What is the Catholic Church's point of view toward Libertarianism? A number of political leaders possess libertarian points of view and I wonder if it's similar to the church's concern of moral relativism.
Do you know of any resources?
Hmm: I'm not sure that there is any opinion as such on "libertarianism" per se -- as far as the political implications of libertarianism, some things might fall under the purview of ethics, or social justice, say -- such as, the responsibility of the government to protect the poor in society. I guess it depends on what specific positions a libertarian perspective might advocate. I would suspect there are theologically informed and articulate Catholics who fall across the political specturm, including some that could be "libertarian."
One think-tank that comes to mind is the Acton Institute, which seems to be at least classically liberal (which might be libertarian in the more modern usage. I'm no political philosopher):
The Mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.
Others, feel free to share your thoughts!
2 comments:
As I understand it, in spirit libertarianism would share something in common with Catholic social teaching's principle of subsidiarity, which says, put far too simply, that the local community should handle its matters as much as possible, rather than a larger corporate body like the federal government. But libertarianism takes these principles too far in a way that tends to eschew centralized government all together and in ways, which I think would cause it to be of concern according to Church teaching, that may not properly safeguard the common good according to the Catholic understanding of subsidiarity.
Some libertarians would dispute me on this, but this is my impression.
This article, by libertarian economist Walter Block might shed some light:
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/economics_american_bishops.pdf
Studying the subject of Libertarianism, it appears that it favors removing most of government and let the marketplace dictate the needs of society. With diminished government, many are permitted to rely on their own resources and place their personal resources to serve their needs within the community. Marketplace forces dictate what is needed and make individuals invest their money (not government). The principals support "rugged individualism" and "lassie faire" principals.
Many supporters of libertarianism say that the private decision of individuals will determine the community needs based upon their own needs for safety and well-being. It’s all for the common good, but in reality, it then focuses more on the value of the individual.
Supporters of libertarianism would say individuals would unite together to make moral decisions for the common good without government. The decisions for themselves and their self-interest. Issues concerning poverty or medical needs would be done by individuals supporting their moral needs. Others may say it would be cheaper to hire security to keep the poor out of their community and/or protect their assets. In time, individuals and likeminded groups would come to resolutions without government. The goal is to let marketplace forces to challenge individuals to be successful and do so without government assistance. Government assistance creates unbalances in the marketplace, favoring only a few. The marketplace, in libertarian principals, is a balance playing field.
They system may enforce a “survival of the fittest” concept, but libertarians would say individuals would find private ways to help those succeed, via charity or community programs supported by likeminded individuals.
As I understand it, the libertarian model of government only needs judicial system to enforce the laws and a police force to protect the people and their assets from harm/theft. All other decisions are made by marketplace for the benefit of the individual.
Under this system, the individual is valued. If a person isn’t harming anyone else or their assets, they can do almost anything else. From focusing on one’s selfishness and gratification in one extreme to one attempting to develop a strong, moral community at the other extreme. All without the influence of government.
But is a more good society likely to be achieved without a more active government involved? Libertarian principals appears to favor those with more assets (wealth) then those without. It’s likely to reinforce the typically rich/poor conflict. The only benefit to some would be less taxes and less government influence.
- Thus, is the answer no government and let individuals solve the problems?
- Could Catholic Charities (and others) raise enough money to solve all issues in society? - Would only a judicial system and police/military be sufficient for all of society’s needs?
- Would individuals contribute more money to charities to serve needs within their own community if not currently taxed to do so?
- Does the value of the individual and the marketplace counter Catholic teaching?
- How would a lassie fair government create a moral society? Is it realistic? Or is it just as utopian as other forms of government structures?
Some questions on this issue I’m still attempting to understand. I see more problems than solutions. Maybe I’m a cynic. But I see this marketplace focus on the individual more in conflict with church teaching. I’m seeing these libertarian principals creeping into government more and more. Thus causing me to question these concepts.
Maybe I’m wrong. Anyone willing to answer?
Sincerely,
Dogwood.
Post a Comment