Catholicism and Libertarianism

[Reep]

As Catholics, we need to also consider the spiritual harm done to others. For example, pornography is apparently an evil wicked business in which many are taken advantage of and abused in the process of making money through tempting others to sin.

You choose pornography as an example, speaking of persons being “taken advantage of and abused.” This may well represent direct harm if children are involved or if adults are coerced or defrauded. Either is criminal conduct.

The part about making money by tempting others to sin could just as well refer to a bartender or a blackjack dealer. While these raise questions of moral evil, most people would not refer such cases to the criminal justice system (which is all I am talking about).

I wonder if you would also jail people who sin by looking at pornography? After all, it is immoral conduct. Better they should rot on jail than in hell, right?

The more I learn about libertarianism, the less Catholic it seems.

The more I learn about libertarianism, the more Catholic it seems. [Convincing?]

 

[St_Francis]

You choose pornography as an example, speaking of persons being “taken advantage of and abused.” This may well represent direct harm if children are involved or if adults are coerced or defrauded. Either is criminal conduct.

There is fruad involved: the idea that porn is victimless. the idea that paying someone to sin and to tempt others to sin is just all part if having fun. The idea that being involved in porn is just a good way to earn some quick bucks. The *libertarian *idea that anything goes unless someone ends up bleeding or dead or, heaven forbid, someone’s precious property disappears.

The part about making money by tempting others to sin could just as well refer to a bartender or a blackjack dealer. While these raise questions of moral evil, most people would not refer such cases to the criminal justice system (which is all I am talking about).

Except that porography has no other purpose or use than to incite sin.

I wonder if you would also jail people who sin by looking at pornography? After all, it is immoral conduct. Better they should rot on jail than in hell, right?

Or maybe I would count them as victims.

The more I learn about libertarianism, the more Catholic it seems. [Convincing?]

How so? What care for anything other than one’s physical being or property is exhibited by libertarianism? What care for anything other than allowing people to do anything they want as long as no one is physically hurt–except for unborn babies–or no one’s property is damaged?

The problem with libertarianism is that broken families, those who end up with STDs, despairing souls *don’t count as victims. *Hey, they’re not bleeding, are they? They still have all their stuff, don’t they?

I put what i said wrongly. It is not simply that the more I fond out abou libertarianism, the less Catholic it seems. It is that you how someone libertarianism and it is like a grain of sand compared to the incomparable fullness in every direction of the Faith Christ gave us. Why are you even wasting your time talking about libertarianism? Why offer a grain of sand to a person dying of thirst when you could share the living water of Christ?

 

[april32010]

You choose pornography as an example, speaking of persons being “taken advantage of and abused.” This may well represent direct harm if children are involved or if adults are coerced or defrauded. Either is criminal conduct.

The part about making money by tempting others to sin could just as well refer to a bartender or a blackjack dealer. While these raise questions of moral evil, most people would not refer such cases to the criminal justice system (which is all I am talking about).

I wonder if you would also jail people who sin by looking at pornography? After all, it is immoral conduct. Better they should rot on jail than in hell, right?

The more I learn about libertarianism, the more Catholic it seems. [Convincing?]

funny,the more i learn about Catholicism the more Catholic it seems.

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

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

 

[april32010]

why not admit you don’t believe in the Church’s teachings.

 

[catholictiger]

It’s hard telling not knowing -I guess it depends on how one perceives the “common good”. For me personally, the common good is best achieved by supporting moderacy -not only as a concept but as in the people who live moderately such as the middle class.

I don’t believe in over-rewarding either the rich or the poor, but rather giving the middle class more breaks, which is not the path our current system has put into place. Instead, our current system is focusing exclusively more for the rich and the poor, which represents the Democratic and Republican parties.

In my mind, moderation is key… In all ways. To live Modestly is to live virtuously and that’s where the rewards should lie. If there were a Libertarian Party that could promise this, Through either taxation or other means, then I would consider that as promoting the common good.

the church is clear on what they mean by the common good.

but how we are to achieve it is another story

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Meaning%20and%20primary%20implications

see the compendium on catholic social doctrine #64 forward and read up on the common good.

if the taxes are to low for the common good to be achieved then taxes must be raised. I think they are too high in this country but that isn’t the discussion at hand.

 

[catholictiger]

no responses to the qoutes from gaudium et spes, a very important vatican II document

I understand the social argument but I would love to discuss the economic side of this, because that is really where the libertarians could have impact on this culture.

face it as much as we would like to end it and stop it

pornography won’t be stopped in todays culture and it will continue to be widely available and legal.

drugs will eventually become legalized, this may be the only thing that libertarians will have an impact on.

gay marriage will continue to gain momentum

abortion will continue to be widely available and protected by the government.

I don’t mind the discussion I just wish we could have some discussion on the economic side of things.

 

[TEPO]

the church is clear on what they mean by the common good.

but how we are to achieve it is another story

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Meaning%20and%20primary%20implications

see the compendium on catholic social doctrine #64 forward and read up on the common good.

if the taxes are to low for the common good to be achieved then taxes must be raised. I think they are too high in this country but that isn’t the discussion at hand.

…so basically then it’s mere opinion that libertarianism is “anti-Catholic” as others here have attempted to point out -since we have never seen what a libertarian based society looks like.

I’d also like to add that any platform left untramelled in its purest form would be a hindrance to the common good… It seems that the key is always moderacy and moderacy is a God given grace.

Any Godless, unvirtuous society is bound to be opposed to the common good -a trend that has been increasing within the west since Christian based middle class families are becoming increasingly silenced.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Reep

Let’s start by pretending your question is not disingenuous. Whenever I defend someone for felony drug possession and they are found guilty, a pre-sentence report is prepared by the government. In the report there is always a section labeled “Victim?” Typed in to the answer space are these words: “No identifiable victim.” Sometimes half of our criminal dockets are consumed with crimes that have "no identifiable victim."

That the victim is not identifiable does not mean that there is no victim. If you watch the television series “Breaking Bad,” you would see that the main character has sold millions of dollars of illegal drugs he created in his own lab. None of the victims (those who bought his drugs) are identified, nor is the savage effect of the drugs on their lives depicted; does that mean there are no victims?

While “Breaking Bad” is a fictional series, it surely has many counterpart stories in the real world.

 

[St_Francis]

…so basically then it’s mere opinion that libertarianism is “anti-Catholic” as others here have attempted to point out -since we have never seen what a libertarian based society looks like.

I’d also like to add that any platform left untramelled in its purest form would be a hindrance to the common good… It seems that the key is always moderacy and moderacy is a God given grace.

Any Godless, unvirtuous society is bound to be opposed to the common good -a trend that has been increasing within the west since Christian based middle class families are becoming increasingly silenced.

I think that you have a point but that you are approaching it wrongly. You think the middle class is somehow moderate in and of itself, but the members of the middle class can be just as greedy as a greedy rich person, and just as grasping as an envious poor person; while at the same time we find there are many generous poor people and many rich people who value family stability.

IOW, vice is spread through all the classes, and so is virtue. To put those in te middle class in charge would not get us anywhere because the middle class are just as mixed as any other class.

But the rest you are seeing: that what is needed is not one system or another but virtue throughout the people.

 

[St_Francis]

…so basically then it’s mere opinion that libertarianism is “anti-Catholic” as others here have attempted to point out -since we have never seen what a libertarian based society looks like…

I don’t think anyone has said that libertarianism is anti-Catholic in the sense that libertarians are against Catholics. What I have said is that libertarianism is based on the anti-Catholic thinking of the so-called Enlightenment, and this has in no way been refuted by those arguing for libertarianism.

Moreover, it is not necessary for something to exist for people to be able to evaluate it.

 

[catholictiger]

…so basically then it’s mere opinion that libertarianism is “anti-Catholic” as others here have attempted to point out -since we have never seen what a libertarian based society looks like.

I’d also like to add that any platform left untramelled in its purest form would be a hindrance to the common good… It seems that the key is always moderacy and moderacy is a God given grace.

Any Godless, unvirtuous society is bound to be opposed to the common good -a trend that has been increasing within the west since Christian based middle class families are becoming increasingly silenced.

yes but there are ways that you can’t go about it and some ways in libertarism aren’t acceptable.

I’ll say this a partial version of libertarianism can be a very good one, I think it is one of the closets economic (not social) ideas around but pure unchecked libertarianism is not in accord with Catholic Social Doctrine.

go back and read my qoutes from gaudium et spes I think it sheds some light on libertarianism. It did for me. Both my parents are very libertarian and I use to have libertarian leanings myself, but I’m now more leaning to something like distributism I just need to read more on it before I argue for it or against it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You don’t have to be a libertarian to oppose Big Government. Christian conservatives know full well the threat Big Government poses to our freedoms. They learned that lesson the hard way in Germany when the Nazis used euthanasia on the sick and the elderly in order to “liberate” Germany from the Christian duty to tend to the sick and the elderly.

The so-called freedoms defended by Libertarians, such as drugs and pornography and same-sex marriage, are merely “freedoms” for people who want to be “free” to debase the moral values of traditional civilization by promoting a polluted moral atmosphere under the guise of “free choice.”

When society become morally polluted to its core, Libertarians will still be defending the so-called victimless crime. What they don’t seem to realize is that the more corrupt a society is allowed to be, the more likely it is that crimes with victims will proliferate.

Making drugs legal will not end drug abuse. It may end certain areas of drug crime (smuggling especially), but then the state will become the drug lords. The ease with which drugs will be available, and the societal approval of their consumption, will enlarge the consuming clientelle. Just as child pornography did not become rampant until adult pornography flourished, children may be increasingly exposed to drug use and the sexual abuse that is likely to follow.

 

[St_Francis]

I think it is ironic that under libertarianism it would apparently be illegal for a locale to make laws against drugs and prostitution.

 

[Reep]

I think it is ironic that under libertarianism it would apparently be illegal for a locale to make laws against drugs and prostitution.

Actually, people would have the power to prohibit all of their favorite vices and make those around them do as they please, all based on private property rights.

Property-based rights would enable groups of like-minded people to own land for the purpose of establishing communities according to their favorite principles. No one could stop such groups from agreeing that a particular moral code would apply to the whole town, because it would be a voluntary association.

A group of distributists might establish a city of small businesses where property agreements provide that each landowner must own the means of their livelihood and which prevent the massing of property in few hands. Every square inch of the city would be under the covenant, which all buyers would agree to when they bought the land.

A Catholic entrepreneur might have a vision of a Catholic city where public morals would reflect Catholic moral teaching. Residents and visitors alike would abide by the covenants, which would apply everywhere. In that society, guests might be hard-pressed to buy recreational drugs, pornography, contraceptives or abortion pills. On a Sunday, nothing would for be sale. One might search the yellow pages in vain for a “gentleman’s club,” abortion clinic, or escort service. Drunkenness, public lewdness or taking the Lord’s name in vain might result in fines or expulsion.

For all the hand wringers who fear that a libertarian future would look like some some drug-addled freak show–straight out of a futuristic dystopian movie–where pierced/tattooed couples fornicate in the streets, the opposite may be true: We would have MORE control over our streets and neighborhoods, not less.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Francis

**I think it is ironic that under libertarianism it would apparently be illegal for a locale to make laws against drugs and prostitution. **

The libertarian view is that we should be free to choose evil against good. The conservative agrees. Free will is God-given. What the conservative also believes is that choosing evil before good should be discouraged by the State as well as the Church. The Church warns us of the consequence of choosing evil before good. The State should have the same power to promise that consequences follow the choice of evil over good. The Libertarian believes the law should only be used against those who threaten the peace of others. The Conservative agrees in that he believes drugs, prostitution, etc. threaten the peace of society.

What is notable about Libertarianism is that it lacks a moral imperative beyond prohibiting violence against one another. Go down any checklist of causes defended by Libertarians (and the ACLU) and find a clear tendency toward defending hedonism as a life philosophy. While hedonists are free to be hedonists, the State should not be their ally. If the State becomes their ally, and hedonism is explicitly protected by law, people will be increasingly inclined to give up self-control (morals) for pleasure-seeking.

In certain ways the State intervenes to discourage hedonism. Warnings (and taxes) on cigarette consumption, for example, not to mention the ban on cigarette smoking in public places, have been effective ways to discourage cigarette smoking that leads to cancer. The State does not go so far as to ban cigarettes, but neither does it endorse or sanction smoking.

By the same token, drugs, prostitution, sodomy, etc. cannot be effectively stopped by the State, but neither is the State required to sanction such conduct. Since sodomy is at the heart of same-sex relations, neither should the State be expected to sanction same-sex marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Reep

**For all the hand wringers who fear that a libertarian future would look like some some drug-addled freak show–straight out of a futuristic dystopian movie–where pierced/tattooed couples fornicate in the streets, the opposite may be true: We would have MORE control over our streets and neighborhoods, not less. **

The main reason you don’t see sex in public places is that you can be arrested for it. Remove the State’s prohibition of it, and it may well flourish, as has pornography and abortion since the Courts approved both in the 1960s.

 

[St_Francis]

Actually, people would have the power to prohibit all of their favorite vices and make those around them do as they please, all based on private property rights.

Property-based rights would enable groups of like-minded people to own land for the purpose of establishing communities according to their favorite principles. No one could stop such groups from agreeing that a particular moral code would apply to the whole town, because it would be a voluntary association.

A group of distributists might establish a city of small businesses where property agreements provide that each landowner must own the means of their livelihood and which prevent the massing of property in few hands. Every square inch of the city would be under the covenant, which all buyers would agree to when they bought the land.

A Catholic entrepreneur might have a vision of a Catholic city where public morals would reflect Catholic moral teaching. Residents and visitors alike would abide by the covenants, which would apply everywhere. In that society, guests might be hard-pressed to buy recreational drugs, pornography, contraceptives or abortion pills. On a Sunday, nothing would for be sale. One might search the yellow pages in vain for a “gentleman’s club,” abortion clinic, or escort service. Drunkenness, public lewdness or taking the Lord’s name in vain might result in fines or expulsion.

IOW, you are describing a situation in which there is an extreme form of subsidiarity.

Well, that wouldn’t be too bad. We’d move back to a medeival system where people lived in small communities under the protection of lords. Distributism would arise very easily from the separation and lack of transportation between communities.

Life would be great Of course, one might begin to see a cycle developing–I imagine it would not take long before we were back here.

For all the hand wringers who fear that a libertarian future would look like some some drug-addled freak show–straight out of a futuristic dystopian movie–where pierced/tattooed couples fornicate in the streets, the opposite may be true: We would have MORE control over our streets and neighborhoods, not less.

Life would be good, steady, stable, and safe inside the communities, probably best in the Catholic communities. The contrast would be a great tool for evangelization, don’t you think?

But funny how life would be nicer in the areas with more, not less, government. Somehow your view of libertarianism seems to rrefute itself…

 

[St_Francis]

Reep

**For all the hand wringers who fear that a libertarian future would look like some some drug-addled freak show–straight out of a futuristic dystopian movie–where pierced/tattooed couples fornicate in the streets, the opposite may be true: We would have MORE control over our streets and neighborhoods, not less. **

The main reason you don’t see sex in public places is that you can be arrested for it. Remove the State’s prohibition of it, and it may well flourish, as has pornography and abortion since the Courts approved both in the 1960s.

Yeah, lack of nudity laws worked really well in San Francisco.

I think, Reep, that you don’t understand how much our society continues to be influenced by Catholicism. People are not naturally good, but many of our good habits were inculcated when we were too young to remember, by our parents, who got it from their parents, and so on. This is why some communities, whose child-raising was disrupted, are what you might call the canaries in the mine wrt social issues.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Francis

And here’s another:

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

 

[Reep]

Go down any checklist of causes defended by Libertarians (and the ACLU) and find a clear tendency toward defending hedonism as a life philosophy. While hedonists are free to be hedonists, the State should not be their ally. If the State becomes their ally, and hedonism is explicitly protected by law, people will be increasingly inclined to give up self-control (morals) for pleasure-seeking.

I am a Catholic libertarian who would never “defend” hedonism. I heartily condemn it as sin. I advise strongly against it and approve going to any length to prevent it, short of committing violence against someone who still won’t listen to me.

Refusing to intervene with governmental violence is not the same as “defending” an immoral practice. If the U.S. refuses to intervene in another country’s war, does that mean we are “defending” their enemy? I think it just means we are minding our own business.

[D]rugs, prostitution, sodomy, etc. cannot be effectively stopped by the State, but neither is the State required to sanction such conduct. Since sodomy is at the heart of same-sex relations, neither should the State be expected to sanction same-sex marriage.

If these vices cannot be stopped by criminalization, can you admit that the costs and damage caused by prohibition itself may cause more harm than it alleviates? In that case, the government would–without approving the conduct in any way–have a duty to lift the greater evil of prohibition. I note that St. Augustine came to that exact conclusion, when he maintained that prostitution was sinful but should not be a crime.