Is Libertarianism Compatible with Catholic Teaching?

[VeritasLuxMea]

The problem is that even Libertarianism is almost as big a tent as the Republican party that many Libertarians are semi-associated with; there are, for instance, people who simply favor laissez-faire economics, but are culturally quite conservative, who call themselves Libertarian. I’ve seen Hilaire Belloc called that, and he was a monarchist.

There are a few versions of Libertarianism that are eminently compatible with the Faith. They are, however, a decided, nigh-invisible minority. Most Libertarians may be summed up as “hippies, except cheap”, and that’s actually being pretty generous.

LOL, thanks. We get bashed on the liberal forums, so I guess why should Catholic Answers be any different? haha

 

[sw85]

I follow Catholicism first and foremost.

Errr, well, clearly you don’t, given that you openly reject some of its teachings.

If the Church and God asked me to turn away from any political affiliation and follow Him alone, even to the cross, I would do it. However, such a thing has not happened, and owing to the fact that our church’s highest body in the US, the USCCB, is rather involved in certain political matters, I think it only pertinent that I am also.

It has made clear that you are to believe certain truths in order to be a Catholic in good standing, certainly. These truths are largely incompatible with liberalism and libertarianism (liberalism’s older brother).

Libertarianism, very fundamentally, teaches that the sole role of the government in lawmaking is to ensure that the actions of one group or individual do not infringe upon the actions of another group or individual.

This seems off to me. We allow the actions of groups and individuals to interfere with the actions of others all the time, as when police bust up drug rings or arrest criminals or when I tell my children to eat their broccoli, brush their teeth, and go to bed.

Granted, what you wrote above is simply a bad statement of libertarian principles and not an indictment of libertarian principles themselves. What you mean to say is “the actions of one group or individual do not infringe upon the *rights *of another group or individual.”
There is nothing objectionable in this in and of itself. Libertarianism goes wrong because its conception of *rights *is based on falsehood.

In the United States, we have a Declaration of Independence which is generally a very libertarian document … The Constitution, over the course of the last two centuries, has moved closer and closer to this goal through the Bill of Rights and most of the other amendments. Of course, today in the United States we do not have a libertarian government. We have a heavily centralized federal government which has swelled and left no room for the Constitution, in its eyes a worthless rag to be used only to pass laws that benefit the current Congress. Both Republicans and Democrats have generally been equally responsible for these attacks on their foundations.

Wait, you can’t possibly believe that, at the same time as we have moved closer and closer toward the realization of the “libertarian” principles of the Declaration of Independence, we have also moved away from libertarianism. These are mutually exclusive beliefs.

Well, here’s where things get interesting. Libertarianism (rather, what is sometimes still called “classical liberalism”) hasn’t been abandoned, it has simply metastasized. Its foundational principles, freedom and equality, have taken on a life of their own: they have outgrown the boundaries which the Founders envisioned for them. Now we must be free and equal in every possible way. Not even nature must be an impediment to the unfettering of our wills: if I don’t want to be a man, I must be allowed to mutilate my genitals, wear a sundress, and demand that people call me a woman!

In other words, there is a clear ideological line of descent from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. If I plant what I think is a tomato seed and it grows into a oak tree, it would be wrong of me to say that the seed was fine but somehow the tomato was corrupted into a tree during its natural growth process. Clearly, I simply mistook the acorn for a tomato seed.

Likewise, that classical liberalism morphed into modern liberalism is not evidence that we must have a cleaner and purer classical liberalism. It is evidence that such a thing is impossible because it is a transitional state.

In modern Catholic parlance, it seems to be a given that any devout Catholic should support such ideas as government assistance of the poor, via healthcare and welfare, and government intervention in moral affairs such as marriage and sexuality.

(Note: My personal philosophy is that abortion and contraception do not fit with libertarianism because they are acts of murder, and thus a clear violation of someone else’s right to life.)

Condoms are an act of murder? This is news to many people.

At any rate, Catholic moral theology requires you to confess belief in certain propositions, including the objective falsehood of divorce and gay “marriage.” If you don’t believe these things, you are dissenting from Catholic moral theology and therefore are not a good Catholic (if we understand “good” to mean “a characteristically excellent example of”).

The problem with libertarianism is that it denies that certain knowledge about these things is possible. The whole principle of “epistemic weakness” says that we must have freedom because no man can have sure knowledge of the good. Clearly, this is false – the Church has such knowledge. You can’t reconcile the two.

(continued below)

 

[sw85]

(continued from above)

Yet, I find myself questioning such apparently commonplace beliefs among faithful Catholics such as the idea that gay marriage should be illegal. Why? Gay marriage, like the millions, if not billions of sins committed daily around the world are not the fault of Catholics but rather the failed morals of other human beings. Thus, we can, in good conscience, ignore such marriages as long as they do not invade the space of our church.

That doesn’t make sense at all. There literally isn’t a single person anywhere in the world who thinks Catholics are responsible for gay marriage. That’s not why we oppose it. We opposite because it’s a grave and scandalous moral evil. Do you deny that it’s a grave and scandalous moral evil? If so, you’re severing yourself from communion with the Catholic Church. If you don’t deny it but think that shouldn’t be an impediment to the state endorsing and mandating the subsidization of it, then you are an accessory to evil and you are severing yourself from communion with the Catholic Church.

In any case, before I descend into a long winded reflection, here is a short list of my beliefs as a libertarian that may be of interest to the readers:
Gay “marriage” may be legal
Forced charity like welfare and Social Security should be illegal
Divorce should be legal
Sodomy and other sinful sex acts like masturbation should be legal (as long as they do not violate another human’s freedom)
Pornography should be legal and unrestricted under the law
Blasphemous movies, comedy shows, and statements about the Church and Christianity should be legal and protected by the government

Most of these propositions are inconsistent with Catholicism. You cannot believe them and remain a Catholic in good standing; denial of the doctrines of the Church is the sin of heresy. Done publicly, the sin of heresy is compounded with the sin of scandal.

Thus the questions arise: Do these beliefs make me (or anyone who follows them) a bad Catholic? Does a convert have to abandon them in order to become a true disciple of the Christ? More nebulously, can anyone truly follow a political philosophy and still strive to be a man of God?

In general, I would like to hear fellow Catholics (and others) weigh in on whether such a philosophy is compatible with church teaching and life.

You should be alarmed by the fact that so few Catholics, now or historically, have believed what you believe. This is evidence that it is flatly incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Most of these propositions are inconsistent with Catholicism. You cannot believe them and remain a Catholic in good standing; denial of the doctrines of the Church is the sin of heresy. Done publicly, the sin of heresy is compounded with the sin of scandal.

Disagree wholeheartedly.

Let’s go through these one by one.

1. Gay “marriage” may be legal

Response: Insofar as a libertarian may believe that no religious authorities have the right to govern unwilling parties, yes. This is compatible with the free will that God gave us.

However, taking a broader perspective on the matter: the most consistent libertarian would not advocate State-sanctioned gay marriage for the simple reason that they would not advocate State-sanctioned straight marriage, either.

1. Forced charity like welfare and Social Security should be illegal

This is a complex matter. By my understanding, Catholic teaching would have us care for the needy and downtrodden. That does not answer the question of how such a goal ought to be accomplished, and the libertarian is well within his rights theologically to disagree with the means by which this is accomplished while still advocating that this goal be served. The libertarian has moral objections to the means by which this is achieved, as he sees them being in conflict with human dignity. If the libertarian is correct that such means are violent and coercive, then there’s not a Catholic in this world that would disagree with his conclusions. If the libertarian is incorrect, then the problem is in his interpretation of the moral nature of the means, but that is a factual matter to be discussed and debated.

Divorce should be legal

Well, if followed to its ultimate conclusions, libertarianism would not allow for State-sanctioned marriage to begin with, thus the question as to whether it would allow for divorce is moot.

Sodomy and other sinful sex acts like masturbation should be legal (as long as they do not violate another human’s freedom)

As opposed to these things being il-legal? What person or party is arguing that these things should be illegal? For what reasons should these things be illegal? Should all sin be “illegal”?

Pornography should be legal and unrestricted under the law

Why should it be illegal?

Blasphemous movies, comedy shows, and statements about the Church and Christianity should be legal and protected by the government

What political party or political philosophy does this person subscribe to whereby sodomy, masturbation, pornography and any media that the Church hierarchy doesn’t agree with should be considered “illegal”? What do you call it, “Catholic Despotism”?

No freedom of speech? No free will? I’m genuinely curious and not looking to disparage, but I have never heard of anything like this before.

You should be alarmed by the fact that so few Catholics, now or historically, have believed what you believe. This is evidence that it is flatly incompatible with Catholicism.

That’s nonsense.

You could probably find a time when few Catholics were morally opposed to slavery, but now you could only find a handful that would endorse it. Same with monarchism. Even today, many (if not most) American Catholics seem to believe that artificial birth control is A-OK. So obviously, this is irrelevant.

It doesn’t really matter what “most” believe, it matters what is consistent with Catholic principles and what is not.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m not an expert on Libertarianism…but I agree with those who I have ran into and the Liberatarian magazine my friend gave me.

I flipped through it and the couple of articles I read went WAY too far with the liberalism.

They seem big on getting government out of regulating nearly everything. From healthcare, to regulations, to pornography during Saturday morning cartoons.

At the very least… their ideas seem wildly naive that society will just magically self-regulate without standards or principles.

I suppose it is naive to think that all people will stop sinning altogether. It doesn’t matter though: just because you can’t be perfect, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to be the best you can. So the criticism that libertarianism is naive just doesn’t mean anything to me.

At least from what I’ve seen. Of course my well-meaning friend tries to down play this by saying “libertarians can’t agree on just about anything”

They do, by and large, agree on much more than most people do!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

1. Gay “marriage” may be legal

Response: Insofar as a libertarian may believe that no religious authorities have the right to govern unwilling parties, yes. This is compatible with the free will that God gave us.

However, taking a broader perspective on the matter: the most consistent libertarian would not advocate State-sanctioned gay marriage for the simple reason that they would not advocate State-sanctioned straight marriage, either.

The part in bold is correct, and highlights the problem. For Libertarians, the State (if one even exists), has nothing to do with upholding Natural Law, the Common Good, etc.

1. Forced charity like welfare and Social Security should be illegal

This is a complex matter. By my understanding, Catholic teaching would have us care for the needy and downtrodden. That does not answer the question of how such a goal ought to be accomplished, and the libertarian is well within his rights theologically to disagree with the means by which this is accomplished while still advocating that this goal be served.

This isn’t so much of a “complex” matter as an oversimplified one. For example, the Church does say the State has a duty to care for the needy, but it also gives certain parameters and goals that the State must work towards imposing. So the Libertarian does not have some sort of “blank check” approach to serving the poor in some general sense.

As opposed to these things being il-legal? What person or party is arguing that these things should be illegal? For what reasons should these things be illegal? Should all sin be “illegal”?

Certain grave sins like sodomy have been illegal in various places and times, and it was illegal in America until relatively recently.

Not all sins should be legislated for two reasons: (1) it’s not humanly possible to legislate every kind of sin, such as lusting in one’s heart, and (2) it’s not feasible in so far as (a) there is limited energy, time, and money such that they State can only focus on what is most serious (e.g. disrespect to parents would be very hard to legislate and prosecute and isn’t as much a threat to society as divorce) and (b) man should freely not do certain sins out of love for God (e.g. respect their parents), not just because of civil punishment.

Why should it be illegal?

Because it degrades women, makes money off of exploitation, ruins morals and values, and thus corrupts society. It has historically been illegal in a lot of places.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: **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.
This is official Catholic teaching.

What political party or political philosophy does this person subscribe to whereby sodomy, masturbation, pornography and any media that the Church hierarchy doesn’t agree with should be considered “illegal”? What do you call it, “Catholic Despotism”?

No freedom of speech? No free will? I’m genuinely curious and not looking to disparage, but I have never heard of anything like this before.

I can understand your shock - but you should be more shocked to realize there were laws against these things even in America for quite a while, because there was a time when legislatures saw these were real dangers to family life and the common good.

It is only “despotism” when one has a warped sense of “freedom,” which many think means being able to do whatever you want, when that’s not the true, historic, or philosophical meaning of “freedom” at all.

It doesn’t really matter what “most” believe, it matters what is consistent with Catholic principles and what is not.

Correct.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The part in bold is correct, and highlights the problem. For Libertarians, the State (if one even exists), has nothing to do with upholding Natural Law, the Common Good, etc.

We would have to define what we mean by “State” and also explain what it would mean for such things to be “upheld.”

If the State is defined as a libertarian might define it, that is: a series of manufactured relationships, whereby murder and extortion (among other things) are given moral sanction, then I would say that I’m not particularly concerned about what the State allegedly is/is not doing to uphold Natural Law or the Common Good. It’s mere existence in such a case would be contrary to both of those things.

I believe you, too, would agree, that if the State was accurately described there, then sodomy is probably at the end of our list of what we should be worried about.

Ultimately, I believe that’s why dismissing libertarianism out of hand is problematic - not because we disagree about certain moral concerns, but because we have a set of clashing interpretations about what is actually occurring in reality.

Consequently, I’m fine with people arguing against libertarianism in a factual manner (saying they disagree with the way libertarians analyze the actions of this ‘State’), but I don’t think it’s correct to say that libertarian values aren’t Catholic values.

With regards to human life, the highest value to a libertarian IS human life, as an end in and of itself and not as a means to other ends. With this, the Church has no disagreement. The Church does not, for example, kill others in order to promote the faith, nor does it do so in order to tend to the needy.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We would have to define what we mean by “State” and also explain what it would mean for such things to be “upheld.”

Here is a quote from Pope Leo XIII speaking on this very issue:Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life-be it family, or civil-with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God.
While this is a generally broad statement, it does have certain important guidelines. As you can see, no specific form of State is demanded by natural law, but for society to promote (a better term than ‘uphold’) the common good, there must be some in authority to help guide this process. This is how the Church interprets Romans 13:1-7.

If the State is defined as a libertarian might define it, that is: a series of manufactured relationships, whereby murder and extortion (among other things) are given moral sanction, then I would say that I’m not particularly concerned about what the State allegedly is/is not doing to uphold Natural Law or the Common Good. It’s mere existence in such a case would be contrary to both of those things.

I am speaking in terms of theory, you are speaking in terms of practice. Before we can judge a system in practice, we must have a theoretical basis established first.
For example, we cannot say that just because kings x,y,z have acted as tyrants that monarchy itself is an invalid form of rule. Same can be said for democracy.

Ironically though, in the ideal Libertarian state, murder and extortion are literally “virtues” (there is no such thing as vice in Libetarianism), and when the citizens perform them they are living the ideal Libertarian lifestyle.

I believe you, too, would agree, that if the State was accurately described there, then sodomy is probably at the end of our list of what we should be worried about.

It would not be at the top of the list, but not necessarily at the end. When grave sins like that are given moral sanction, they have a strong influence on affecting all other aspects of society (e.g. it becomes a very slippery slope into moral degeneracy as a whole). That’s why there is such a strong push to legitimize homosexual acts, because once that is accepted, then there really isn’t any consistent way to oppose any number of other sins.

Ultimately, I believe that’s why dismissing libertarianism out of hand is problematic - not because we disagree about certain moral concerns, but because we have a set of clashing interpretations about what is actually occurring in reality.

The Church is smarter than any political scientist. It does not dismiss anything “out of hand”. What is “occurring in reality” to Secularist though is that there is no such thing as objective right/wrong, no such thing as Natural Law, and even no such thing as God. If that is “reality” for a political scientist, then their theoretical claims are going to lead to disastrous conclusions and consequences.

Consequently, I’m fine with people arguing against libertarianism in a factual manner (saying they disagree with the way libertarians analyze the actions of this ‘State’), but I don’t think it’s correct to say that libertarian values aren’t Catholic values.

There is a wide chasm between Catholic values and libertarian “values”. Some goals do overlap, but in terms of “values” they are very different. For example, Catholicism and Libertarianism are both opposed to a ‘big government’ that controls too much of people’s lives, but Catholicism and Libertarianism have two very different rationale for their opposing that. Catholicism opposes it on the grounds of Natural Law (e.g. subsidiarity), while on the other hand Libertarianism opposes it on the basis of man-made philosophies teaching that true ‘freedom’ means being able to do almost whatever you want and that government ‘naturally gets in the way’ of realizing that ‘freedom’.

With regards to human life, the highest value to a libertarian IS human life, as an end in and of itself and not as a means to other ends. With this, the Church has no disagreement. The Church does not, for example, kill others in order to promote the faith, nor does it do so in order to tend to the needy.

Libertarianism is a utilitarian philosophy, meaning good is strictly a function of usefulness. Thus, the highest value for them is not at all human life in general, but the advancement of the well being of the individual in specific. In Libertarianism, literally nothing is to stand in the way of the individual doing whatever they please. This is why Libertarians have no problem with abortion, child abandonment, pollution, defamation, extortion, etc, etc. Now not all Libertarians would agree with that list, but that’s because they’re not true Libertarians in their heart and instead are following Conscience directed by Natural Law.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I
In any case, before I descend into a long winded reflection, here is a short list of my beliefs as a libertarian that may be of interest to the readers:
Gay “marriage” may be legal
Forced charity like welfare and Social Security should be illegal
Divorce should be legal
Sodomy and other sinful sex acts like masturbation should be legal (as long as they do not violate another human’s freedom)
Pornography should be legal and unrestricted under the law
Blasphemous movies, comedy shows, and statements about the Church and Christianity should be legal and protected by the government
Abortion and contraception should be ILLEGAL because they constitute murder

Thus the questions arise: Do these beliefs make me (or anyone who follows them) a bad Catholic? Does a convert have to abandon them in order to become a true disciple of the Christ? More nebulously, can anyone truly follow a political philosophy and still strive to be a man of God?

In general, I would like to hear fellow Catholics (and others) weigh in on whether such a philosophy is compatible with church teaching and life.

I’ll just go in order from your list:

No it may not. How can it be called something (marriage) when it isn’t that something? Also look at what the USCCB says and other Church related items.

See the Catechism that says it isn’t unjust to pay social security contributions.
I suppose. I’m not sure how to respond to this.
I disagree.
See the Catechism and how the Church supports restrictions to porn and other harmful stuff.
I don’t know about this, but I’m against it personally. Maybe someone else has (name removed by moderator)ut.
I agree, but contraception doesn’t cause murder, but just prevents life, which is still bad.

That’s my take on your list.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I am speaking in terms of theory, you are speaking in terms of practice. Before we can judge a system in practice, we must have a theoretical basis established first.
For example, we cannot say that just because kings x,y,z have acted as tyrants that monarchy itself is an invalid form of rule. Same can be said for democracy.

Yes, but that’s not the issue. To the libertarian, the democratically elected government and the monarch are the same in kind. They may not be the same in degree, but they are the same in kind.

Ironically though, in the ideal Libertarian state, murder and extortion are literally “virtues” (there is no such thing as vice in Libetarianism), and when the citizens perform them they are living the ideal Libertarian lifestyle.

As someone who has studied libertarian thought for going on fourteen years now, I literally have no idea where you’re coming from here. This is a near antithesis to libertarianism that you are describing. Whoever has followed libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion must reject the State precisely because it is a series of relationships which give sanction to murder and extortion. That is fundamental. Fun-da-mental.

You seem to be saying the complete opposite is true, so I would be interested to see where you are hearing such things.

It would not be at the top of the list, but not necessarily at the end. When grave sins like that are given moral sanction, they have a strong influence on affecting all other aspects of society (e.g. it becomes a very slippery slope into moral degeneracy as a whole). That’s why there is such a strong push to legitimize homosexual acts, because once that is accepted, then there really isn’t any consistent way to oppose any number of other sins.

If sanctioning murder and extortion is the price in order to not sanction sodomy, then it is not worth the price.

The Church is smarter than any political scientist. It does not dismiss anything “out of hand”. What is “occurring in reality” to Secularist though is that there is no such thing as objective right/wrong, no such thing as Natural Law, and even no such thing as God. If that is “reality” for a political scientist, then their theoretical claims are going to lead to disastrous conclusions and consequences.

That would be assuming that there are no libertarians who are Catholic. I beg to differ, as I have studied under one myself.

Even still… I’m not teaching philosophy 101 here. I hope this doesn’t come across as rude, but I mean it: if you don’t recognize that a plethora of non-Christians throughout history have been moral realists, then you need to go back and study up on that. It’s true.

There is a wide chasm between Catholic values and libertarian “values”. Some goals do overlap, but in terms of “values” they are very different. For example, Catholicism and Libertarianism are both opposed to a ‘big government’ that controls too much of people’s lives, but Catholicism and Libertarianism have two very different rationale for their opposing that. Catholicism opposes it on the grounds of Natural Law (e.g. subsidiarity), while on the other hand Libertarianism opposes it on the basis of man-made philosophies teaching that true ‘freedom’ means being able to do almost whatever you want and that government ‘naturally gets in the way’ of realizing that ‘freedom’.

This is incorrect.

Libertarianism is a utilitarian philosophy, meaning good is strictly a function of usefulness.

No. In fact, it’s kind of funny that you would say this, given that you’ve been talking about the “common good.” You sound like much more of a utilitarian than the average libertarian is.

Here’s a video that might help. As you can see, this is NOT utilitarian, not even close.

See also: non-aggression principle.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

(Continued - Last post is on previous page, so check that out. I couldn’t fit my post under the maximum word allowance.)

Thus, the highest value for them is not at all human life in general, but the advancement of the well being of the individual in specific.

Again, this is confusing. You talk about the “common good,” you then seem to be chiding libertarianism for its focus on the “individual” and you then decry the philosophy as utilitarian.

But you are being the utilitarian here, much more so than the libertarian is.

The individual is all that exists. It is only the individual that can act upon the world. A group cannot. Thus, all that matters is the individual. Not, the “me” individual, but all individuals. See the video above.

In Libertarianism, literally nothing is to stand in the way of the individual doing whatever they please.

So now you’re a consequentialist? What you’re describing sounds an awful lot like utilitarianism.

Conversely, the libertarian is focused solely on moral action - an action is right or it is wrong. Period. One does not sanction murder so as to theoretically save lives, nor extortion so as to theoretically benefit a group of people.

We can sit here and argue what may or may not happen given X or Y circumstances, but it is irrelevant. The point remains: murder is wrong, extortion is wrong. The libertarian does not do a cost-benefit analysis on this subject, like you are doing here.

This is why Libertarians have no problem with abortion, child abandonment, pollution, defamation, extortion, etc, etc. Now not all Libertarians would agree with that list, but that’s because they’re not true Libertarians in their heart and instead are following Conscience directed by Natural Law.

Perhaps you think you’ve been debating a libertine, and not a libertarian. Big difference.

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

Specific Arguments About Laundry List of Ideals
I would like to clarify a few things about the list of issues which I presented which an earlier poster seemed confused about.

In any case, before I descend into a long winded reflection, here is a short list of my beliefs as a libertarian that may be of interest to the readers:
Gay “marriage” may be legal
Forced charity like welfare and Social Security should be illegal
Divorce should be legal
Sodomy and other sinful sex acts like masturbation should be legal (as long as they do not violate another human’s freedom)
Pornography should be legal and unrestricted under the law
Blasphemous movies, comedy shows, and statements about the Church and Christianity should be legal and protected by the government
Abortion and contraception should be ILLEGAL because they constitute murder

I mention gay marriage because such a false and heretical idea is the poster child of most Catholic political opinion (except perhaps abortion, but in that regard we aren’t in disagreement). Why is it so problematic to allow other people who are clearly not in union with the church to perform false and phony sacraments? All that occurs in a so-called gay marriage is that two men or two women exchange trinkets, say some made up words, and claim that they are bonded forever. They aren’t. They are just children playing dress up. Why should their foolish act of attempting to complete a false sacrament should not be a concern to Catholics? Spiritually, of course, we may be concerned, because they are in a state of deeply grave sin. But the spiritual is the domain of our prayers, our mass intentions, our rosaries, NOT of the government. These marriages cannot and will not occur in the true church, so why is it of Catholic concern that they occur at all? They are not marriages. They may be weddings, but marriage is another matter entirely. Any self respecting Catholic should recognize that.

As for welfare, my issue with such programs from a libertarian point of view is not that money is given to the downtrodden. It’s that money is forcefully taken from one group of people via taxes and given to another. This is an abomination of the role of government.

Divorce. Another poster made an interesting point about the way the state controls marriages which is interesting and which I would like to discuss later. But anyway my point in putting this on the list was to reiterate the fact that false attempts at breaking eternal sacraments that were probably not done properly anyway should not be a concern of Catholics properly married. I have always taken issue with the way the Church recognizes marriages done by non-priests anyway but that’s something for another thread…

Sodomy and masturbation were brought up because for many centuries such acts were illegal. In fact, the author Oscar Wilde was famously jailed for sodomy in Britain and Alan Turing, pioneering mathematician and computer scientist, was forced to undergo and painful hormone treatment for a law outlawing homosexual acts and later committed suicide out of misery. I find it hard to believe a Catholic advocating for mercy on sinners could respect such laws.

Pornography should be allowed because, properly regulated, it does not harm the liberty of anyone. One very interesting point raised by another poster was that pornography is degrading towards women. However, it is the choice of every woman to view such material, and so it is not really disrespectful to them for it simply to exist. As for the female pornography actors, it is usually their choice to act in such vile displays. If they are slaves, then they should be freed and their captors properly charged.

Blasphemous speech about religion and the Church were mentioned because the most fundamental aspect of any society is the freedom of speech, and in some medieval societies making heretical statements was frequently punished by death.

As for abortion and contraception, I believe we are in agreement in that regard.

Definition of Liberty

An oft repeated refutation of Libertarian ideals is that people can’t be allowed to do everything, as that would lead to anarchy, or that total freedom would wreak havoc on society. It is important to remember that the definition of liberty as defined by me and most libertarians is not that freedom is equivalent to LICENCE. Liberty is the freedom to do anything AS LONG AS that thing does not infringe upon the rights and liberties of another person. That is why murder, theft, physical abuse, and slavery are illegal under libertarian ideology and why unrestricted speech (excepting libel and slander for a moment), immoral sex acts, and choice of religion are in the ideal libertarian world.

Wrong Libertarians

I do not speak for all libertarians, nor do they speak for me. That is one of the issues with being in a fairly un-centered and somewhat small and new movement. Which also leads me to address the point made by another poster that LIBERALISM equates with LIBERTARIANISM. The poster is correct in saying that classical liberalism was very similar to modern libertariansim, but his point alludes me. I think the insinuation is that the libertarian ideology is somehow merely a branch of the modern liberal one, but the case is actually quite the opposite. Liberals hijacked their label many years ago to make their rather unfree and wrongful ideas seem more correct and to have greater appeal to the gullible masses. It seems their ploy worked, but in this case, in reverse.

CONTINUED

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

Abortion and Contraception

Someone asked about my view on this topic on the last page, and while I addressed it, I don’t want this thread to become about abortion. The reason my view on both contraception and abortion (that is, that they should be illegal) is valid in libertarianism is that they constitute the death of a potential human life. This is in line with Catholic concerns, so I don’t see it being a big issue in this thread.

More Information/Sources of Information About Catholic Philosophy of Government and Law?

Interestingly, if we were living in some sort of voluntary theocracy ruled by the pope none of this would really be an issue. If everyone in said country chose to live there and was given the choice and resources either to stay there or leave when they became adults, that society could follow every official church teaching and while other libertarians wouldn’t like it, I would be perfectly happy. However, in the United States, we do not have a theocracy. We have a republic, which comes with all the benefits and shortcomings of such a system. We also have a constitution which pretty clearly supports at least several of the points in my thread.

However, for the purposes of this thread and for both my intellectual development and that of the other posters, I would like to know more about some of the ideas put forth by other posters. Several times “natural law” and the “common good” (both concepts I remember from reading the catechism) were brought forward, but I would be interested to hear a more broadly fleshed out argument about how such a society may work.

In like kind, here are some places you can go to learn more about libertarianism:
libertarianism.com/
libertarianism.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
cato.org/
brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html
(Note: not all the views expressed here are necessarily equivalent with mine)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

To the libertarian, the democratically elected government and the monarch are the same in kind.

What do you mean by ‘kind’?..the fact they are governments at all?

As someone who has studied libertarian thought for going on fourteen years now, I literally have no idea where you’re coming from here. This is a near antithesis to libertarianism that you are describing. Whoever has followed libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion must reject the State precisely because it is a series of relationships which give sanction to murder and extortion.

Murray Rothbard, one of the preeminent Libertarian ‘forefathers’ has stated that under a Libertarian scheme, abortion is allowed (since the baby is ‘invading’ the woman’s property) and that feeding your children is purely voluntary since you owe them nothing. This is perfectly logical in a system where all relationships are purely voluntary.

If sanctioning murder and extortion is the price in order to not sanction sodomy, then it is not worth the price.

Sure, because murder is more grave, but arguing that since murder is the greatest danger that nothing else is worth mentioning is obviously not a valid claim.

That would be assuming that there are no libertarians who are Catholic. I beg to differ, as I have studied under one myself.

Unfortunately, Tom Woods has openly rejected Catholic teaching, calling the Popes of the last 150 years ignorant about various subjects relating to economics. That’s material heresy at the very least. So that’s not a good example of a libertarian who is Catholic. Woods (sadly) opts for the philosophy of atheists rather than the wisdom of Christ in His Church. Consider one of many such comments Woods has made: One hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesiastical power, but surely the attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding the entire Catholic world, principles that derive from the popes’ intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics, seems dubious. At the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church’s legitimate teaching office into areas in which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error.
In other words, Woods says ‘damn the Popes, I know better’. Sounds like Luther. He has no hesitancy to say the Popes erred or can be rejected whenever he doesn’t agree wit them, despite the fact many Popes have repeatedly said the Magisterium can indeed make binding pronouncements on economic issues.

This is incorrect.

Could you clarify? What is incorrect?

No. In fact, it’s kind of funny that you would say this, given that you’ve been talking about the “common good.” You sound like much more of a utilitarian than the average libertarian is.

If I had to guess, that’s because you’re reading “common good” in a purely materialistic sense, which isn’t how Catholicism defines it.

Here’s a video that might help. As you can see, this is NOT utilitarian, not even close.

It is thoroughly utilitarian if you know what to look for. The movie spoke of the “marketplace of values” meaning value is only imputed to what you feel is valuable. The principles of that movie make it ok to abort and abandon children because children are naturally ‘violent aggressors’ (as the movie makes clear) after your property. Rather, all relationships are purely voluntary, and what follows from that is that all ‘transactions’ are thus seen as just. For example, lets say a poor widow needs to feed her children and the only way she can get money is prostitution, in Libertarianism, not only is this a very generous and loving act to “employ” this mother by buying her “services”, you need not even pay her more than the ‘fair market price’ (e.g. a few dollars). And since she entered into the transaction “voluntarily,” well then it’s a win-win, and society is a far far better place according to Libertarian logic. She goes away “happy” and you do too. Do you see the problem here? The woman has zero dignity as a human, she is only of value in so far as she is useful to the more powerful (e.g. rich). That’s pure utilitarianism. The same can be said of sweatshops: lets say there are numerous starving children, well you can “graciously employ” them to work 12 hours a day for 50cents a day, and it’s a “win-win”. The children come a few cents closer to being able to buy food, and you walk away with ultra cheap labor and thus maximize profits towards your 6 month vacation.

I’m not picking on you at all, I’m just trying to show you the “Gospel according to Rothbard”.

See also: non-aggression principle.

That principle is only true in so far as it is, by natural law, wrong to use unjust force.
(part 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(2 of 2)

Again, this is confusing. You talk about the “common good,” you then seem to be chiding libertarianism for its focus on the “individual” and you then decry the philosophy as utilitarian.

The common good is the working together both publicly (i.e. the State) and privately (i.e. family and community) towards making sure the temporal and eternal needs of each citizen are met, and this is especially achieved when policies are in place that promote and support the family. In natural law and Catholicism, the family is the basic building block of society; in Libertarianism, the individual is the basic building block of society.

Libertarianism is solely focused on how the individual can get ahead in life, with total disregard to others (both family and neighbor), because all relationships are purely voluntary and only of subjective value until you get tired of them. It is essentially an atheistic Darwinian philosophy of “survival of the fittest” - if you get rich, well it must be because you’re superior, and if you’re poor, it can only be because you’re lazy, stupid, and inferior.

So now you’re a consequentialist?

No. A good end does not justify an evil means.

Conversely, the libertarian is focused solely on moral action - an action is right or it is wrong. Period. One does not sanction murder so as to theoretically save lives, nor extortion so as to theoretically benefit a group of people.

That’s not accurate. There is really no such thing as “morals” (as commonly understood) in Libertarianism. Rather, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is purely a function of unqualified freedom: if something restricts your freedom, its wrong; if it allows you to do whatever you want, it’s right. Abortion is perfeclty sanctioned by true Libertarians because it is to save the life of the mother who is losing resources, and extortion is acceptable as long as the person has no choice but to comply with your demands (e.g. prostitute yourself or starve is not extortion in Libertarianism).

The point remains: murder is wrong, extortion is wrong. The libertarian does not do a cost-benefit analysis on this subject, like you are doing here.

Murder and extortion are wrong, but the Libertarian philosophy has no real means to oppose them since Natural Law doesn’t exist to them.

Perhaps you think you’ve been debating a libertine, and not a libertarian. Big difference.

The difference is in name only. Most folks espousing Libertarianism are not true Libertarians, but rather persons who have not snuffed out their Conscience.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why is it so problematic to allow other people who are clearly not in union with the church to perform false and phony sacraments?

Because God is real, He created all that exists for specific purposes, and cares about what happens on earth, including saving man who is subject to original sin. That’s the bottom line. Every other philosophy says God doesn’t exist, man is not fallen at all, and so let’s do as we please. Life is here, in material, and whatever stops you from satisfying your material lusts is wrong and preventing survival of the fittest. In short, it’s a hybrid of Pelagianism and Darwinianism.

Sin and the ruin of public morals does real harm on many levels, but in the godless philosophies, there are no morals and thus no harm.

Your question, though innocent, is like saying what’s wrong with people dressing up as police officers and pretending to be cops in real life.

It’s that money is forcefully taken from one group of people via taxes and given to another. This is an abomination of the role of government.

Government is part of Natural Law, and part of what is thus rightfully due to government is taxes. This is clear from Romans 13:1-8 as well. So taxation is not intrinsically unjust, it goes towards the functioning of the State.

Divorce.

You need to remember that Natural Law is binding on all, not just Catholics, and marriage is part of Natural Law. Strong marriages are essential for the building up of society, and thus the State should promote and protect it. We all see first hand what no-fault divorce has done to our nation. It has destroyed family life, made many children ruined and destitute.
The illegitimacy rate is 25% for Whites, 50% for Hispanics, and 70% for Blacks. That’s a whole generation of seriously disadvantaged kids who will likely grow up without good education or moral formation and thus will naturally increase crime and welfare.
Libertarianism has zero concern about others or the future.

Sodomy and masturbation were brought up because for many centuries such acts were illegal.

Because they tended towards the ruin of society. They enslave men and bring them down.

Pornography should be allowed because, properly regulated, it does not harm the liberty of anyone.

Jesus Christ is what life is about, the highest calling, not some fictitious “liberty” that is the invention of men. And it certainly harms people, especially the ignorant and desperate women who are tricked into doing it.

One very interesting point raised by another poster was that pornography is degrading towards women. However, it is the choice of every woman to view such material, and so it is not really disrespectful to them for it simply to exist.

It teaches women are mere sex objects for men. The hardest part about talking about these issues is that the Libertarians advocating for it are usually already too hardened in and blinded sin to realize it. Liberty, meaning trampling upon everyone in your path to do whatever makes you feel good, is the highest good in their eyes, not realizing they’re storing up wrath and ruining themselves and their future.

As for the female pornography actors, it is usually their choice to act in such vile displays. If they are slaves, then they should be freed and their captors properly charged.

Myth. Your mother and sister are not in pornography because they are fortunate to have means to sustain them without subjecting themselves to abuse and victimization. A woman subjecting herself to that is in total despair and drugging herself. Ex-‘stars’ will say their experience was one of abuse, stds, rapes, etc.

Blasphemous speech about religion and the Church were mentioned because the most fundamental aspect of any society is the freedom of speech, and in some medieval societies making heretical statements was frequently punished by death.

Yes, because defaming or threatening someone is not a right nor a freedom.

As for abortion and contraception, I believe we are in agreement in that regard.

But this is inconsistent. You should be all for them if those other things are allowed.

Definition of Liberty
An oft repeated refutation of Libertarian ideals is that people can’t be allowed to do everything, as that would lead to anarchy, or that total freedom would wreak havoc on society.

Correct.

It is important to remember that the definition of liberty as defined by me and most libertarians is not that freedom is equivalent to LICENCE.

Technically, it is equivalent. There are no laws in that scheme.

Liberty is the freedom to do anything AS LONG AS that thing does not infringe upon the rights and liberties of another person.

If that “other person” is God, then that definition of liberty is valid (i.e. you are not free to infringe upon God’s rights as creator and law-giver). Otherwise, that definition is purely ad hoc and inconsistent.

That is why murder, theft, physical abuse, and slavery are illegal under libertarian ideology and why unrestricted speech (excepting libel and slander for a moment), immoral sex acts, and choice of religion are in the ideal libertarian world.

This list is purely ad hoc and inconsistent. All those “evils” are acceptable as long as they’re dressed up in valid expressions (e.g. abortion).

I do not speak for all libertarians, nor do they speak for me.

Which should be a red-flag right there. That’s like a Protestant saying they don’t speak for Christianity yet parading around as a Pope.

The poster is correct in saying that classical liberalism was very similar to modern libertariansim, but his point alludes me.

The main point of importance is that the Church and Popes have repeatedly condemned the central principles of those systems.

 

[Reep]

Hey Catholic Dude, great discussion. I don’t think that there is much disagreement here that all of these vices (prostitution, porn, homosexual acts, and others such as drug abuse) are immoral. They are sins. So when you oppose them in the context of libertarianism, I assume you mean that they should be punished by the state, as crimes. Is that correct?

If that is true, how do you answer the Thomist analysis rejecting the criminalization of most vices on the ground that it would make criminals of most people and cause even greater harms? St. Thomas argues that “human law rightly allows some vices, by not repressing them” and with good reason:

[Virtuous conduct] is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like. [ST I-II, Q. 96, Art. 2]

The result of St. Thomas’s teaching is basically the same as the libertarian non-aggression principle: that human law should limit its punishments to acts that hurt other people or their property. He goes on to assert that criminal punishment “belongs to those sins chiefly whereby one’s neighbor is injured.”

St. Thomas also cites God’s own unwillingness to prevent earthly evils, often times because the cure would be worse than the disease:

Human government is derived from the Divine gov-ernment, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” [ST II-II, Q. 10, Art 11.]

Elsewhere, St. Thomas repeats this truth that suppressing vices can lead to greater evils: “[Human law] does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous . . . Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils.” [ST I-II, Q. 96, Art. 2, ad. 2.]

As St. Thomas foresaw (along with St. Augustine), the criminalization of other moral evils–drunkenness, drug abuse, sexual immorality and other vices which are not directly harmful to others or their property–is unjust and results in greater sins.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.