Is Libertarianism the only way the Church can be saved?

[CaptFun]

Several decades of the leftist media’s values have shown to be more powerful than catholic principles. The far left media continues to feed the messages of casual sex, drugs, materialism, and violence, until individuals have become more selfish and families are destroyed, weak and dependent. Then, after helping to create the problems, the far left pretends to be heros by giving away other people’s money to help pay for the problems they helped to create, and all “most” people can see is they’re sense of “charity.” If they really cared about charity, they wouldn’t be profiteering by fueling the problems in the first place. Their message of charity is enough to con more voters to vote them into office, which will cause atheistic socialism, which will force the church out of business. The church can see it coming, and this is why they are concerned.

Incisive analysis - if sobering and sad. One point after another well made, nice use of language.

Love you on the radio too Rush!

On a serious note, I agree with pretty much all of this.*

• The post, not the title of the thread. I know too many Libertarians who are not very devout - more dedicated to economic matters. Some are laissez faire folk who would allow abortions since the “Government should stay out of peoples’ business.” I know,
  not all libertarians would consider an abortion mill a “business” - the better ones know its the scene of a ‘natural law’ crime … even if its allowed now in the US.

 

[Contarini]

+1,

It seems most on this forum don’t understand what libertarianism is. It’s a legal philosophy, not a moral one.

False dichotomy.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas made very good arguments for legalizing prostitution and therefore legalizing drugs, etc.

Or civil unions?

I agree that the principle they lay out is a sound one, but applying it to specific instances depends on all kinds of other factors.

For instance, I don’t agree about prostitution because of the harm and degradation of women involved–many prostitutes are, in effect, slaves, and even if they choose to degrade themselves I do not agree that we should simply allow it.

This is where orthodox Christian ethics differs from libertarianism. Augustine and Aquinas do not argue on libertarian grounds. They never suggest that prostitution should be legalized because it’s freely chosen. They suggest rather that it should be legalized because the social evils of making it illegal (given human sinfulness) would be greater than the evils of legalizing it. I disagree with the conclusion–at least in the context of our culture–while agreeing with the principle.

Oh, and I think that libertarians have a good case with regard to marijuana and with regard to the evils caused by the “war on drugs” generally.

But here’s where I think the rubber hits the road for Catholic libertarians: once you start making this argument you have to be willing to apply it in principle to abortion, it seems to me. Under certain circumstances it might be a bad idea to try to stop abortions by legal coercion. That does not constitute a pro-choice position, because it’s not saying that there’s an intrinsic moral right to abortion.

Edwin

 

[JIB]

I think a lot of the evils associated with prostitution (besides the evil itself) is due to the fact it is illegal. So there are other- and I would argue greater- evils due to its prohibition.

All sensible people realize that you can’t make every immoral act illegal for practical purposes. The differences are in degree, not kind. Should we outlaw cursing? Almost nobody says “yes.” Should we outlaw murder. Almost everyone says “yes”. Abortion is no different, and neither is prostitution, drugs, divorce, sodomy, bad haircuts, tattoos, etc. It comes down to whether or not society would benefit from making it illegal. I believe a just society is one based on voluntary associations, not coercion, so I think most things should be legal unless they violate someone’s rights (which opens up another can of worms).

There are certain hypothetical situations in which stopping abortion would be a bad idea. Same goes for murder or rape. I still think abortion should be prohibited.

 

[Bill_7154]

+1,

It seems most on this forum don’t understand what libertarianism is. It’s a legal philosophy, not a moral one.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas made very good arguments for legalizing prostitution and therefore legalizing drugs, etc.

And I believe that someone can believe that something is wrong, be against that action, believe that people who engage in that action(s) will have to answer to God for engaging in that action(s), but so long as the individuals who are engaging in those actions are consenting adults they should not have to be subjected to having someone stick a gun in thier face and take them off to jail for engaging in those actions.

Some of those libertarians may even pray for the individuals who are engaging in those actions, praying that they find other things to do that are more in line with what God and Jesus Christ would have them do…but not want them to be subjected to havng guns stuck in their faces and being taken off to jail, wind up with criminal records which will interfere with their ability to support their families, all paid for with money stolen from other people.

I think it woud be nice, since we are the nation most in debt on the entire planet, to re-focus our limited resources, in this example the police, on actions where one person is harming another person via force or theft and there is an actual complaining victim. Maybe drug use and prostitution should be low down on the list of police agenda, using resources allotted to drug use instead toward catching and preventing rape, murder, armed robberies, child abuse, home invasions, car jackings, and the whole host of other crimes when there is an actual complaining victim.

 

[Bill_7154]

False dichotomy.

Or civil unions?

I agree that the principle they lay out is a sound one, but applying it to specific instances depends on all kinds of other factors.

For instance, I don’t agree about prostitution because of the harm and degradation of women involved–many prostitutes are, in effect, slaves, and even if they choose to degrade themselves I do not agree that we should simply allow it.

This is where orthodox Christian ethics differs from libertarianism. Augustine and Aquinas do not argue on libertarian grounds. They never suggest that prostitution should be legalized because it’s freely chosen. They suggest rather that it should be legalized because the social evils of making it illegal (given human sinfulness) would be greater than the evils of legalizing it. I disagree with the conclusion–at least in the context of our culture–while agreeing with the principle.

Oh, and I think that libertarians have a good case with regard to marijuana and with regard to the evils caused by the “war on drugs” generally.

But here’s where I think the rubber hits the road for Catholic libertarians: once you start making this argument you have to be willing to apply it in principle to abortion, it seems to me. Under certain circumstances it might be a bad idea to try to stop abortions by legal coercion. That does not constitute a pro-choice position, because it’s not saying that there’s an intrinsic moral right to abortion.

Edwin

With abortion there is another human life that is not consenting to the endeavor. With drugs and prostitution is can be argued that all parties involved are being harmed, but they are consenting. It can also be argued that all parties are sick, and therefore may need help.

In my experience the legal system is not helping prostitutes (frequently drug addicts who are only prostitutes because the drugs they are addicted to are illegal and therefore priced to where they can not afford them at a ‘regular’ job), johns, or drug addicts. There are places and people who are able to help them. Putting police in charge (who do have sympathy for prostitutes) who view the people who engage in these behaviors as ‘scumbags’ are less than ideal candidates to ‘help’ them. I suggest that people who view them as sick and in need of help be the ones on the front lines making efforts to help them. People who care about them and do not look down at them. People who can and do treat them with dignity and care about leading them out of that way of life, rather than throwing them in jails and prisons which are like gladiator slave camps where they come out branded and less likely to be able to lead a decent life than when they went in.

Maybe doctors, social workers, therapists, etc would be better people to be on the front lines dealing with poeple who engage in such behaviors. Priests, Catholic Charities, etc…

 

[jeannetherese]

= With drugs and prostitution is can be argued that all parties involved are being harmed, but they are consenting.
.

Having seen the effects upon children of growing up with parents with meth addictions, I hesitate to agree with the “my use of drugs affects only me arguments.” If we start thinking about some of the drugs which are not legal and then think about supervising a small child while using these drugs, or driving a car on the freeway, or performing surgery on a patient while under the influence, we may decide that the effects of drugs are not confined to the individual consuming them.

 

[Bill_7154]

Having seen the effects upon children of growing up with parents with meth addictions, I hesitate to agree with the “my use of drugs affects only me arguments.” If we start thinking about some of the drugs which are not legal and then think about supervising a small child while using these drugs, or driving a car on the freeway, or performing surgery on a patient while under the influence, we may decide that the effects of drugs are not confined to the individual consuming them.

I agree with this fully. And upon further examination we may decide that alcohol causes more family problems on a whole in this society than one or more of those drugs.

And we, if we choose to recognize and look at it as a separate issue, that prohibition adds additional problems to others over and above the use of those drugs, on not only the families acffected, but innocent people not involved or connected to the individuals in any way. We may decide that replacing arrest and jail for those individuals with actual treatment of the sickness that those individuals suffer from that leads them to the use of those drugs is a more helpful way of dealing with the matter on a whole.

Prohibition is the reason that crime and violence happens in the drug world, with drug users, drug sellers, and the innocent non connected individuals they steal from, harm physically in the process, and sometimes murder. If someone robs a liquor store the owner is insured. He calls the police. He is reimbursed for his losses and society pays the police to apprehend and punnish the thief. If someone robs a distributor of a prohibited drug he is not insured. He does not call the police. He is faced with a choice. Use violence as a means of punnishment or close up shop. If he chooses the latter another steps in to take his place. The flow of drugs does not stop.

And even the users who are not addicted, the ones who do not have children, are still subject to arrest and jail. This has ramifications for us all. And they are not good. Nor are they good, I would suggest, for the individual who is arrested and jailed. And following jail, I would suggest, such a person is less likely to be helpful to himself or society upon release. He is now a felon. Felons don’t get hired when they apply for jobs (legal) jobs. Yet they still have bills to pay, mouths to feed. This leads to things like frustration and depression. The types of things that are connected to the sickness that lead the person to use those substances in the first place. So, even if clean from drugs in jail and upon relase, with the stressors they face following release from jail, they are more likely to go back to that substance in an effort to fill the void/numb the pain that they had in the first place that lead them to use the drugs.

Jail does not make people clean from drugs. It does subject non violent people to an enviornment where the murderers live and control the other inmates. Where the murderers are facing life in prison without parole. And if no dealth penalty exists another murder either means nothing to them, or it means increased power and status among the other inmates. So what happens is that those men run the other inmates under the threat of death if they do not comply with their wishes. They get orders to break laws in prison or face death/severe beatings/rapes if they do not hide the murderers drugs, weapons, assault other inmates or guards, smuggle drugs into the prison subjecting their loved ones to cooperating and smuggling the drugs and risking prison themselves.

The costs of such and operation (drug prohibition) is outrageous. And it is not effective. Prohibition CAUSES crime (theft) and violence. The lessons of the era of Al Capone prove that clearly.

So we agree that drug use harms family members and also subjects random people to harm as well.

What we may not agree on is that drug prohibition subjects family members and random people to increased harm over and above the harm faced by the drug use itself. Bars and liquor stores and manufacturors do not murder each other and do not murder the police. Their customers do not murder them. They all like and want the police around their places of business and it increases public safety. During alcohol prohibition the opposite was true.

In fact I have heard that alcohol prohibition made it fashionable for women to drink, the speak easy’s and so forth. Prior to that alcohol was typically a man’s drug. And not only is drug prohibtion so innefective that it can not keep drugs out of the hands of children, it can not even keep drugs out of one single maximum security prison in the entire country. And there has been a so called war against it for 40 years and 2 trillion dollars has been spent waging this war. I would say it is clearly innefective.

So do the law enforcement officers who are members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, www.leap.cc I encourage you to go to that website and click the watch a video link in the top left corner, then click on the video that appears on the left of the screen. Hear what actual law enforcement officers with decades of experience have to say about the impact of the war on drugs towards society.

Ending drug prohibition has nothing to do with addressing the drug problem. What it is about is addressing the crime and violence problem caused by prohibition. Police and jails do not effectively address the drug problem either. We may agree that people in the helping professions have a better chance of doing that.

Children are able to access illegal drugs easier than they are able to access alcohol because it is a prohibited substance, which means that criminals are the ones in charge of distribution. They set their own age limits when hiring and for their customers.

Drug use is a negative thing. I would like to see it systematically reduced over time. I am not seeing that as a result of the drug war. What I have seen is systematic increased crime and violence. In Switzerland, where they began distributing heroin to heroin addicts they not only saw reductions in crime and violence, they also saw increased openness on the part of the addicts to engage in healthier behaviors and treatment. Therefore their families and random strangers lives were also positively impacted.

Police get litterally TONS of calls where the root of the issue is alcohol. Fights, domestic violence, etc, etc. They do not get many calls to break up marijuana parties or domestic violence that stems from marijuana use.

If I had observed a steady decline in the use of drugs over the years since the war on drugs began, I would be open to the possibility that it is a net positive for society. I have not seen this. I would be open to this despite all the murders that happen that otherwise would not happen (i.e. Al Capone and alcohol prohibition).

If you believe that the current policies and practices of the USA are the best way to address the drug problem I would love to hear the arguments to support that belief.

 

[Contarini]

With abortion there is another human life that is not consenting to the endeavor. With drugs and prostitution is can be argued that all parties involved are being harmed, but they are consenting. It can also be argued that all parties are sick, and therefore may need help.

Right. I suppose I should first have said that the big problem I see with Christian libertarianism (particularly Catholic libertarianism) is that the assumption that laws are only about preventing some people from doing things to other people without their consent is incompatible with orthodox Christian social teaching. St. Augustine taught that sinners are not in fact entirely free. Law is about restraining sin in ways that enable a decent common life. It is not just about enabling individual free choice.

The abortion issue is the place where libertarianism of any kind melts down, it seems to me. There’s a fundamental clash there, because preventing one person from harming another requires a radical invasion of the personal space of the first person (the mother) which isn’t really the case anywhere else. So prolife libertarians have to allow for a level of societal intrusion into a person’s life that they’d normally find repellent, while prochoice libertarians have to argue (with what I find to be perverse logic) that the fetus simply can’t be a person because if it were then the mother wouldn’t be fully a person. (This argument seems to have become popular in prochoice circles that are not consistently libertarian, just as forms of economic libertarianism have become popular in “conservative” circles.) The problem is with the identification of personhood with autonomy in the first place. To be human at all is to be dependent on others and interconnected with them. That’s the basic problem of libertarianism as I see it. It’s simply at odds with reality, although its criticism of the modern state is often right on target. (The economic/political ideology I find most congenial is “distributism,” by the way, although many people scoff at it as unrealistic.)

In my experience the legal system is not helping prostitutes (frequently drug addicts who are only prostitutes because the drugs they are addicted to are illegal and therefore priced to where they can not afford them at a ‘regular’ job), johns, or drug addicts. There are places and people who are able to help them. Putting police in charge (who do have sympathy for prostitutes) who view the people who engage in these behaviors as ‘scumbags’ are less than ideal candidates to ‘help’ them. I suggest that people who view them as sick and in need of help be the ones on the front lines making efforts to help them. People who care about them and do not look down at them. People who can and do treat them with dignity and care about leading them out of that way of life, rather than throwing them in jails and prisons which are like gladiator slave camps where they come out branded and less likely to be able to lead a decent life than when they went in.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think a lot of the evils associated with prostitution (besides the evil itself) is due to the fact it is illegal. So there are other- and I would argue greater- evils due to its prohibition.

All sensible people realize that you can’t make every immoral act illegal for practical purposes. The differences are in degree, not kind. Should we outlaw cursing? Almost nobody says “yes.” Should we outlaw murder. Almost everyone says “yes”. Abortion is no different, and neither is prostitution, drugs, divorce, sodomy, bad haircuts, tattoos, etc. It comes down to whether or not society would benefit from making it illegal. I believe a just society is one based on voluntary associations, not coercion, so I think most things should be legal unless they violate someone’s rights (which opens up another can of worms).

There are certain hypothetical situations in which stopping abortion would be a bad idea. Same goes for murder or rape. I still think abortion should be prohibited.

I agree, by the way. I have questions about enforcement, but in principle a decent society needs to make it clear that killing children in the womb is wrong.

Edwin

 

[JIB]

R To be human at all is to be dependent on others and interconnected with them. That’s the basic problem of libertarianism as I see it. It’s simply at odds with reality, although its criticism of the modern state is often right on target. (The economic/political ideology I find most congenial is “distributism,” by the way, although many people scoff at it as unrealistic.)

I don’t know any libertarians that don’t agree that humans aren’t dependent on others and interconnected with them. If that’s your basic problem with libertarianism you have created a straw man. It’s akin to saying the basic problem with communism is all the badgers that will have to be given hats. It’s a total non-sequitor and straw man.

Humans are dependent on others and interconnected with them. This does not have anything to do with the size and scope of the state. Saying a human being has self-ownership is different than claiming humans are autonomous.

 

[ManOnFire]

I don’t know any libertarians that don’t agree that humans aren’t dependent on others and interconnected with them. If that’s your basic problem with libertarianism you have created a straw man. It’s akin to saying the basic problem with communism is all the badgers that will have to be given hats. It’s a total non-sequitor and straw man.

Humans are dependent on others and interconnected with them. This does not have anything to do with the size and scope of the state. Saying a human being has self-ownership is different than claiming humans are autonomous.

I think the issue is the degree of balance of collectivist morality versus collectivist financial redistribution. Most libertarians are frustrated with those who free willingly choose an anything goes morality which then imposes a financial strain on others who had no part in the initial decision.