaudium Et Spes from Vatican II

the reason I believe Church teaching is contrary to Libertarianism is that it puts to much importance on economic science, the free enterprise while it is the most efficent way to bring economic growth sometimes this economic growth is put on the backs on the poor and the disadvantaged in society, in true libertarianism this would be acceptable. Putting women and children in horrible working conditions in sweat shops would be acceptable because it helps the economy. Economic growth doesn’t take priority over human dignity. In Libertarianism it does.

The Church clearly denounces true economic libertarianism.

 

[catholictiger]

I am in no way making that case, I just don’t understand how the Church comes to the conclusions it does about the morality of taxation.

I posted some things that could back it up.

Taxes help sustain the government which can help society reach its common good. Because of that taxation should be allowed.

 

[Brendan]

I am in no way making that case, I just don’t understand how the Church comes to the conclusions it does about the morality of taxation.

But none the less, we put your trust in the Church to correctly interpret St. Paul’s words, do we not?

 

[TEPO]

Without taxes, the government would have no means to produce money… Without money, gold would become currency, and who wants to carry around a scale everytime they go to the store?

Just imagine the counterfeit problems that would arise.

 

[catholictiger]

Without taxes, the government would have no means to produce money… Without money, gold would become currency, and who wants to carry around a scale everytime they go to the store?

Just imagine the counterfeit problems that would arise.

let me make something clear when libertarians talk about no takes they talk about no income tax, most libertarians realize the fact that taxes are necessary, but not income taxes

 

[seekerofanswers]

let me make something clear when libertarians talk about no takes they talk about no income tax, most libertarians realize the fact that taxes are necessary, but not income taxes

The one form of taxation that I am slightly less opposed to are those proposed by Henry George.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

 

[seekerofanswers]

But none the less, we put your trust in the Church to correctly interpret St. Paul’s words, do we not?

Sure, but that doesn’t mean we cannot be curious as to how they came to interpret the words in this way.

 

[TEPO]

The one form of taxation that I am slightly less opposed to are those proposed by Henry George.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

After glancing over “land tax” ideals, I see nothing anti-Catholic about it… In fact, it seems to go along quite nicely with Catholic teachings from what I understand.