6
Myths Catholics Tell About Libertarians

by Ryan McMaken

Recently
by Ryan McMaken: Equality
Before the Law Finally Achieved

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: