Catholicism and libertarianism clash over property and the common good | National Catholic Reporter

Catholicism and libertarianism clash over property and the common good | National Catholic Reporter by Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig.  MGB: Mrs. Stoker Bruenig has probably picked the nuttiest libertarian of them all, Murray Rothbard, who speaks as much to attract Southern white voters has he does for the cause of liberty.  His rants tend to border close enough to racism to cross the line, including the one cited.  I am surpised he has not tried to justify people as property in some situations.  That is, in effect, what unfettered Capitalism does - although libertarians will say that if you don't like the boss or the wage, you are free to leave (which is not always the case in a bad economy - like this one).



As for the nature of libertarianism, I covered that yesterday - and it is not as insidious as ESB imagines.  Indeed, it is hardly monolithic.  For example, libertarian socialists are not like Rothbardian (and Ron Paul) libertarians - not at all.  Sometimes, we are not even like ourselves.  Some are out and out anarchists and they want it now.  Other Libertarian Socialists are gradulatists - with anarchy as our goal but also justice.  Human beings are not property - they mutually own everything - esepecially in a libertarian socialist setting, like a cooperative (though probably not a monestary - which is hierarchial or even despotic - depending on the Abbot).  Still, a libertarian society can work with the Church and other institutions to provide alternatives to government - like funding Catholic Charities for adopton services - which the government already does with tax money - we would simply pay Charities directly.  Indeed, a little imagination will show how all social services and education can be non-public - and still funded, but freely (at least as far as who gets funded).



Now, that brings up a point.  Most libertarians don't believe in a sense of obligation - especially if it is a mandatory levy backed up by the violence of the state.  Of course, paying the dinner check is mandatory as well (or paying when you buy food).  Either way, you leave without paying, the force of the state will not only make you pay, but will take your freedom for some amount of time.  Seen this way, dine and dash fiscal policy is not an option.



There is another type of libertarianism (indeed, many more - we are not monolithic - which makes our debates fun and sometimes bloodsport).  That is Geo-libertarianism, with the Geo having two meanings.  One is environmental - that it is concerned with the commons, including pollution and how the proceeds of wealth extraction are shared.  Indeed, they claim that all land is commonly held, cannot be added to (of course, reclamation can - look at how Manhatten was made bigger) and every person owns ever parcel.  The other Geo is George, as in Congressman Henry George, who proposed many things, wrote against how Irish tenants were being treated and chiefly is associated with charging a Land Value Tax on 100% of the value each year.  This would shake loose idle land and fund a citizens dividend for each person. (some people now talk of a global LVT and dividend).  George did not reject private property as much as private land ownership.  For this, he was condemned by the Church - which is ironic given ESB's article.  Otherwise, he would fit pefectly well with the other third way thinkers (like the Kelsonians, who are fairlly libertarian too, and Major Douglas and the libertarian socialists).



My point, which applies to much of this week's articles, is that Libertarianism is not just one thing (like socialism is not one thing).  Instead of cherry picking for libertarian philosophies to disagree with - maybe it is time to see if there are any which are affirming - or which challenge the Church to treat its people like adults when it comes to natural law reasoning. THAT seems to be one of the big fears the hierarchy has over how libertarians role.  They should be afraid, because we have a valid point about human dignity in relation to the Church.  It would be nice if the egalitarian Church, like Millenium and MSW, would resist the urge to attack the economics of some libertarians and listen to why we object to some of what the hierarchy says (indeed, there is a Christian Libertarian group that believes in now law but the Bible and no enforcement but God's justice - a view I do not endorse, but I do endorse the libertarian view of how Christians should think and be governed (and that is not by the hierarchy).