Question of political conscience [USA]

[ronnette]

Pro-life and social-justice issues considered, is it necessarily a sin for me to remain Libertarian?

 

[glide625]

That’s a difficult question which I’ve had to ask myself. Others may be able to fill in some of the blanks here, but I learned yesterday of the fact that apparently the United States Conference of Bishops had put out some “guidelines” in the form of questions regarding how to qualify a candidate and decide whether he or she is worthy of our support. I went there to try to find this but haven’t been able to find anything yet. You might want to check out catholicnews.com/ for some guidance.

As for myself, I’ve toyed with the idea of supporting the Libertarians but simply couldn’t bring myself to do so and for the very reasons you outlined, i.e. their pro-abortion stance and lack of attention to social justice issues. I’ll try today to find that thread that discussed this issue.

 

[dafalax]

There are Libertarians for Life who see abortion as the denial of life to children, which violates the basic principles of Libertarianism. However i think Libertarianism is dangerous in that it isn’t a strong enough position to defend traditional marriage from. There are some moral issues that we, as a nation, must take a stand on or they will lead to our eventual demise. Conservatism is a stronger position morally, although all it means is your candidate’s name is more well-known (buncha spineless money-grubbin’ . . .).

 

[strngrnrth]

There are Libertarians for Life who see abortion as the denial of life to children, which violates the basic principles of Libertarianism. However i think Libertarianism is dangerous in that it isn’t a strong enough position to defend traditional marriage from. There are some moral issues that we, as a nation, must take a stand on or they will lead to our eventual demise. Conservatism is a stronger position morally, although all it means is your candidate’s name is more well-known (buncha spineless money-grubbin’ . . .).

A case could be made that redefining marriage could be a sort of fraud. I’m mulling that idea over. I consider myself a libertarian. I believe so far that the government should define marriage the traditional way but not prevent people from living with anyone they want.after all, a lot of people of whatever sexes who share quarters aren’t romantically involved. They’re just saving on rent. It’s none of the government’s business what private persons are up to in private. But if Jane and Jen say, “We’re married.” The gov’thas a right to say, “No, you are not, by definition.” That isn’t coercion. It’s as if the gov’t said, “No, a wombat isn’t your family cat.” It’s a question of definition.
As to abortion, I am a prolife libertarian. We oppose first-strike force and fraud. A baby is a person. He or she has a right to protection from the first-strike force of murder. That’s why abortion is wrong.
I recently discussed libertarianism with a liberal writer, who held up the end of slavery and the end of segregation as shining examples of liberal gov’t intervention. I disagree. Governments made slavery and segregation happen. The gov’t mandated the latter and subsidized and enforced the former. The federal gov’t exists for just three closely related purposes. One is to prevent invasion. One is to prevent tyranny by state/local gov’ts. The last is to prevent first-strike force and fraud within our borders. In the case of slavery, the states AND the federal gov’t, for a very long time, actually enforced the extreme of force by returning slaves to their captivity. In the case of segregation, states forced poverty and cultural death on their whole populations by forcing people to restrict their business and personal contacts. That was tyranny, and the purpose of the federal gov’t was served when they stepped in and killed segregation. The south blossomed when its people became free.

 

[scottm]

Pro-life and social-justice issues considered, is it necessarily a sin for me to remain Libertarian?

Ah, but if it’s wrong for you to put on blinders, and NOT look at the full scope of political issues, then your question wouldn’t matter.

So then, are you sure that you’re looking at all the political issues that you need to look at? I have already wrestled with the the Libertarian Party, and I’m not convinced that a narrow scope is proper.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Pro-life and social-justice issues considered, is it necessarily a sin for me to remain Libertarian?

Libertarians are, as a matter of principle, generally pro-choice on everything (including abortion), so YES. To be fair, there is a small contingent of libertarians who view life in the womb as having rights, but they’re about a rare as a truly pro-life Republican.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Libertarians are, as a matter of principle, generally pro-choice on everything (including abortion), so YES. To be fair, there is a small contingent of libertarians who view life in the womb as having rights, but they’re about a rare as a truly pro-life Republican.

Which is why I cannot understand Libertarianism. Clearly, the concept of Human Rights is essential to Libertarianism. And equally clearly, the Right to Life is the fundamental, basic Human Right.

If we fail to uphold the Right to Life of every living human being, then the whole concept of Human Rights – and of Libertarianism – collapses.

 

[scottm]

Which is why I cannot understand Libertarianism. Clearly, the concept of Human Rights is essential to Libertarianism. And equally clearly, the Right to Life is the fundamental, basic Human Right.

If we fail to uphold the Right to Life of every living human being, then the whole concept of Human Rights – and of Libertarianism – collapses.

True, but the Libertarian doesn’t ask, “Should my neighbor get an abortion?” The Libertarian asks, “Should the government make the decision as to whether my neighbor should get an abortion?”

It’s a very different question, and a very important question. I can be pro-life in terms of whether I think my neighbhor should get an abortion, meaning that I think she should not do it, and simultaneously be pro-choice in terms of whether I think the government should make the decision, meaning that I don’t think the government should be involved in the decision at all.

There is no conflict there because the issue as phrased by the Libertarian is not one of morality. The issue is that of the scope of government involvement in your life. In this way a person could truly be both a Libertarian and a Christian.

This takes us back to post #5 above – I’m not convinced that Ronnette is looking at everything that needs to be looked at.

 

[vern_humphrey]

True, but the Libertarian doesn’t ask, “Should my neighbor get an abortion?” The Libertarian asks, “Should the government make the decision as to whether my neighbor should get an abortion?”

Does the Libertarian ask the question, “Should the government make the decision as to whether my neighbor should kill his wife?”

Does the Libertarian ask the question, “Should the government make the decision as to whether my neighbor should kill his his neighbor on the other side – or me?”

It’s a very different question, and a very important question. I can be pro-life in terms of whether I think my neighbhor should get an abortion, meaning that I think she should not do it, and simultaneously be pro-choice in terms of whether I think the government should make the decision, meaning that I don’t think the government should be involved in the decision at all.

No, it’s not. The moment you entertain the concept that the government has the duty to protect anyone’s life, you must accept that it (and we) have the duty to protect everyone’s life.

There is no conflict there because the issue as phrased by the Libertarian is not one of morality. The issue is that of the scope of government involvement in your life. In this way a person could truly be both a Libertarian and a Christian.

In order to pose it as you suggest, the Libertarian must reject the concept that murder can be considered a crime.

 

[ronnette]

I’m not convinced that Ronnette is looking at everything that needs to be looked at.

That would be because I haven’t told you my thoughts on the matter; rather, I am soliciting those of others.

Keep discussing it amongst yourselves. I’m watching.

 

[scottm]

No, it’s not. The moment you entertain the concept that the government has the duty to protect anyone’s life, you must accept that it (and we) have the duty to protect everyone’s life.

I like how you’re thinking. Keep it up. I hope you extend this to the right to bear arms. If the government is supposed to protect that person’s life over there, then certainly the government is supposed to also protect my right to protect myself. I think the one follows from the other.

I don’t think we’re in a position to even talk about protecting people who are not walking on my sidewalk, until we’ve agreed to protect the people who are walking on my sidewalk. Nobody questions whether that guy walking into Starbucks is a “person.” If he doesn’t have a civil right to protect himself from bodily harm, then there’s no way at all that we can say the infant still in a womb has a right to protection.

 

[ChiRho]

Pro-life and social-justice issues considered, is it necessarily a sin for me to remain Libertarian?

Not at all. Libertarianism is the ultimate social justice philosophy. based on the idea that all aide should be voluntary (i.e not stolen), an strong tradition of charity, free markets which deliver better goods to more people and eliminate poverty, respecting property rights, recognizing the right to life, and ultimately that the human being has fundamental rights which no government can take away. We answer to God.

Libertarianism/paleoconservatism is the tradition of the United States, and we gravely need to return to our roots.

 

[mozart-250]

Libertarians are, as a matter of principle, generally pro-choice on everything (including abortion), so YES. To be fair, there is a small contingent of libertarians who view life in the womb as having rights, but they’re about a rare as a truly pro-life Republican.

Not true.

Ron Paul, current pro-life presidential candidate, was a former Libertarian party presidential candidate in 1988 or so.

I guess I am pro-life Libertarian (with a small “L” meaning that there are some issues I disagree with on that prevent me from being a full-blooded one).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Not at all. Libertarianism is the ultimate social justice philosophy. based on the idea that all aide should be voluntary (i.e not stolen), an strong tradition of charity, free markets which deliver better goods to more people and eliminate poverty, respecting property rights, recognizing the right to life, and ultimately that the human being has fundamental rights which no government can take away. We answer to God.

Libertarianism/paleoconservatism is the tradition of the United States, and we gravely need to return to our roots.

Er, not so much for a Catholic:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The bolded paragraphs are absolutely contrary to libertarianism and Republicanism once stripped of its façade of morality (which is exactly that, a mere façade).

 

[mozart-250]

Pro-life and social-justice issues considered, is it necessarily a sin for me to remain Libertarian?

No.

From what I would understand of Catholicism it would only be a sin if membership in a political party would mean violating an “essential”. That would be only possible if the said political party prohibited its members from holding this essential.

Since the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarion parties in the United States all have pro-life factions, it is possible to identify with any political party and not compromise an essential.

Therefore, everythin you read pro and con Libertarian in this thread remains the personal opinion of said poster.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not at all. Libertarianism is the ultimate social justice philosophy. based on the idea that all aide should be voluntary (i.e not stolen), an strong tradition of charity, free markets which deliver better goods to more people and eliminate poverty, respecting property rights, recognizing the right to life, and ultimately that the human being has fundamental rights which no government can take away. We answer to God.

Libertarianism/paleoconservatism is the tradition of the United States, and we gravely need to return to our roots.

The right to life is the most fundamental of human rights – without the right to live, how can one have any other rights?

Nor can it be said that “society” or the government deterimines who gets the right to life, or when, or under what circumstances they get it – because if that is true, then it is not a right at all, but merely a privilige. And what society can grant, society can withhold – so Blacks, Jews, Catholics could be deemed to never get the “privilige of life.”

Inherent in the right to life is the right to self-defense. And that includes the right to possess and bear the means of effective self defense.

We all have a right to life, from the moment of conception to our natural deaths. Who denies that, denies the concept of human rights. We all have a right to both self defense and the means of effective self defense.

 

[ChiRho]

Er, not so much for a Catholic:

The bolded paragraphs are absolutely contrary to libertarianism and Republicanism once stripped of its façade of morality (which is exactly that, a mere façade).

well, the Church theorized on free market economics (Woods, the Church and the Market), so that wouldn’t make sense. Where is this from, and is it dogma?

This is sometimes the result of what happens when the Church speaks on economics and doesn’t realize capitalism is the most moral and non-coercive form of economic planning.

Also, all this quote says you’re not going to allow a company to hire someone for a job without letting them know the risks if the task is dangerous, etc. If it is referring to wages, that is contrary to the Catholic tradition ( see book by Woods), and is in effect socialism.

 

[ChiRho]

The right to life is the most fundamental of human rights – without the right to live, how can one have any other rights?

I agree with all of this. Our rights come from our Creator. You must be mistaking me for a big L libertarian, there are plenty of Old Right people politically who are quite pro-life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree with all of this. Our rights come from our Creator. You must be mistaking me for a big L libertarian, there are plenty of Old Right people politically who are quite pro-life.

I haven’t ascribed any political position to you – I try to avoid the all-too-common practice of telling others what they think.

I merely point out that being “pro-choice” is diametrically opposed to the basic philosophy of liberalism, since it denies a whole class of people any rights at all.

 

[ChiRho]

I merely point out that being “pro-choice” is diametrically opposed to the basic philosophy of liberalism, since it denies a whole class of people any rights at all.

Quite true! More people need to realize this.