Christianity and Libertarianism?
#1
How do Catholics view libertarianism according to what is argued in this video?

I don't agree with everything in the video, for example I don't agree with everything that is talked about in the interpretation of Romans 13, but I do think that there are valid points that are brought up in regards to welfare state not being mentioned in the bible. This is also true of what is known as the "modern state" namely a centralized state with a bureaucracy


Reply
#2
Pope Leo XIII condemned no-holds barred free markets in the sense in which it was supported by Adam Smith and Ricardo. I think it's in Rerum Novarum. It seems to me that Catholicism has never been opposed to 'public morality' laws such as pornography censorship or banning the sale of certain drugs.
Reply
#3
(05-10-2014, 09:56 PM)Pacman Wrote: Pope Leo XIII condemned no-holds barred free markets in the sense in which it was supported by Adam Smith and Ricardo. I think it's in Rerum Novarum. It seems to me that Catholicism has never been opposed to 'public morality' laws such as pornography censorship or banning the sale of certain drugs.

It is in Rerum Novarum and I recommend it for reading as it really is a work of art.
Reply
#4
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
Reply
#5
(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.

Reply
#6
(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
Reply
#7
(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

Hans Hermann Hoppe, who wrote a pro-monarchy book, "Democracy: The God that Failed," considers himself a libertarian. His website here:  http://www.hanshoppe.com/

The freer the market, the better -- as a general rule, in my opinion, up to a point, with the obvious laws against fraud and to ensure contracts are honored, blah blah -- and with protectionist laws in place to protect a country's industries when it comes to trade with other countries, the punishing of outsourcing, etc., and with "the public square" being protected from things like porn (zoning, maybe internet opt-ins to access that sort of thing as opposed to its being available by default, etc.). A lot of the problems some people chalk up to "free trade" really aren't free trade issues, as I understand things. The wealth gap we're seeing, for ex., is due to our not protecting our industries as mentioned above, the influx of cheap labor by uncontrolled immigration, things like usury (which I think should be illegal), fractional reserve banking, bogus money, Wall Street gambling, politicians who are bought off and the corporations that bribe them, etc.

The very idea of money being so integral to our political process in the first place is disgusting (it's obscene what's spent on getting people elected. And think about the contrast between what's spent in getting a Senator elected -- and the pay a Senator makes. Something's REALLY fishy there, man, on its very face). A monarchy would be a huge safeguard against the whole class of problems related to corrupt politicians.

Reply
#8
(05-11-2014, 08:40 AM)Vox Clamantis 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

Hans Hermann Hoppe, who wrote a pro-monarchy book, "Democracy: The God that Failed," considers himself a libertarian. His website here:  http://www.hanshoppe.com/

The freer the market, the better -- as a general rule, in my opinion, up to a point, with the obvious laws against fraud and to ensure contracts are honored, blah blah -- and with protectionist laws in place to protect a country's industries when it comes to trade with other countries, the punishing of outsourcing, etc., and with "the public square" being protected from things like porn (zoning, maybe internet opt-ins to access that sort of thing as opposed to its being available by default, etc.). A lot of the problems some people chalk up to "free trade" really aren't free trade issues, as I understand things. The wealth gap we're seeing, for ex., is due to our not protecting our industries as mentioned above, the influx of cheap labor by uncontrolled immigration, things like usury (which I think should be illegal), fractional reserve banking, bogus money, Wall Street gambling, politicians who are bought off and the corporations that bribe them, etc.

The very idea of money being so integral to our political process in the first place is disgusting (it's obscene what's spent on getting people elected. And think about the contrast between what's spent in getting a Senator elected -- and the pay a Senator makes. Something's REALLY fishy there, man, on its very face). A monarchy would be a huge safeguard against the whole class of problems related to corrupt politicians.

But....who gets to pick the monarch?? :grin: 

(Personally, I think I'd be a GREAT one!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:)
Reply
#9
(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.
Reply
#10
In my opinion, the Libertarian ethos is the only realistic way that Christians can hope to fish for the souls of men.

Using the state to mandate morality does not enforce Christianity; rather, it opens government to public whim. When Christians control the moral mandate, it's fine... but once the precedent is set, non-Christians who come in can mandate whatever they want.

The noblest way to respect man's ability to choose spiritual Life or Death is simply to allow him to do it. Constraint by law is not going to impress anyone. Outlawing guns merely allows guns to the outlaws, for if a man is intent on murder, he won't shy away from theft to obtain his murder weapon. Restricting guns merely ruins the freedom of honest people to purchase one for defense. Accidents happen with chairs just as much as with guns. The socialist should wish everyone to live in a padded room and have his food injected intravenously. It's the only way to avoid tragedy, for in the end that's what statism is for: secular utopia.

A Christian Libertarianism would recognize the reality that men are sinners and only grace can change their hearts. Secularists and statists believe the state is benevolent enough to mandate good morals - but there is no Fall, for them. The state can't do it. Laws can't do it. I am all for the legalization of literally everything, because those who want X will do X, and those who don't want X won't do X. Some would say this is a low view of man... I agree, but it is also the highest view. Man needs to be convinced on an individual basis to become Christian. If he is not converted by the preaching and love of Christians, he won't change. Legalize every drug, every sexual aberration, and every single immoral act. When Christians see the public depths of evil to which atheism falls, then they will be galvanized enough to actually care about evangelism.

Man cannot be convinced by the state, only cowed into submission... and then, for a limited amount of time. Wicked men will choose wickedness. I think Christians have fallen into the fallacy: "if I want to legalize something, it means I am for that thing", but it's certainly fallacious. I, for one, am against all recreational drug use, extra-marital sex, and everything evil. I am a pure reactionary in many senses... but I don't see any use in trying to bludgeon people. Only by my life, example, love, and speaking will anyone be turned from evil.

It seems to me that statism relies more on pelagianism than God...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)