FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Christianity and Libertarianism?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To me Libertarianism is the complete opposite of what we need. Liberty is the reason we are in this deplorable mess, if we allow any more liberty in the media....we might as well forgo any hope of reclaiming the secular world in time. The idea that all ideas should be free to be presented is the reason such trash is allowed on TV and consumers consume it en masse. Is it any wonder why pornography is so heavily consumed and is warping people's mindsets on beauty, love and sexuality....thus leading to a societal and demographic breakdown.

Put me on the opposite. I believe in a powerful state that protects her citizens from foreign invaders, as well as from herself. That does not mean that everyone's emails should be hacked and searched or we should have a camera up our rears, but if we think that Libertarianism, which is nothing more than anarchy-light is the solution to a immoral secular statist society, all I can say is be prepared for more statism, for anarchy leads to totalitarianism.
(05-11-2014, 12:48 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 11:58 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]But....who gets to pick the monarch?? :grin: 

(Personally, I think I'd be a GREAT one!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:)

Well I would hope a Pope, but sadly our latest string of popes don't believe in the superiority of Monarchism, despite the fact that Sacred Scripture, Greek Philosophy and Aquinas philosophy...all prove the superiority of Monarchy over Democracy.

?? Why? Where'd that idea come from??

I wouldn't want a Pope acting as monarch over the State (aside from small areas, like the papal states, Vatican City, etc.). That's not what Christ set the job up to be, it isn't traditional, there shouldn't be a conflation of "the City of God" vs "the City of Man" (though the former should inform the latter), it violates subsidiarity, monarchs should live where they rule and the Pope is in Rome and, so, can't know on an intimate basis what the Ugandans and the Kiwis and the folks from Belize need, Bad, bad idea from a lot of angles.
(05-11-2014, 02:18 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]To me Libertarianism is the complete opposite of what we need. Liberty is the reason we are in this deplorable mess, if we allow any more liberty in the media....we might as well forgo any hope of reclaiming the secular world in time. The idea that all ideas should be free to be presented is the reason such trash is allowed on TV and consumers consume it en masse. Is it any wonder why pornography is so heavily consumed and is warping people's mindsets on beauty, love and sexuality....thus leading to a societal and demographic breakdown.

Put me on the opposite. I believe in a powerful state that protects her citizens from foreign invaders, as well as from herself. That does not mean that everyone's emails should be hacked and searched or we should have a camera up our rears, but if we think that Libertarianism, which is nothing more than anarchy-light is the solution to a immoral secular statist society, all I can say is be prepared for more statism, for anarchy leads to totalitarianism.

Most libertarians understand the need for a military. They're not anarchists, for the most part.

The first problem you mentioned, though, is one of a few reasons why I don't consider myself "a libertarian," but, rather, "libertarianish." I'd definifely prefer straight-up libertarianism to what we have now, but that's far from the ideal. I think libertarians in general don't have enough respect for the power and needs of culture.

(05-11-2014, 02:24 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 12:48 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 11:58 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]But....who gets to pick the monarch?? :grin: 

(Personally, I think I'd be a GREAT one!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:)

Well I would hope a Pope, but sadly our latest string of popes don't believe in the superiority of Monarchism, despite the fact that Sacred Scripture, Greek Philosophy and Aquinas philosophy...all prove the superiority of Monarchy over Democracy.

?? Why? Where'd that idea come from??

I wouldn't want a Pope acting as monarch over the State (aside from small areas, like the papal states, Vatican City, etc.). That's not what Christ set the job up to be, it isn't traditional, there shouldn't be a conflation of "the City of God" vs "the City of Man" (though the former should inform the latter), it violates subsidiarity, monarchs should live where they rule and the Pope is in Rome and, so, can't know on an intimate basis what the Ugandans and the Kiwis and the folks from Belize need, Bad, bad idea from a lot of angles.

Vox, the question asked was "who would choose the monarch" I didn't intend the Pope to be monarch for all, but the Pope would select a monarch based on his competency and desire to unite the City of Man with the City of God, through just rule. This would ensure a Catholic God-fearing monarch would rule.

(05-11-2014, 02:27 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 02:18 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]To me Libertarianism is the complete opposite of what we need. Liberty is the reason we are in this deplorable mess, if we allow any more liberty in the media....we might as well forgo any hope of reclaiming the secular world in time. The idea that all ideas should be free to be presented is the reason such trash is allowed on TV and consumers consume it en masse. Is it any wonder why pornography is so heavily consumed and is warping people's mindsets on beauty, love and sexuality....thus leading to a societal and demographic breakdown.

Put me on the opposite. I believe in a powerful state that protects her citizens from foreign invaders, as well as from herself. That does not mean that everyone's emails should be hacked and searched or we should have a camera up our rears, but if we think that Libertarianism, which is nothing more than anarchy-light is the solution to a immoral secular statist society, all I can say is be prepared for more statism, for anarchy leads to totalitarianism.

Most libertarians understand the need for a military. They're not anarchists, for the most part.

The first problem you mentioned, though, is one of a few reasons why I don't consider myself "a libertarian," but, rather, "libertarianish." I'd definifely prefer straight-up libertarianism to what we have now, but that's far from the ideal. I think libertarians in general don't have enough respect for the power and needs of culture.

While most Libertarians would support some form of defense, that does not change from the fact that they prefer a government, that almost never governs. They despise taxation, censorship, labor laws, anti-trust ect.

Essentially a Libertarian paradise is a minimalist lawful society where one can freely pursue the murder of their unborn children, but face punishment for killing their neighbor. Libertarianism is like I said...anarchy-lite. Not full-blown lawlessness, but close to it.
(05-11-2014, 11:58 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]But....who gets to pick the monarch?? :grin: 

(Personally, I think I'd be a GREAT one!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:)

I think we should start with a few standards:  great faith, virtue, very high IQ, looks, charm, charisma, etc. Then the people of each of the United States find 10 couples with at least 1 child each who fit that description.  Then we gather them up into one spot and do things old-school style:  we wait for a sign. I like the idea of gathering them at a place as busy with pigeons as St. Mark's in Venice. Then, the first of the couples to get pooped on by a pigeon would be our new monarchs. It would be a not-so-subtle reminder that this gig isn't about glory; it's serious business LOL

This method would favor folks with more surface area, too. And plump monarchs sound like a good idea.

(05-11-2014, 02:35 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 11:58 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]But....who gets to pick the monarch?? :grin: 

(Personally, I think I'd be a GREAT one!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:)

I think we should start with a few standards:  great faith, virtue, very high IQ, looks, charm, charisma, etc. Then the people of each of the United States find 10 couples with at least 1 child each who fit that description.  Then we gather them up into one spot and do things old-school style:  we wait for a sign. I like the idea of gathering them at a place as busy with pigeons as St. Mark's in Venice. Then, the first of the couples to get pooped on by a pigeon would be our new monarchs. It would be a not-so-subtle reminder that this gig isn't about glory; it's serious business LOL

This method would favor folks with more surface area, too. And plump monarchs sound like a good idea.

which faith? The U.S. isn't a Catholic nation.
(05-11-2014, 02:28 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Vox Clamantis' pid='1244774' dateline='1399832652']
[quote='austenbosten' pid='1244759' dateline='1399826903']
[quote='J Michael' pid='1244755' dateline='1399823917']


Essentially a Libertarian paradise is a minimalist lawful society where one can freely pursue the murder of their unborn children, but face punishment for killing their neighbor. Libertarianism is like I said...anarchy-lite. Not full-blown lawlessness, but close to it.

I don't believe that is a true statement at all. You're describing an Objectativist, not a libertarian.

There are many libertarian (small "l") pro-lifers, myself included.  To be a libertarian simply means that you adhere to the Non-aggression principle (NAP): i.e. that no one has the right to initiate violence.  It's not incompatible with Catholicism, in fact taking it to it's logical end would leave you with nowhere else to go but to Rome.
Latin America would certainly have had a lot more political stability in the nineteenth and twentieth century if they kept the Spanish monarchy. I think in sectarian nations where there is little broad consensus about fundamentals of political legitimacy a monarchy is a good system in conjunction with federalism working on the principle of subsidiarity.
(05-11-2014, 09:37 PM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]Latin America would certainly have had a lot more political stability in the nineteenth and twentieth century if they kept the Spanish monarchy. I think in sectarian nations where there is little broad consensus about fundamentals of political legitimacy a monarchy is a good system in conjunction with federalism working on the principle of subsidiarity.

Sadly Spain didn't even keep their monarchy.
(05-11-2014, 03:14 AM)ArturoOrtiz Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 02:27 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 12:13 AM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]I think that libertarian-ism probably has more in common with satanism than Catholicism.

There was even a thread on the John Galt - Anton LaVey, Church of Satan connection here recently.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...517.0.html

That was about Objectivism, not libertarianism. Some libertarians are Objectivists, but not all are.

I don't think a totally "unfettered" market is the answer, but one that is almost unfettered would be nice. I'm a monarchist, but given the reality of things now and the unlikelihood of that ever happening, a system that looks libertarinish is the best I can think of.

I consider myself a monarchist as well. However do you think it is possible to be both a monarchist and a libertarian? I mean do you think it is possible to create somewhat of a Libertarian Monarchism? I think this might not be a bad combination. In other words having a free market system but a monarchy at the same time


I've heard that Tolkien was a anarcho-monarchist.  :)


Its funny seeing that many monarchists. Why is that? Is there something particular in monarchies that Catholics like?
I consider myself monarchist too, but mainly because of the particularities of where I live, in Brazil. In the time of the Empire the high culture flourished, and because turning it into a Republic was mainly a vanity thing for the people involved. Its been a downward trajectory since then (its even a shame to compare such an erudite king like Dom Pedro II with the politicians of today). I do believe that a aristocratic class is always necessary to guide society (otherwise we get the guide from bad people), but that does not necessarily implies a monarchy; besides I think ideally this aristocracy should be based more on virtues.
But I must admit I find beautiful the pride that the Romans took with the Republic, and the tragedy of a Cato does appeal to me.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9