Catholicism and Libertarianism

[Gricken]

As has been said dozens of times already. That isn’t the church’s position.

 

[90cacjdm]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the government print the money? It isn’t really ours then is it? They can demand their share back.

Really? If you want to spin, let’s spin.

Great, I am 100% in agreement with the alleged Catholic teaching of the original owner being the able to take back what was originally theirs. That means everything belongs to God. Yes, God is our Creator and everything is His.

Ignore God, fine. It still is not applicable. Governments are created by man, thus, man is the creator of government and money belongs to man (not the government). ** **Governments do not own anything without taking it first. You realize that government did not create man, man created government ? ** Again, Governments do not own anything without taking it first. The took the ink, paper, printing machine, they did not even own pictures of past presidents on the piece of paper they “give” us.

what are talking about, Render unto Caesar…?

** DON’T TAKE WHAT I AM SAYING THE WRONG WAY, I BELIEVE IN THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT.

The best governments were created to promote the common good of all the people. However, government leaders, once in power, find the power difficult to give up. In fact, they usually thirst for more power. Historically, the easy way to gain more power is in the MASK of the common good. Do you really believe that an atheist government will promote the common good just because it says it will? Come on.

Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence,

“All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.” At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’”

 

[Greg_N]

The problem with libertarianism is that it subscribes to a false view of the nature of rights and duties. Edward Feser, a former libertarian atheist turned Catholic, has written about this extensively.

Now Catholics may in good conscience believe that, as a matter of prudence, the government should not tax, say, personal incomes. They are effectively forbidden from believing that personal income tax is morally off the table as a matter of justice. That applies to much else, too. Since libertarianism is quick to equate taxation with theft, the legitimate exercise of police power with kidnapping or assault, etc., I cannot see how any Catholic can subscribe to it in toto and remain in communion with the Church.

I’m surprised no one responded to this.

Edward Feser (a fantastic Contemporary Writer/Philosopher) is absolutely brilliant when it comes to highlighting the problems facing a “Libertarian Catholic”. Being an ex-Libertarian himself; he doesn’t ‘demonize’ Libertarianism, but just demonstrates that the differences between Catholicism and Libertarianism are irreconcilable.
His article in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism 2008 and his talk given at the 2005 Austrian Scholars Conference on Social Justice (transcript here), are eye-opening to say the least.

If you consider yourself a “Catholic Libertarian”, I couldn’t recommend these sources enough.

 

[Ismael]

No but you can he greatful for everything else the government is able to provide through those taxes. You aren’t entilted to any of those services. Or the money the government makes,

I think that in a society, at least ours, citizens have duties (e.g. pay taxes) but also right (e.g. the rights stated in the US Constitutions).

A state where citizens have no rights becomes a dictatorship. Even in antiquity citizens had duties and rights (of course their definition of who was and was not a citizen was not always just).

---

Originally Posted by Gricken
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the government print the money? It isn’t really ours then is it? They can demand their share back.

PHYSICAL money (i.e. coins and paper) belongs, as such, to the government, since money is a “tool” provided by the government to enable “exchange” (purchasing objects, selling objects… etc).
That is why is illegal to destroy or even ruin money on purpose. The value money carries is yours (and you can exchange paper money and coins for something of tangible value, like bread), but the physical money itself is a ‘common good’, hence it belongs to the government.

Money as a ‘value’ is your property and is more convenient than having cows or camels or sheep as a bargaining value.

Money was born, and still is today essentially, an ‘I owe you’.

While before money you would buy a cabbage for 3 eggs, or work one day in the fields for a 2 loafs of bread, with money you do not pay with something with something else of similar value, but you give a ‘widely accepted IOU’.

In theory money could be replaced with post it notes with “IOU for xxx value” on it. In practice, since some people are dishonest, we need money that cannot be easily falsified (i.e. being made of a precious metal hard to find as in antiquity, or difficult to reproduce as today)

 

[90cacjdm]

I’m surprised no one responded to this.

Edward Feser (a fantastic Contemporary Writer/Philosopher) is absolutely brilliant when it comes to highlighting the problems facing a “Libertarian Catholic”. Being an ex-Libertarian himself; he doesn’t ‘demonize’ Libertarianism, but just demonstrates that the differences between Catholicism and Libertarianism are irreconcilable.
His article in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism 2008 and his talk given at the 2005 Austrian Scholars Conference on Social Justice (transcript here), are eye-opening to say the least.

If you consider yourself a “Catholic Libertarian”, I couldn’t recommend these sources enough.

I read the article. He sounds like he is a brilliant man. In my opinion, he demonstrated that the differences between Catholicism & Anarchism are irreconcilable. It sounds like the school of Libertarianism he subscribed to is very closely related to Anarchism. A couple things. 1) There is no agreement with respect to the actual definition of libertarianism 2) Libertarian schools of thought differ quite a bit. I am not a follower of the Anarchist school of thought. People tend to confuse libertarianism and Anarchism. It is easy to do because there is not a general agreement with respect to the definition of libertarianism. Every political philosophies has extremes.

The real world:

FACT- Government is is getting larger. The welfare state is expanding. It is not a coincidence that as government grows, people base their morals on the laws of the government. The government become their church and forms (corrupts) their conscience.

 We are "bigots" now if we think Abortion is not a choice.  We are "bullies" if we think same sex marriage is immoral.  We are "radicals" if we think Birth control is a sin.

A lot of libertarians believe that we should NOT expand something if that something calls the murder of a defenselessness human being a choice. Some libertarians think we should limit something if that something wants to define marriage as sacrament between a man and a man, women and women, adult and child? Some libertarians think we should not trust something that defines Euthanasia as “mercy”.

My question is simple. At want point should you not trust someone or something even if they say they are promoting common good among all men? Has anyone ever thought of this concept? You continue to trust a government after it legalized abortion? Yep! If that did not stop you, you would think the government legalization of Euthanasia would cause concern. Nope! Did the governments promotion of same sex marriage cause any concern? I guess not. I hope you get the picture.

I am a libertarian because of the society which we live in. If it is not illegal, we subsidize it. Maybe the government was the solution to the problem at some point in time, however, there is no doubt in my mind, that right now, big government, is the big problem.

Unfortunately, like the USCCB, the Catholic laity appear to have bought into this propaganda in the mask of social justice. A lot of what I read in this discussion is liberation theology 101 in the mask of Catholic teaching. Research what Pope Benedict XVI said about liberation theology and you will find where the confusions lies.

 

[october_baby]

The government is not the devil.
Have you lived in the USA lately?

I agree that the government should have stayed out of the granting (as opposed to the recognition) of marriages.

Needless to say.

No True Scotsman Fallacy

 

[october_baby]

Buyer beware…The post was written by Lew Rockwell, the guy who allegedly wrote
the racist bits of the Ron Paul newsletter. Even the Libertarians at The Blaze won’t touch this guy with a ten foot pole.

 

[Reep]

I’m surprised no one responded to this.

Edward Feser (a fantastic Contemporary Writer/Philosopher) is absolutely brilliant when it comes to highlighting the problems facing a “Libertarian Catholic”. Being an ex-Libertarian himself; he doesn’t ‘demonize’ Libertarianism, but just demonstrates that the differences between Catholicism and Libertarianism are irreconcilable.
His article in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism 2008 and his talk given at the 2005 Austrian Scholars Conference on Social Justice (transcript here), are eye-opening to say the least.

If you consider yourself a “Catholic Libertarian”, I couldn’t recommend these sources enough.

Thanks for the link, Greg. After listening to the talk, it seems Feser’s point is that Catholic Social Teaching does not condemn the state, a priori, as being illegitimate by its very nature.

But most of his argument goes up in smoke when he admits a couple of things:

First, that the social encyclicals seem to include many institutions (government, private associations, and even the family) in their characterization of the state. Such a definition obviously prevents any blanket condemnation of “the state.”

Second, Feser acknowledges that modern states are mostly unjust. In which case, Church teachings about the proper role of government remain untried to the extent that those governments are unjust.

With these caveats, this Catholic libertarian (me) has little left to quarrel with in Feser’s position. He sets up a pure “Rothbardian” (and Hayekian) libertarianism as the definition of libertarianism, from which which Greg argues that the “differences between Catholicism and [that] Libertarianism are irreconcilable.” Doubtless, this is true to some degree. I doubt there is a single Catholic libertarian on this board who does not disagree with Rothbard on a number of issues.

 

[90cacjdm]

Greg,

Thank you for sharing this information. I did not know anything about Edward Feser until I read your post. I have leanred a lot from reading his blog spot. I agree with 99% of what he has to say. He provides a lot of food for thought. Thank you again. God Bless.

Reep, makes a great point by pointing out that Feser acknowledges that modern states are mostly unjust.

I want to find a place where the government is just because I accept and believe in the Catholic teachings on just governments. The problem is the only place that I have been able to locate a just govenment is in the land of make believe.

The sad fact is that that two political ideologies dominate the government in which I live in. Their results over the past 40 years speak for themself. We are not going in the right direction no matter who is in charge. People keep saying that we need change but they are really asking for more of the same. It took me a little time to notice that we are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

What is the Catholic Church’s teaching if the government is no longer the solution to the problem and becomes the problem?

I know the founders of our country’s answer to this question:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.** But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security**.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Again What is the Catholic Church’s teaching if the government is no longer the solution to the problem and becomes the problem?

 

[devoutchristian]

What is the Catholic Church’s teaching if the government is no longer the solution to the problem and becomes the problem?

I know the founders of our country’s answer to this question:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.** But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security**.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Again What is the Catholic Church’s teaching if the government is no longer the solution to the problem and becomes the problem?

The Church does teach that rebellion can be justified in certain circumstances, however, the notion of power originating with the people, rather than God, is incompatable with Catholicism.

 

[Reep]

The Church does teach that rebellion can be justified in certain circumstances, however, the notion of power originating with the people, rather than God, is incompatable with Catholicism.

Not so fast, devoutchristian! While all authority comes from God, He does not normally go around appointing secular rulers. God well knows how unfit and abusive are men who rule over other men. See 1 Sam. 8:6-18.

It is quite compatible with Catholicism to say that God has left it to men to govern themselves. For example:

“[T]he choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.” Gaudium et Spes: “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” 74 § 3.

 

[devoutchristian]

It is quite compatible with Catholicism to say that God has left it to men to govern themselves.

Of course it is. However, it is not correct to say that power originates with the people and that they have a right to overthrow a government merely because they disagree with a law.

 

[Reep]

Of course it is. However, it is not correct to say that power originates with the people and that they have a right to overthrow a government merely because they disagree with a law.

Depends on the law now, doesn’t it?

Of course, I do not advocate the OVERTHROW of anything. If the US government were to become a limited government, less coercive, more protective of all human rights, I would would call that a vast improvement.

I am more concerned with what happens when this corrupt, welfare/warfare state collapses–both morally and economically. When that day comes, we may be forced to choose between liberty and totalitarianism. Men gravitate toward the totalitarian when afraid. I’m working and rooting for the other team.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Not so fast, devoutchristian! While all authority comes from God, He does not normally go around appointing secular rulers. God well knows how unfit and abusive are men who rule over other men. See 1 Sam. 8:6-18.

It is quite compatible with Catholicism to say that God has left it to men to govern themselves. For example:

“[T]he choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.” Gaudium et Spes: “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” 74 § 3.

I think you really need to read what Gaudium et spes actually says if you’re going to pretend it’s some sort of Rothbardian document.

 

[devoutchristian]

When that day comes, we may be forced to choose between liberty and totalitarianism. Men gravitate toward the totalitarian when afraid. I’m working and rooting for the other team.

I prefer to simply advocate for that which is right, rather than be a reactionary. When specific people arise who each adhere to different errant political positions, then I’ll decide which error is worse.

 

[Reep]

I think you really need to read what Gaudium et spes actually says if you’re going to pretend it’s some sort of Rothbardian document.

It says what it says.

Of course, Rothbard was not a Catholic and I would not expect his views to square with the Church in all matters. I have read Guadium et spes more than once. Have you read Rothbard?

 

[Reep]

I prefer to simply advocate for that which is right, rather than be a reactionary. When specific people arise who each adhere to different errant political positions, then I’ll decide which error is worse.

I’ll credit you with doing what you* think* is right. Perhaps you will accord me the same courtesy.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

It says what it says.

Of course, Rothbard was not a Catholic and I would not expect his views to square with the Church in all matters. I have read Guadium et spes more than once. Have you read Rothbard?

Yes, and I enjoy Rothbard as much as the next guy, he wrote interesting things, but his libertarian ideology and the teaching of the Church which explicitly gives a role for the state are not reconcilable without a massive amount of mental gymnastics and selective reading.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If the government’s money is theirs and not ours, then they can own the national debt too, which they rang up. And they can pay off the debt with government salaries rather than mine and my grandchild’s.