Libertarian Catholic

[coco2]

Frankly, I think, more often of late, that Catholics shouldn’t belong to any political party. It seems to me that people are now worshiping political parties, as if it is their religion, particularly if they have no religion. They will fight to the death protecting it. There is something very wrong with this. I think Nancy Pelosi’s comment that the Democratic Party does God’s work (and the Republicans do not) is ludicrous. I’m not sure either party can boast that they strictly do God’s work. I’m becoming more apolitical by the day.

 

[SecretCatholic]

We can be Libertarian-ish.

Ron Paul is Christian and also Libertarian. Thomas Woods is Catholic, and also Libertarian. To be a Libertarian or Libertarianish one does not have to belong to the Libertarian party. In fact, many Libertarians work within the Republican Party (like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Justin Amash).

The reason that I say Libertarian–ish is because our faith and identity as Catholics must always precede everything else. And while a lot of our values align, there are some which may conflict with the faith and those we must be Catholic on, not Libertarian.

Ultimately, all goals not informed and directed by God and the Catholic faith are not going to end in the same place we Catholics do. Some movements will not go far enough and some will deviate slightly or drastically at some point.

The same goes for being Republican or Conservative. Those must be submissive to our Catholicism, not the other way around. Arguably, it used to be that Catholics could even be Democrats, but it seems that that boat has sailed, given the anti-life and anti-religious position they have now taken up.

Still, there is a lot of overlap and I see many Libertarians as allies. Unfortunately, like in all movements some are there for the wrong reasons (they want to do drugs and lead a libertine lifestyle), however many just want liberty from an increasingly hostile political environment which is out to monitor and control everyone.

 

[TMC]

Try reading some Ayn Rand. She had no problem with giving someone else a helping hand. She did say that you should only give what you can reasonably afford and that helping evil people helps evil.Society is merely a collection of individuals. Since it is not a moral agent in and of itself, it has no duties and no rights. Only individuals have rights.

Ayn Rand was an atheist who believed Christian ideals were nonsensical and who derided Christianity as irrational superstition. She thought the very idea that a high value person would sacrifice anything to help a lower value person was absurd. Her values and teachings are inherently incompatible with Christianity.

As to your comments on society and the collective duty we owe (or don’t owe) to others - yours is not an uncommon opinion, but it is not a Catholic one.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

Ayn Rand was an atheist who believed Christian ideals were nonsensical and who derided Christianity as irrational superstition. She thought the very idea that a high value person would sacrifice anything to help a lower value person was absurd. Her values and teachings are inherently incompatible with Christianity.

As to your comments on society and the collective duty we owe (or don’t owe) to others - yours is not an uncommon opinion, but it is not a Catholic one.

Not to derail the thread, but your post reminded me of this Valentine’s Day meme:

neveryetmelted.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RandValentines_large.jpg

 

[starshiptrooper]

Ayn Rand was an atheist who believed Christian ideals were nonsensical and who derided Christianity as irrational superstition.

Irrelevant ad hominem.

She thought the very idea that a high value person would sacrifice anything to help a lower value person was absurd. Her values and teachings are inherently incompatible with Christianity.

Proof that you have never read anything of Rand’s other than a few quotes taken out of context.

As to your comments on society and the collective duty we owe (or don’t owe) to others - yours is not an uncommon opinion, but it is not a Catholic one.

If I did not sign a contract, how can I owe anything? Who assesses the debt? Who has the right to enforce this debt? Your statement is loaded with assumptions.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I just saw where it repeated what I wrote a bunch of times that was not my intention. Last night, my phone was acting like a parrot.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Why would the argument that we don’t enact laws to restrict freedom mean we condone it? In other words, is it not Catholic to say that it isn’t the government’s job to regulate marriage, yet to preach vehemently that marriage is between a man and woman.

Or, at least, that would be the book’s position, I think.

In other words, Catholics also don’t believe that birth control is moral. However, we don’t advocate outlawing condoms, yet do believe we should help to convert people not to use them. Why is, say, gay marriage different?

I’m also not sure why we would be against “free thought”? One should be free to think whatever he wants, as long as he understands the consequences, such as mortal sin if some thoughts are entertained or acted upon. But certainly we shouldn’t have laws restricting thought, right?

You need to look up the definition of free though and free love. They do not mean what you think they do.

 

[TMC]

Irrelevant ad hominem. Proof that you have never read anything of Rand’s other than a few quotes taken out of context.If I did not sign a contract, how can I owe anything? Who assesses the debt? Who has the right to enforce this debt? Your statement is loaded with assumptions.

If you think that your relationship with your fellow humans is regulated by contracts, and only by contracts, then I don’t know how to begin to explain Catholic social teaching to you.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Irrelevant ad hominem. Proof that you have never read anything of Rand’s other than a few quotes taken out of context.

Ayn Rand was publicly anti-Christian (and anti-religion) and made no bones about it. Her ideology is not something a Catholic could subscribe to. That doesn’t mean that she didn’t make some good points which Catholics can also agree on.