Libertarians and the Church

[St.BJLabre]

I’m not sure if I am posting this in the right spot or not but o well…

I was wondering what you all thought about the Libertarian philosophy and our Catholic faith. For all of those who aren’t familiar with what Libertarians believe, basically they want the government to not have much of a say in anybody’s life at all. To me this actually sounds like a good thing, until they throw out some crazy ideas like legalizing drugs and prostitution (victimless crimes) and things like that. But, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. While those things are bad, shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the person and not the government to make sure people are living moral lives? Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of people to help out the less fortunate instead of the government forcing it on us? Any thoughts?

 

[steveandersen]

The church isn’t opposed to government. It espouses the principle of subsidiarity, the notion that governmental tasks should be delegated to the level of government as close to the governed as possible/practical. E.g. maritime or aviation issues would logically be handled globally while stop lights and fire protection are local issues.

Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds ok on first reading but the more you think about it it becomes problematic. I’m not sure where it got off base since, like the 17th and 18th century Liberalism that it was derived from (and Catholicism BTW), it rest on the notion of natural law…but somewhere Libertarianism got funky.

I’m no theologian but as I understand it the “every man for himself” principle is fundamentally opposed to the Christian notion that we have an obligation to each other as sisters and brothers.

 

[awfulthings9]

By saying hands-off government, the Libertarians also generally oppose restrictions on abortions and same-sex unions. I like a lot of what they have to say, but for these two reasons, I can’t vote that way.

And actually, I’m tired of voting Republican for certain offices.

And there’s not enough pro-life Democrats.

Sigh.

 

[Lillith]

St.BJLabre:

they throw out some crazy ideas like legalizing drugs and prostitution (victimless crimes) and things like that. But, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. While those things are bad, shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the person and not the government to make sure people are living moral lives? Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of people to help out the less fortunate instead of the government forcing it on us? Any thoughts?

I do not believe there are any “victimless crimes”. Especially when it comes to drug use. If you trace it there would be violence either during the production, during distribution (mafia related or street gang) and drug usage does incite violence in the individual…

About Prostitution. I can understand the thought process that some people follow, and cite Nevada as example. Legalize it and you might have it better under control. However…even in Nevada “illegal prostitution” still occurs. Ironically enough, a good number of street walkers are also victims of drug abuse…prostitution and drug use are like peanut butter and jelly, and the people involved in such activity experience violence often.

I don’t see a victimless crime…rather crime deterents. A nip it in the bud, attack crime at its source mentality. I do not believe this is legislating morality.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I think one can be a Libertarian on many issues consistent w/ the Catholic Faith. However, one can’t adopt the social assistance plank of Libertarianism w/o a more personal commitment to affect social assistance personally. Actually to me has much merit as charity is supposed to be freely given (not thru expropriated fruits of one’s labor) to allow others to see Christ in our efforts (impossible with an atheist government entity). At the same time, there are inalienable rights from our Creator that can only be effectively protected by government (i.e. Life issues). In these issues, Libertarianism falls short.

 

[RobNY]

steveandersen:

Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds ok on first reading but the more you think about it it becomes problematic. I’m not sure where it got off base since, like the 17th and 18th century Liberalism that it was derived from (and Catholicism BTW), it rest on the notion of natural law…but somewhere Libertarianism got funky.

Well, libertarianism is supposedly based on natural law, but I think their idea is much different than ours (that is, the traditional Catholic model). The problem is that they passively assume that human beings have certain basic rights as human beings, and they may even posit that they are ‘endowed by our Creator,’ but they don’t even necessarily even think that is necessary. Since they may not even include the concept of a Creator, or if they do, they may have the concept as a vague Deistic God, they can freely make the break between morality and government.

The other problem is that the theory becomes a bit unhinged when you take it as far as it goes. Basing it first on the Lockean theory of the social compact, where every man assents to his government, this leads eventually to the ridiculous strains of anarcho-capitalism. Note the phrase in our declaration, “deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.” (Note that Locke didn’t actually have a traditional Christian view of original sin.) Basically, goverment by choice, like in the market where you would choose any other agency. This is because they see every individual as having to give consent to his government, and it gets into weird and probably unworkable theories about citizens buying the services of ‘protection agencies,’ which basically provide police and military services to the payer. The problem is… well… did every citizen in America give consent to the government? No. Most were born into it. From what I investigated into libertarianism, I concluded that the logical conclusions of taking it were pushing it ever more towards this anarcho-capitalist model.

Hrm, my thoughts are so confused right now. I’ll come back later and talk.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

St.BJLabre:

I’m not sure if I am posting this in the right spot or not but o well…

I was wondering what you all thought about the Libertarian philosophy and our Catholic faith. For all of those who aren’t familiar with what Libertarians believe, basically they want the government to not have much of a say in anybody’s life at all. To me this actually sounds like a good thing, until they throw out some crazy ideas like legalizing drugs and prostitution (victimless crimes) and things like that. But, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. While those things are bad, shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the person and not the government to make sure people are living moral lives? Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of people to help out the less fortunate instead of the government forcing it on us? Any thoughts?

That’s what I think. And something similar applies to the Churches - if anything, it may be more even difficult to tell where a Church becomes interfering & impertinent, given that it is meant for gravely defective human beings.​

 

[St.BJLabre]

I do not believe there are any “victimless crimes”. Especially when it comes to drug use. If you trace it there would be violence either during the production, during distribution (mafia related or street gang) and drug usage does incite violence in the individual…

I guess I just feel that maybe putting government restrictions on things like drugs, alcohol, and sex might create more problems than it actually solves. Consider this…

Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America’s murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America’s murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What’s more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.

I’m a history major in college right now and the truth is that those statements are right. Crime and murder rates rose dramatically during the prohibition era. I don’t see how today is any different.

 

[St.BJLabre]

I’m no theologian but as I understand it the “every man for himself” principle is fundamentally opposed to the Christian notion that we have an obligation to each other as sisters and brothers.

I just think that individuals should choose weither or not to give to charities and not be forced to by the goverment. That’s not really every man for himself.

 

[manualman]

Seems to me like the definition of a libertarian is one who doesn’t know the difference between freedom and license.

 

[steveandersen]

St.BJLabre:

I just think that individuals should choose weither or not to give to charities and not be forced to by the goverment. That’s not really every man for himself.

I’ve heard that comment a lot or similar ones. My response is:
(a) there are obvious economies of scale and efficiencies gained through centralization. After all the Red Cross and Catholic Charities for example don’t instruct folks to run outside and find the nearest poor person.
By the very nature of poverty and other social problems, those in most need are least likely to personally know some one to help them.

Poverty and natural disasters often clump geographically so that the resources are least where the need it greatest

(B) since (ideally) the political process reflects the popular will what is wrong with part of that will being charity? I mean, God help us, there are plenty of things we do as a group that aren’t really the nicest in the world. If you have a complaint against government actions then “alms to the poor” does sound like the best place to start.

and of course (c)

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.

 

[cynic]

yeah libertarianism makes sense as long as you’re not elderly, working on a low income with an employer who would like to pay you $2 an hour if it weren’t for the minimum wage, if you’re sick and you can’t afford health insurance, or if you can’t afford the full cost of private education for your kids.

If you’re part of the 40% people who are comfortably off and require no external assistance, then libertarianism makes a great deal of sense. It also allows you to moralise about how the poor are poor cause they lack responsbility, or don’t invest their non-existent money…etc.

 

[St.BJLabre]

It also allows you to moralise about how the poor are poor cause they lack responsbility, or don’t invest their non-existent money…etc.

While I understand that some people are poor because of circumstance (like the poor people in the third world). most of (or at least a good chunk of) the poor in the Unites States are poor simply because they don’t do anything. I live in Cincinnati, the poorest part of our city is called Over the Rhine. If you drive through Over the Rhine during the daytime, there are hundreds of people just standing around. Why aren’t they in school or why don’t they have jobs? It isn’t like jobs are impossible to come by. All you have to do is walk into a Wendy’s and they will give you a job. I understand that Wendy’s probably doesn’t pay very well, but I would rather my tax dollars be going to someone who is a least trying rather than someone who is just standing around. I work in a pharmacy and there i a man on Medicaid who drives a Chrysler 300. That is ridiculous, and to tell you the truth, I see a lot of that kind of stuff.

 

[Angainor]

steveandersen:

Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.

Again, the devil took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord you God, and serve him only.’” Matt 4:8-10

Imagine what good Jesus could do if he would have just claimed all the kingdoms of the world for himself. He could quite certianly insure the “social well-being and development of the group itself”. He would be a perfect “arbitrator in the name of the ‘common good’”.

What you are talking about, steveanderson, is the temptation of raw power. O! what good we could accomplish if we only imposed our well-intentioned will on everyone else. This is not God’s plan. Jesus knew that to cease power and to impose his own will on people is to bend the knee to Satan. God himself could snap his fingers and make this a very nice place to live for everybody, but not without suspended his gift to man of freewill.[Sam Gamgee] ‘I wish you’d take his Ring. You’d put things to rights. You’d stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift. you’d make some fold pay for their dirty work.’

‘I would,’ [Galadriel] said. ‘That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!’ JRR Tolkien - The Fellowship of the Ring,