Voting for Liberty vs Conservatism

[katholikos12]

I am a libertarian. I vote for freedom: socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

But this view on voting would have me voting yes for things like legalization of drugs and same-sex marriage.

My conundrum, is that i think those things are wrong, but I feel wrong about voting in a manner that tells someone what they can and cannot do with their lives/body w/e (does not include abortion the baby is a separate human being – just fyi).

Is the right thing to do to allow people to do what they wish to themselves? I feel like this is how God lets us live our lives. OR is the right thing to do to vote for the things that i believe to be true? But then am I essentially forcing my beliefs on others by voting that they cannot do what I believe is wrong?

Thoughts on this?

 

[1ke]

i suggest that you study more on what the Church teaches regarding authentic freedom.

People mistakenly believe that freedom means the ability to do whatever one wants. This is false. Freedom is freedom to operate within God’s Law, freedom to do good.

Objective truth exists and you are responsible to it. Authentic freedom does not include voting for “freedom” to do evil.

 

[katholikos12]

Who are we to say what people can and cannot do?

If God lets us do whatever we want, follow Him or do w/e we want apart from Him, then who are we to tell others they cannot do one thing or the other?

By what authority do we cast a vote saying “you cannot [insert w/e] smoke weed, etc”?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Who are we to say what people can and cannot do?

If God lets us do whatever we want, follow Him or do w/e we want apart from Him, then who are we to tell others they cannot do one thing or the other?

By what authority do we cast a vote saying “you cannot [insert w/e] smoke weed, etc”?

Social looseness is called libertine.

 

[katholikos12]

I understand that.

I’m not advocating it for me. I’m not advocating it for anyone!

I’m saying by what moral right do we have the authority to prevent another from living that way.

Obviously when someone’s freedom of lifestyle affects another person negatively then regulation of that freedom is required. But if it does not affect others, can we morally say they cannot do it?

 

[Colorad007]

Who are we to say what people can and cannot do?

If God lets us do whatever we want, follow Him or do w/e we want apart from Him, then who are we to tell others they cannot do one thing or the other?

By what authority do we cast a vote saying “you cannot [insert w/e] smoke weed, etc”?

Frankly, I never understood why same-sex marriage is, in any way, a libertarian position. Creating a massive new government program–one that happens, by the way, to uproot a foundational societal institution–is libertarian?

The reality is that, as a Catholic, you have an obligation to pursue the common good in all things, and that includes matters of public policy. Not every matter of morality should be legislated by society. I have no interest in stoning people for having premarital sex, for example. I think that promoting abstinence education is great, but I wouldn’t necessarily make it a stoning-worthy offense. That’s an extreme example, of course, but hopefully you get the point. Catholics shouldn’t try to legislate into law the entire Catechism, but there are some things that we must tirelessly fight. Marriage is quite clearly one of them, as it human life.

As far as drug reform, I’m in Colorado, and I voted ‘no’ on our legalization initiative. I can understand the compelling arguments in favor of legalization, but the impact that marijuana has one lives, young people, and communities is too great to support making that stuff more widely available.

 

[Colorad007]

I’m not advocating it for me. I’m not advocating it for anyone!

I’m saying by what moral right do we have the authority to prevent another from living that way.

Think of society as a living, breathing organism, of which you are part. What right do you have to prevent another from living sinfully? As part of that living organism, you have a right, and also a responsibility, to make sure that that organism of society is as healthy as you can make it. It’s facile to think that, hey, a couple of gays getting married doesn’t affect my marriage. But you ought to know that it certainly affects the societal institution of marriage. You have a duty to protect that institution, because it affects your society.

The Catholic view of public life is definitively not “to each his or her own,” or, worse, “every man for himself.” We have a responsibility to use public policy in a way that promotes the common good. So why not hand out welfare checks to all? Because it doesn’t work, but rather breeds dependency, right? IN public policy you ought to pursue the good to whatever end possible, but that is in no way a license to socialism, precisely because we know that, while the Church is absolutely right on abortion, marriage, drugs, etc., the socialists are aboslutely wrong on stuff like welfare.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Colorad007, same-sex marriage tends to not be a real libertarian issue. Their emphasis is more so on not wanting governmental interference in the lives of consenting adults, legislating morality, and to the more extreme position of not wanting a government say in marriage at all.

As for the libertarian view on minor drugs like pot, it tends to be based on a not wanting government interference and the absurdness of the governmental monstrosity such laws create. Not to mention the exorbitant and ridiculous amount wasted an an effective war. Legalizing pot, or more precisely decriminalizing it, doesn’t increase availability, accessibility, or usage.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Some people say that the Libertarian ideology in the U.S. today is the closest thing to the philosophy held by the American Founding Fathers and put by them in the U.S. Constitution.

Some people say that one reason for the wide and growing popularity of the Libertarian ideology in the U.S. today is the fact it is seen by Americans as a return to the Founders’ way, to get back to the original interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Since we are Americans, when in search of a philosophy for life and for government, it can seem very logical to look back to the men who created this American nation.

The pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church say that we should be Catholics first, above any commitment to nation, party, or even self.

George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest, were not the Founding Fathers of the Catholic Church. None of the leading American Founding Fathers were Catholic. Most were not even conventional Christians of any kind. The anti-Catholic Freemasonry movement was a huge influence on many of the leading American Founders. Many acquired their wealth off the sweat and groans of slaves who backs were frequently made bloody by the whip of the overseer.

Jesus and his 12 apostles, and St. Paul, and their successors in apostolic succession, are the “founding fathers” that Catholics look to for ultimate guidance.

To me, it’s all about an ultimate choice: the American Founders or the Catholic Founders.

We all have the freedom to choose either way in this matter. But if we choose wrongly, nothing will free us of our regrets over having chosen wrongly.

God bless you. God bless us all.

 

[sw85]

My conundrum, is that i think those things are wrong, but I feel wrong about voting in a manner that tells someone what they can and cannot do with their lives/body w/e (does not include abortion the baby is a separate human being – just fyi).

In other words, you recognize there are limits on what we can and cannot do with our bodies. So appealing to “freedom” all the time isn’t particularly helpful, is it? After all, you’re only “free” to do something if it falls within whatever limits we’ve defined for freedom, so clearly, defining the proper limits of freedom is a higher priority here.

Problem: why do you disagree with the Church in this way? Because you are operating from a different conception of the good. Namely, you assign a higher value to freedom than they do and assign a different meaning/valence to it, as well. This, too, is a problem. The “freedom” the Church talks about is not the civil liberty to act without consequences. The “freedom” the Church talks about is that which arises from human free will. But that freedom existed even medieval times. Ontologically, people are *always *free in the meaningful, moral sense, and as no one is talking about the government handing out traumatic brain injuries, “freedom” is therefore not really relevant to the question of same sex marriage or whatever other issues might be troubling you, because people will still be free to sodomize one another or whatever even in a state that formally forbids and punishes it.

Another problem: I said a moment ago that you are operating from a different conception of the good than is the Church. But the Church just is the custodian of the one true understanding of good, revealed by Him who is Goodness Itself. So perhaps you ought to reevaluate your priorities.

 

[katholikos12]

In other words, you recognize there are limits on what we can and cannot do with our bodies. So appealing to “freedom” all the time isn’t particularly helpful, is it? After all, you’re only “free” to do something if it falls within whatever limits we’ve defined for freedom, so clearly, defining the proper limits of freedom is a higher priority here.

Problem: why do you disagree with the Church in this way? Because you are operating from a different conception of the good. Namely, you assign a higher value to freedom than they do and assign a different meaning/valence to it, as well. This, too, is a problem. The “freedom” the Church talks about is not the civil liberty to act without consequences. The “freedom” the Church talks about is that which arises from human free will. But that freedom existed even medieval times. Ontologically, people are *always *free in the meaningful, moral sense, and as no one is talking about the government handing out traumatic brain injuries, “freedom” is therefore not really relevant to the question of same sex marriage or whatever other issues might be troubling you, because people will still be free to sodomize one another or whatever even in a state that formally forbids and punishes it.

Another problem: I said a moment ago that you are operating from a different conception of the good than is the Church. But the Church just is the custodian of the one true understanding of good, revealed by Him who is Goodness Itself. So perhaps you ought to reevaluate your priorities.

Allow me to clear something up.

I have only recently come to the Church, and technically still haven’t. My first RCIA class will be this Sunday, although I have been researching Catholicism for some time now.

I have always voted for individual liberty even if I personally do not agree with it. But after my researching found that Christ’s authority extends to the Church through Peter, and hence to the Pope via apostolic succession, I subsequently read that Catholics are supposed to vote along church values not their own.

I then felt a guilt about this as in the recent election I voted for legal marijuana. But I only recognized (literally and figuratively) the authority of the Church after the election (early/mid december). I will from now on vote along CC values, but I’m just trying to find ammunition against my former beliefs. Although I have accepted this in my mind and future actions, my heart is still in a tussle about this.

My entire social group and family is libertarian fundamentalist Christians, so forgive me if I need some reasons why I’m suddenly changing everything I believed in.

 

[sw85]

Ahh, OK. Just to be clear, though, I don’t think the Church requires you to have any particular opinion re: marijuana. This falls pretty safely under the realm of prudence.

Actually, much of libertarianism does. You can be a prudential libertarian, just not a deontological one. For example, you can believe that we ought to abolish the income tax because it’s not an effective way of managing the economy or funding the government’s legitimate operations, because it’s prudentially a bad idea. You can even oppose it on the grounds that, in practice, it winds up violating the legitimate rights of people. That’s also prudential. You cannot oppose it on the grounds that taxation is an unjust evil in principle. The same is true for much else.

 

[edwest2]

I am a libertarian. I vote for freedom: socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

But this view on voting would have me voting yes for things like legalization of drugs and same-sex marriage.

My conundrum, is that i think those things are wrong, but I feel wrong about voting in a manner that tells someone what they can and cannot do with their lives/body w/e (does not include abortion the baby is a separate human being – just fyi).

Is the right thing to do to allow people to do what they wish to themselves? I feel like this is how God lets us live our lives. OR is the right thing to do to vote for the things that i believe to be true? But then am I essentially forcing my beliefs on others by voting that they cannot do what I believe is wrong?

Thoughts on this?

Here’s the thing. Everyone walking into the voting booth has what they want at the top of their agenda. So why single out Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, non-theists or anyone else?

There is faith which comes from God and teachings that come directly from Divine Revelation (like Who is Jesus Christ?), but the Catholic Church does not only offer its teachings for examination and observance by the faithful but to all men of good will.

All issues subject to vote have people who want it or people opposed to it. Some matters are simple, like “Should a 1.5 mil increase in taxes go to libraries in [your city]?” And people still put up road signs on the grass: “Support our libraries! Vote Yes!” Why? To keep the public aware or to tell the unaware who don’t know it’s going to be on the ballot.

Then, in order to be responsible citizens, we need to do our best to find out what is true and what is not. Too often, we are passive and let the media present their side of the story, but it’s true that there are liberal and conservative media sources. If we are going to take our vote seriously, then we need to find good sources of data. That means research, especially on “hot button” issues.

1. Legalizing marijuana. First of all, there is no other legal drug that is smoked. Second, the effects of smoking apply to marijuana as well, and addiction can occur, along with other health problems.

Right now, people can buy and smoke as much marijuana as they want. Who’s stopping them? Don’t be fooled into thinking otherwise. But they want it to be legal. Does voting no mean that you’re forcing them to stop what they’re already doing? No. They can still buy the same dope from their same local dope dealer, so how are you forcing them to do anything? They’re not going to stop, and I think other people need to wake up and realize that.

1. Same-sex marriage. Gay people are doing whatever they want right now. Who’s stopping them? So what liberty do they need? I don’t care if half my neighbors are gay couples. So what are you denying them? Are they going to stop doing what they’re doing or living how they’re living? No.

If you read Church teaching carefully, it’s not just “because God said so.” The Church draws its teaching from natural human biology as well.

Man + Man
Woman + Woman
Man + Woman = equals the only way we’re going to get the next generation of human beings.

Will that stop gay people from living how they want? Of course not.

I’d be glad to provide references to Church documents and articles that faithfully and accurately explain Church teaching.

What is liberty? Liberty is not legalizing what harms the mind, body and spirit. Being a good person means being concerned for others. I have a friend who lost two of his brothers to illegal drugs. Should he have said, “I can’t stop you. Do what you want?” He did everything he could to help them.

We believe we’re part of the human family, and even a stranger is our neighbor. We can be radical individualists if we want, but are we here just to say, “Hey man, whatever turns you on.” and go on with our lives as if no one else matters or exists?

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

George Washington, 1796

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mulligan2]

I am a libertarian. I vote for freedom: socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Excellent!

I think more and more people view themselves this way. Reason, logic, intuition, and personal experience tend to draw people to libertarianism.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

OP-

What does the Church teach in regards to our duties and responsibilities for society?

 

[john78]

OP-

What does the Church teach in regards to our duties and responsibilities for society?

wouldn’t following Christ be just that answer to obligation to our " duties and responsibilities for society", and thus our freedom as well. ?

To consume and live what Christ taught us in the present really gives us the answers we need, is it not just up to us to accept the answers Christ has given us . Or do we choose to ignore it an claim something else. To pretend that Christ really did not answer our most hardest questions but merely gave us some " nice ways to live ".

It is a real challenge even to this very day to follow Christ and accept the answers He has given us.

 

[St_Francis]

I am a libertarian. I vote for freedom: socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

But this view on voting would have me voting yes for things like legalization of drugs and same-sex marriage.

My conundrum, is that i think those things are wrong, but I feel wrong about voting in a manner that tells someone what they can and cannot do with their lives/body w/e (does not include abortion the baby is a separate human being – just fyi).

Is the right thing to do to allow people to do what they wish to themselves? I feel like this is how God lets us live our lives. OR is the right thing to do to vote for the things that i believe to be true? But then am I essentially forcing my beliefs on others by voting that they cannot do what I believe is wrong?

Thoughts on this?

I also saw your later post that you are planning to enter the Church–welcome

So, you want to know on what basis we can legitimately support the government’s prohibition on various acts which some deem victimless?

1. Some acts are so evil in and of themselves that they should be forbidden by law. Under this would fall abortion.

Now, this is not a religious position but a natural law position. Even atheists who understand the scientific facts and are not swayed by emotionalism can see that abortion is wrong and should have laws against it, just as we have laws against murdering people who are already born.

1. Some activities are bad for the fabric of society. Marriage is simply a private affair but forms to basis of any society, providing the future of that society. (I have to admit that I personally think that marriage in the US has been terribly degraded by things like artificial birth control (abc), no-fault divorce, welfare regs which used to require single-ness of the mother, etc. What we have now should be a wake-up call encouraging all of us to reassess where we are and if this is a good place to be rather than continuing down this same terrible road.)

There are some things which the government can or even should tolerate. It would be insane to make every single lie a crime, wouldn’t it? The Church advocates tolerance of these sinful acts because to outlaw them would cause too great a disruption to the social order or peace. This is a tricky area which is in the realm of prudence; ie, what should be tolerated varies in different situations.

Hope this helps and is not too much of a treatise!

 

[Kevin_B]

I an a libertarian as well.

It is fairly easy to be a libertarian catholic, really. How? Because the church has no authority to tell you how to vote. None. They are only infallible in matters of faith. So they can tell us whether homosexual marriages are immoral, but they cannot tell us whether or not we must vote against them or not.

Of course, the Church THINKS they have this authority, but then again, at one time they thought they had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth. They do not.

They only have the authority to determine matters of faith, not politics or science. Don’t let them tell you they have more power than they really do.

 

[katholikos12]

I an a libertarian as well.

It is fairly easy to be a libertarian catholic, really. How? Because the church has no authority to tell you how to vote. None. They are only infallible in matters of faith. So they can tell us whether homosexual marriages are immoral, but they cannot tell us whether or not we must vote against them or not.

Of course, the Church THINKS they have this authority, but then again, at one time they thought they had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth. They do not.

They only have the authority to determine matters of faith, not politics or science. Don’t let them tell you they have more power than they really do.

Thank you for this!

I feel a conviction recently to vote my morals and along Church beliefs as closely as possible.

I have a long time before I voting comes around again so much prayer will be devoted until then.

 

[St_Francis]

I an a libertarian as well.

It is fairly easy to be a libertarian catholic, really. How? Because the church has no authority to tell you how to vote. None. They are only infallible in matters of faith. So they can tell us whether homosexual marriages are immoral, but they cannot tell us whether or not we must vote against them or not.

Of course, the Church THINKS they have this authority, but then again, at one time they thought they had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth. They do not.

They only have the authority to determine matters of faith, not politics or science. Don’t let them tell you they have more power than they really do.

The Church is infallible on matters of faith ***and morals. ***You admit that you reject the Church’s stance on some moral issues, and here you seem to say that you reject anything the Church has to say about anything beyond the Creed itself.

It’s one thing when a person picks and choses which of God’s revelation he will accept, but don’t be spreading it to others. Christ Himself said that those who lead others astray should have a millstone around their necks and be thrown into the sea.

It is true that the Church will not tell us for whom to vote, but will nevertheless give moral guidance as how to make that decision.