Catholic libertarians like myself have become accustomed to being lectured by priests, bishops and Catholic pundits about the inherent incompatibility of Catholicism and libertarianism. This assertion, whether presented in writing or as a harangue from the pulpit, is generally accompanied by a set of reliably tried-and-true myths about libertarianism that often demonstrates a poor grasp of what libertarianism even is. Of course, one never encounters a wholesale condemnation of Liberalism or Conservatism, mainly because large numbers of American Catholics generally self-identify as one or the other. Given the relatively small number of libertarians among the faithful however, one can safely denounce it, and neither courage nor erudition is required.

The opposition to libertarianism stems from a handful of myths that are circulated among Catholics about libertarianism.

Myth #1: Libertarians are libertines

It is certainly true that some libertarians are libertines, just as some people who profess to be Catholic are libertines as well. There is certainly nothing in the libertarian philosophy that precludes a person from being a libertine. Libertarianism after all, is a political theory only, and is based on the idea that it is immoral, except in cases of self-defense, to engage in violence against other persons. The state, being an organization that maintains a monopoly on the means of coercion, is based on the use of coercion and is thus inherently violent. To the libertarian then, the cases in which states can act morally must be either constrained to a very small number of situations or must be eliminated entirely.

So, libertarians merely argue that it is not moral for states to fine, imprison, kill persecute or otherwise coerce human beings who wish to behave in immoral ways that do not involve physical violence against others. For example, if a person wishes to smoke a joint, it is not moral for the state to persecute such a person since he or she has not done anything violent.

Mind you, there is nothing to prevent a private voluntary organization, such as a family or church or club or business from discouraging or denouncing such behavior in its members of employees. Indeed, libertarianism argues strongly in favor of private organizations like churches and families and businesses being free to demand whatever behavior they wish from their own members and employees.

This situation, of course, is what has predominated historically in Christendom. Drug laws, for example are an invention of the 20th century. Did Christians walk around high on drugs every day prior to the prohibition of marijuana use in the 1930s? Obviously not. Indeed one could argue that drug use is far more prevalent among Christians now than it was before drugs were made illegal. Saint Thomas Aquinas famously spoke against civil governments attempting to outlaw human vice. His contention that "[a]ccordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred," wasn’t a declaration that moral vices like prostitution were morally permissible. It was simply a recognition of the fact that to have the state outlaw a vice was often a cure worse than the disease.

Myth #2: Libertarians hate the poor

Those of us who have been involved in right-wing politics for years have all seen how some people might get this impression. Among Conservative and Republican pundits and activists, who often unconvincingly claim to be in favor of "free markets," one will often hear denunciations of poor people who are presumably lazy, deceptive and foolish. This, apparently, means that poor people and their children "deserve" to be poor.

It is very rare that someone will encounter this attitude with a libertarian who is not just a Conservative pretending to be a libertarian in an attempt to appear more hip.

In fact, a major reason that libertarians are so opposed to state power is that we recognize that the state causes most of the poverty that it later then turns around and claims to be eradicating. The current depression is a perfect example. There are now at least 8-10 million unemployed Americans. The current bust is the result of at least 20 years of economic meddling and wealth destruction encouraged by the government through manipulation of the money supply and through a runaway regulatory state. This has led to the current situation of a stagnant economy and rampant unemployment and underemployment.

As the middle class shrinks and millions descend into poverty, thanks to the state, how can we say that the state’s most vulnerable victims, the poor, "deserve" their present situation?

Libertarians recognize that providing for one’s self and one’s family is a difficult job and that people need to be as free as possible in pursuing those goals. Those people should also have more control of their income and their wealth so that they can provide more fully for their Churches as well. As it is, millions of working Americans give 40-50 percent of their income to fund massive government departments in Washington, DC, endless warfare and the bailouts of billionaires. Meanwhile, the government that we are taxed to fund is causing the poverty we’re told it can fix. The argument that the government is the best way to provide poverty relief is naïve in the extreme. Indeed, when it comes to letting the government be in charge of reducing poverty, one might as well put communists in charge of food production.

Myth #3: Libertarians neglect solidarity

Many libertarian Catholics, like Thomas Woods, have often made the point that libertarian ideals of a just civil government and just economy are well grounded in the subsidiarity principle –the idea that any act of government should be performed at the most local level possible- that has long been favored by Catholic theologians and popes.

Some Catholic pundits, such as Mark Shea, claim that libertarians inflate a concern for subsidiarity at the expense of solidarity. This notion of course, is based on an acceptance of Myths #1 and #2.

This myth can be dispelled in two different ways. First, we can note that libertarianism is not opposed to the success and legality of non-governmental organizations. Secondly, we note that libertarians oppose the organization that has done more to destroy human solidarity than any other organization in human history: the state.

First, there is nothing in libertarianism that makes libertarians opposed to the success and propagation of organizations and bodies on which solidarity is built. These include families, churches, clubs, association, schools, and even labor unions. Libertarians believe that all of these organizations should be free to exist without molestation from the state. For the Catholic libertarian, the most important foundations of society are of course the family and the Church. Under a libertarian regime, these organizations can be freely supported by any person, and he or she may peacefully encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, libertarians oppose the state. It is difficult to image just how exactly pro-state Catholics imagine that the state actually promotes solidarity. Does it promote solidarity by sowing class warfare through the stealing from one class to give to another? Is it the crony capitalism that impoverishes the poor for the sake of billionaires? Do the endless wars promote solidarity? Did the dropping of atomic bombs on women and children help solidarity? How about all the famines caused by governments from Ireland to China? Did the mass murder of priests in Mexico during the twenties promote solidarity?

Some Catholics will say, "You libertarians are too extreme. You want to cut back government too much just because some states have been really awful. If we can just vote in the right people, bad things like that won’t happen." In response I have one question: How has that been working out for you?

Myth #4: Libertarians support liberty only because it is in their self-interest

This one is the most easily disproven. Anyone who has been involved in libertarian activism knows that being a libertarian is not exactly a great career move. It is likely to make one unpopular and, if one is lucky, he will merely be considered to be a harmless eccentric by his co-workers and family members. Often, people are not that charitable. Most libertarians support libertarianism because they think it is the right thing to do, and not because there is some kind of expected material benefit. Very few libertarians expect major libertarian victories in the near future anyway.

Although there are real victories, such as the end of global communism in 1989 and the fact that Keynesian economics is now virtually discredited among everyone except government employees and academic economists, no libertarian actually expects to benefit in any meaningful way from the advance of libertarian ideas in his lifetime. For example, a great libertarian victory would be major cuts in military spending and the ending of the government’s many foreign wars. How that would monetarily benefit any libertarian who advocates for such a turn of events is hardly obvious.

Myth #5: Libertarians want to persecute Christianity

There are no doubt some libertarians who wish to persecute Christians, but if those libertarians actually adhere to libertarian principles of not using government power against people, then we don’t have much to fear from them, now do we?

On the other hand, a strong government is one of the most dangerous weapons in the hands of those who seek to persecute the faith (and also in the hands of those who don’t.)

One need not be a historian to notice that Catholicism in the United States has been persecuted to a much smaller extent than in many countries, including many so-called Catholic countries.

This is due in no small part to (quickly-waning) libertarian traditions in the United States regarding how the state interacts with religions. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment is born from a tradition that comes to us from many lessons learned over the centuries in both Britain and in the American colonies. The colonials had learned that religious majorities tend to persecute religious minorities, and many of the framers of the Constitution came to the conclusion that the best way to promote Christianity was to leave it alone. Many Catholics have bought into the incorrect contention made by leftists that the establishment clause was the work of secularists, and that the separation of Church and state is somehow detrimental to Churches.

On the contrary, the separation of Church and state in America has been one of the greatest obstacles in the path of those who might have sought to persecute Catholics in what, for most of its history, has been a country imbued with anti-Catholicism.

Why is it, for example, that there have never been anti-clerical purges in the United States as there were in Mexico during the twenties? Why have Catholic women and children never been gunned down specifically for their faith as was the case in Spain during the thirties? Why were attempts at outlawing Catholic schools struck down as illegal? The answer is that there is a tradition in America, when it comes to religion, in which it is believed that the state which governs best, governs least. We call that philosophy a libertarian philosophy.

Unfortunately, in our present age of the unlimited state, the old constraints on the state, even in matters of religion, are breaking down at an increasingly rapid pace.

Not helping matters is the fact that there has long been a pro-state element within the Catholic clergy and hierarchy that has been whooping it up for all types of socialism in the name of poverty-relief.

Recently after decades of naïve pro-government boosterism, the bishops finally figured out that a state that is powerful enough to wage total war and to distribute wealth and regulate on a massive scale, is big enough to persecute and prosecute Catholics who refuse to commit sin in the face of government regulations.

Obviously, such a situation would never come to pass under even a militantly secularist libertarian regime since libertarians would never regulate health care. Catholic doctors, pharmacists and hospitals would be free to govern themselves in line with their Catholic faith.

Myth #6: Libertarians are not pro-life

There is no doubt that libertarians are split as to whether or not abortion should be legal. Since this is an open debate among libertarians, there is no "libertarian position" on the legality of abortion, and any claim that libertarians are "pro-abortion" is simply contrary to the facts.

On the other hand, we can note that libertarians are far less bellicose toward babies that are ex utero than are either Conservatives or Liberals. Both look the other way or actively defend horrific injuries to children in the name of "national defense" or "global democracy." Rare is the Conservative or Liberal who will denounce, for example, the firebombing of Japan as a crime against humanity, in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Japanese women, children, toddlers and infants were burned to death horribly, as can be seen here.

The final document issued by the Second Vatican Council, known as Gaudium et Spes states that "[e]very act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."

Conservatives and Liberals routinely defend this sort of violence against civilians in the name of the war on terror or ridding the world of evil or some other unattainable and impractical utopia, yet it is the libertarians who are supposedly anti-Catholic.

The state is not our friend. Many Catholics oppose libertarians because apparently, some Catholics still cling to notions about government that have never been true, but have contended that states are somehow built on consent and virtue and that they do more good than harm. The reality is much different. Even the most uncorrupted and constrained states sow discord among their people, expropriate massive amounts of wealth to dole out to the politically well-connected, wage wars against civilians, suppress dissent, supplant the family and persecute the religious.

Clearly, this institution that is supposed to bring us so many blessings, is not nearly constrained enough.

The state is fundamentally an institution founded on violence. Saint Augustine once famously compared secular rulers to pirates. According to historian Ralph Raico:

In City of God, St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate’s answer was "elegant and excellent."

Alexander sought to bring civilization and enlightenment to the world. Our own government seeks the same. The times are different, but the outcomes are the same.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on January 4, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

6 Myths Catholics Tell About Libertarians

The iconography developing around Obama is actually quite intriguing – not to mention disturbing. As I implied in my Unprecedented Obama Lust post, Obama continues to achieve a nearly mythic status amongst his following. One wonders how long this can possibly last.

Needless to say, a wide variety of pictures are available. Some are of the “counter-obamicon” variety, in other words, a pictorial-satire of the vacuous platitudes of a deceptive administration. Here are some of my favorite pics so far, mostly regarding the Austrian School and its criticisms of Keynesianism and the Fed. Go make something fun and post your link in the comments!

Hans Hermann Hoppe, Austrian Economist

Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman

Henry Hazlitt, Journalist

Lord Keynes, the man who started this mess

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Obamicons

Richard Hughes’s seminal book can be roughly described as exploding the myths in the American national subconscious, but this does not do the book justice. In fact, Hughes says there are elements of each “Myth America Lives By” worth preserving (except the myth of the innocent nation). Through observing the responses of minority voices who were often disenfranchised and oppressed, such as African Americans and Native Americans, we can appreciate how absolutizing the good parts of America’s foundational myths can actually subvert the American creed, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I would certainly agree with this assessment, but in my view Hughes skews some of the issues and does not offer a reasonable solution to the problems at hand. I will explore these notions later, but first let us review the fundamental myths and outgrowths of myths explained in Myths America Lives By.

The “myth of the chosen nation” initially emerged among the Puritans. They believed that God had chosen them to “love brotherly without dissimulation” and to “bear one another’s burdens.” To them, chosenness meant “chosen for the good of the neighbor.” The myth was rooted in the history of the Israelites, who were called out of Egypt to live in covenant relationship with God. Insofar as their practice was consistent with these principles, this understanding was good. But even the Puritans broke with this myth by effectively stealing the property of Native Americans where they settled. (Not all of them did this, of course, we know that some Puritans legitimately purchased the land.) The myth of the chosen nation continued into the founding era and eventually was absolutized into a myth that gave special moral license to those with power to oppress others. (Hughes notes slavery as the key example, I would also say the government itself was responsible for perpetuating the system.) When one believes that chosenness implies responsibility toward others, then peace results. But when it implies receiving license that makes one fundamentally better than others, it becomes dehumanizing.

The “myth of nature’s nation” essentially states that the way things are in America are the way things were meant to be. On some level, it has always been recognized that the political structures of Europe had an effect upon American governance, but a popular belief was that the Founding Fathers had exploited a design directly from nature itself, rooted in the mind of God. Indeed, the American creed maintains that its truth is self-evident, requiring no formal proof. Thomas Paine can thusly say that, “We are brought at once to the point of seeing government begin, as if we had lived in the beginning of time. The real volume, not of history, but of facts, is directly here before us, unmutilated by contrivance, or the errors of tradition.” In other words, this government is exactly the type God intended in the act of creation.

The problems with this myth were quite apparent to African-American slaves, who obviously were not originally included within the “all men” who were “created equal.” Indeed, once this myth becomes ingrained enough, the myth of nature’s nation becomes not a dynamic state of conforming to what nature’s nation should be but rather that whatever we do is legitimized because, of course, we are nature’s nation – it’s the way it was meant to be. Those who adopt this idea, says Carl Becker, “do not know that the ‘man in general’ they are looking for is just their own image, that the principles they are bound to find are the very ones they start out with. That is the trick they play on the dead.”

The “myth of the Christian nation” can mean many things. One could see this as a logical extension when coupled with the myth of nature’s nation. However, many conservative Christians seem to think that the Federal Government itself is founded strictly on Christian principles. Even though there is some basis for this thinking, it belies the fundamental structure of the Constitution, which basically forbids the establishment of a national church through the “separation of church and state.” The purpose of American governance is (or at least was intended to be) that only those actions that are specifically injurious to others should be restricted and criminalized. This is consistent with Christian virtue, but some desire more control from the government over certain activities Christians deem immoral (for example, the Temperance Movement).

There are some inherent problems with the above theory, but the most apparent one should be obvious: If America were truly a Christian nation, how could the institution of slavery survive? This criticism was readily apparent to many black slaves and abolitionists. David Walker, a devout Christian and African-American, once asked, “In the name of the Lord, of what kind can your religion be? Can it be that which was preached by our Lord Jesus Christ from Heaven? I believe you cannot be so wicked as to tell him that his Gospel was that of [racial] discrimination.” I cannot think of a better denouncement of the evil Walker experienced.

The “myth of the millennial nation” suggests that the United States would illuminate the world with truth, justice, goodness, and democratic government, and would thereby usher in a final golden age for all humankind. The origin of this myth, besides Scripture itself, is in the Great Awakening. Many Americans, including prominent minister Jonathan Edwards, believed that the revivals were the beginning of the millennial age foretold in Scripture. Though that millennial vision faded, the Revolution and birth of the United States “fanned the millennial imagination as nothing had before.” Eventually, the absolutizing of the millennial nation led to the doctrine of manifest destiny. In other words, a nation that was a Christian nation, following the God of Scripture faithfully, and nature’s nation, following the natural order of things, would by extension have the right to extend its influence not only by example, but also by force. The Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and the treatment of Native Americans easily displays how the millennial nation myth can go wrong.

Hughes then addresses what I believe to be significant weakness in the book, the mythic dimensions of American capitalism. He paints the industrialization period as nothing short of a tragedy, with the greedy capitalists bearing down upon workers who couldn’t possibly have any other choice but work for meager wages in pathetic conditions. His analysis basically supposes that the four primary myths contribute into the myth that capitalism is rewards the strong in a pseudo-darwinistic fashion and thus oppresses the weak. (But then again he doesn’t quite despise the market entirely, just what he thinks is the laissez-faire market.) While he has a point that certain employers did indeed mistreat people, I think he overstates the case and directs his ire to the wrong culprit. I will elaborate further in future comments.

The “myth of the innocent nation” is the final myth addressed in the book. Basically, it is the convergence of the myth of the Christian nation and the myth of the millennial nation. In other words, since America was a Christian nation and would herald the golden age of humanity, it could do no wrong. Never mind that the United States has been quite the exporter of violence and imperialism most of the twentieth century. I completely agree with Hughes’s conclusion about this myth – it has absolutely no redeeming value. But once again, I think there is a subtle misdirection from the primary culprit.

Myths America Lives By is a very interesting explanation of American history and is quite relevant for American Christendom today. It certainly accomplishes its goal of convincing the reader that these myths are indeed present in the background of American culture, political rhetoric, and public policy. Furthermore, the negative implications of what happens when the myths are absolutized are made abundantly clear. Especially in the case of the innocent nation, there is very little redeeming value in taking these myths too far. However, it is unclear to me exactly how he proposes to fix these problems. A description of how to move beyond the problems these myths cause would have made Hughes’s arguments stronger. Just saying “don’t absolutize the myths” is not enough. However, perhaps I am being too hard on Hughes. Perhaps awareness alone is the primary goal of the book, in which case he does an admirable job.

The fact is, in every case there is a clear culprit who propagates and executes the absolutized myth that subverts the American creed. In every case there is a definite entity that inevitably causes harm because of the extensive reach of its power. This enemy of the American creed is the Federal Government itself. In fact, Hughes could have exploded another myth with very little redeeming value – the myth of democracy itself. For how can one expect human rights to be respected when one can just as easily institute slavery with the stroke of Congress’s pen as abolish it? Ben Franklin was absolutely right, democracy is “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner,” and perhaps even Franklin should have taken himself more seriously in that statement. The myths explored in Hughes’s book explode even more if one seriously considers the idea that national democracy itself is a myth. (An excellent treatment of this subject is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy: The God That Failed.)

I do not think Hughes goes far enough repudiating the chosen nation myth. I would tend to agree with the assessment of Roger Williams, that the Jews were the only chosen nation. Now, the church continues this legacy, not a country. How could a government, an institution that perpetuates its existence through the use of force, ever lay claim to Israel’s legacy? Only by direct command by God or convoluted Scripture interpretation. In my opinion, it would be better to take an extreme Anabaptist approach than to accept the notion that America is chosen by God to be the New Israel.

The myth of nature’s nation is more palatable to me, mainly because I have a great affinity for natural law. I believe it is possible to avoid the trap Carl Becker warns about; reason can rise above and beyond circumstances. The work of Murray Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty (free via Mises.org) is one example, so is Linda and Morris Tannehill’s book The Market for Liberty (free via Mises.org). One could write volumes on the importance – or in some scholars’ views, the non-importance – of natural law, but I have neither the time nor space in this paper to explore this further.

The myth of the Christian nation and millennial nation seem to me to be more easily disposed of once one can no longer look at America as the chosen nation. But there’s more to it than just that. In part, one must realize that the state is not the kingdom of God. Jesus once said “my kingdom is not of this world.” In other words, if one thinks that civil government will usher in the kingdom, he is sorely mistaken. The church is where God has established himself, not on any civil throne. We cannot expect that an institution founded on force will bring forward the kingdom. Quoting Jesus once again: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” (Luke 22: 25,26)

I’m not particularly fond of Hughes’s explanation of what he calls “laissez-faire capitalism.” It almost appears as though he does not desire to discover the root cause of the problem, but rather wants to pass the blame around so we can all drink of it in some egalitarian guilt-fest. To a significant extent, Hughes misrepresents the industrialization period. Thomas DiLorenzo’s How Capitalism Saved America provides a useful account of what actually happened to the working class during the industrialization period. In fact, it turns out that capitalism tended to actually increase the standard of living for factory workers during that time: “Wages did in fact rise steadily in the 19^th century… Between 1860 and 1890, during what economists call the ‘second industrial revolution,’ real wages – that is, wages adjusted for inflation – increased by 50 percent in America.” True, working conditions were poor by today’s standards at times, but they were actually better off than they were before. No one forced people to leave their farms, poorhouses, or the streets. The accumulation of capital, formation of factories, and industrialization allowed those with the desire to work to find new ways to earn a living. Furthermore, capitalism is not the strong preying upon the weak. In reality, it is capitalism that allows those with very little marketable skills to work and to live profitably. Indeed, the most significant problems within the economy occurred only once the state began the march towards interventionism in the market. Industrial regulations has put more people out of work and on the streets than any outsourcing ever has.

As I’ve stated before, Hughes doesn’t hit the source of the problem – the state itself. And because he doesn’t identify the most significant source, there is no significant solution. However, I would say that there is a sure-fire way of ensuring the American creed can be available to all, a solution that deals with the problem from its source – reduce the power of the State. The market can and will work equitably, and with complete economic and political freedom churches can work to improve social issues in ways no government could ever accomplish.

Purchase Myths America Lives By from Amazon.com and support my book buying, reading, and writing habits!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Myths America Lives By” Book Review