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
(05-11-2014, 03:14 AM)ArturoOrtiz Wrote: [ -> ]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

Not even slightly.  In a monarchy, the monarch has the power of compulsion even in one's own personal life.  This is unthinkable in a true libertarian state.  You may have a monarchy that is very libertine, but this is not because there is any common ground between libertarianism and monarchy.  Rather it is because the monarch rarely uses the powers of compulsion granted to him.  Monarchy and libertarianism are fundamentally opposed.
How do Catholics view libertarianism according to what is argued in this video?

I do not have the capacity to view that video. But if you want to understand how Libertarianism or any other economic ideology is viewed by the Catholic Church I recommend studying the papal encyclicals which discuss this issue. Why not start with Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xi...um_en.html

Then Quadragesimo Anno by Pope Pius XI.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x...no_en.html

Then Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...us_en.html

(05-12-2014, 12:49 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 think most of us here are influenced by Aquinas (influenced by Aristotle) who lists Monarchy as the best form of government with the caveat that the ruler acts in the common good (and when the monarch didn't it became the worst form of governance, tyranny).  Likewise Aristocracy that acts for the common good is the second best of government, whereas where they don't, they are the second worst form of government.  And Democracy is the third best and can be the third worst.  Indeed, I think I find it interesting when people talk about the glories of republicanism and democracy and the Greeks, they fail to realize that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were all highly critical of Athenian democracy.  I often have to remind people, Sparta won the war. 

Also, I can picture a scenario where a monarch governs in a libertarian formula.  I mean what does monarchy, a political institution have to do with libertarian thought, which at it's core is more of an economic concept.  You can separate what is useful from each.  I would say most Libertarians do believe that government is a necessary evil. Even Ayn Rand, who held minarchist principles for government, suggested the necessity of a court, police, and military for society.  Not to mention, most governments aren't entirely one or the other. To me a polity, ought to be comprised of different components, a monarch, regional nobility/governors, local democracy, monolithic structures rarely last a generation or two beyond it's foundation (compare the Periclean Democracy of Athens which collapse in 40 years to the dual-monarch, oligarchical-democratic, military state of Sparta that last almost unchanged from the 8th century BC to the 2nd century BC).  

A monarchy does not mean a dictatorship, though I do think monarchs should have some teeth, because in my view the monarch is the summation of the nation and its ideals (a nation chooses whether to succeed or not by the values it embraces), a moral monarch rules a moral people.  The monarch is outside the law yet bound to it, the nation is his/her child and pursues the best course.  He/she is not swayed by political parties, lobbyists, or anything else, though sadly he would still have favorites that would exert too much power that can be detrimental.  Of course, if I were to define all my political and economic ideas here, I am sure I will get a long list of encyclicals to read of why I am wrong.     
(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.

See...I told you!  You just described,................ME!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: (And yes, my wife and I HAVE been pooped on by pigeons!!)
http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/ind...-v-bozell/

The link leads to a summary of the debate over libertarianism and traditionalism that was carried out in the early 60s.

Meyer, who wanted to prove that libertarianism was the best way to promote virtue, sought to show that the freer a man is, the more virtuous are his choices.

Bozell on the other hand argued that due to man's inherent sinfulness due to original sin, he needed all the help he could get from religion, custom, tradition, and yes, law.
Antonius,
I see, thanks, I'll read Aquinas on politics when I get the chance. Yes, Athenian democracy was probably an anomaly in history, but I wouldn't argue from a historical contingency (like, they lose the Pelopponesian war – which was not an easy war on either side; or they didn't last long) that therefore its not good. Besides, if I had to choose I'd probably choose to live in Athens over Sparta.

I consider, following S. Augustine, a good society a society that have a sense of the common good (by the way, that's how he, following Cicero, defines Republic); and I believe an aristocratic society, in the literal sense, is better in so far as it is the best to guide the society in the direction of the Good while not accumulating that much power in only one person.
(05-12-2014, 03:18 AM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2014, 12:49 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 think most of us here are influenced by Aquinas (influenced by Aristotle) who lists Monarchy as the best form of government with the caveat that the ruler acts in the common good (and when the monarch didn't it became the worst form of governance, tyranny).  Likewise Aristocracy that acts for the common good is the second best of government, whereas where they don't, they are the second worst form of government.  And Democracy is the third best and can be the third worst.  Indeed, I think I find it interesting when people talk about the glories of republicanism and democracy and the Greeks, they fail to realize that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were all highly critical of Athenian democracy.  I often have to remind people, Sparta won the war. 

Also, I can picture a scenario where a monarch governs in a libertarian formula.  I mean what does monarchy, a political institution have to do with libertarian thought, which at it's core is more of an economic concept.  You can separate what is useful from each.  I would say most Libertarians do believe that government is a necessary evil. Even Ayn Rand, who held minarchist principles for government, suggested the necessity of a court, police, and military for society.  Not to mention, most governments aren't entirely one or the other. To me a polity, ought to be comprised of different components, a monarch, regional nobility/governors, local democracy, monolithic structures rarely last a generation or two beyond it's foundation (compare the Periclean Democracy of Athens which collapse in 40 years to the dual-monarch, oligarchical-democratic, military state of Sparta that last almost unchanged from the 8th century BC to the 2nd century BC).  

A monarchy does not mean a dictatorship, though I do think monarchs should have some teeth, because in my view the monarch is the summation of the nation and its ideals (a nation chooses whether to succeed or not by the values it embraces), a moral monarch rules a moral people.  The monarch is outside the law yet bound to it, the nation is his/her child and pursues the best course.  He/she is not swayed by political parties, lobbyists, or anything else, though sadly he would still have favorites that would exert too much power that can be detrimental.  Of course, if I were to define all my political and economic ideas here, I am sure I will get a long list of encyclicals to read of why I am wrong.     

Thanks for the concise explenation.

Saint Robert Bellarmine stated that Monarchy in the hands of God is the best form of government. God who is perfection itself would be a perfect monarch. However he states that in the hands of man it is full of defects (which still makes it more practical than other governments). He states that it is great to mix government with the three forms of government that you listed above, elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy

Quote:“Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy.” (Church Doctor, St. Robert Bellarmine, “De Romani Pontificis Ecclesiastica Monarchia,” Bk. I, c. 1)

By the way, I found this very good lecture by Justice Scalia, wherein he thinks about politics and Christianity. The name of the lecture is "Is Capitalism or Socialism More Conducive to Christian Virtue?".

(05-12-2014, 12:58 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2014, 03:14 AM)ArturoOrtiz Wrote: [ -> ]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

Not even slightly.  In a monarchy, the monarch has the power of compulsion even in one's own personal life.  This is unthinkable in a true libertarian state.  You may have a monarchy that is very libertine, but this is not because there is any common ground between libertarianism and monarchy.  Rather it is because the monarch rarely uses the powers of compulsion granted to him.  Monarchy and libertarianism are fundamentally opposed.


There are Constitutional Monarchies. The type of monarchy you're describing - an absolute monarchy -- is not Catholic and never has been. They came about with the rise of Protestantism.

(05-12-2014, 12:37 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Antonius,
I see, thanks, I'll read Aquinas on politics when I get the chance. Yes, Athenian democracy was probably an anomaly in history, but I wouldn't argue from a historical contingency (like, they lose the Pelopponesian war – which was not an easy war on either side; or they didn't last long) that therefore its not good. Besides, if I had to choose I'd probably choose to live in Athens over Sparta.

I consider, following S. Augustine, a good society a society that have a sense of the common good (by the way, that's how he, following Cicero, defines Republic); and I believe an aristocratic society, in the literal sense, is better in so far as it is the best to guide the society in the direction of the Good while not accumulating that much power in only one person.

A good, quick primer on Aquinas' thought would be this book: http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Armchair-T...0664223044

I don't necessarily care for the author writing style (though it keeps it lively) and some of his interpretations of Aquinas, but he does a generally good job of summing Aquinas for the average layman

I hope I did not imply that democracy is bad because Athens lost, and indeed Sparta was no paradise (at least what other Greeks spoke of it, since we have few writings, little archaeological remains from ancient Sparta itself).  I think it is poor form to largely exult one form of governance over another.  Like when I hear some commentators mock the Brits for still having a monarchy, I shudder.  Indeed, I find it also poor in judgement for modern societies to compare their governance to the ancients, for instance Greeks had a different concept of citizenry than we do today (and I believe theirs is the more correct).  It is apples and oranges.  Each society aligns itself to the needs of the situation and the values they embrace, not all societies are equal (in fact not all people are equal), not all countries are the same.  It has different populations, economies, resources, etc.  There is such a modern drive for uniformity (all must have jobs, education, healthcare, soak the rich!, we must all have democracy now!, etc) it borders on madness and ultimately will fail as all democracies (and modern concepts of liberty) ultimately either collapse or become dictatorship.    

I think these would be some good topic for a debate/slugfest on Fisheaters would be the social debates: what is the common good?  what is justice?  what is a well-ordered society?  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9