Skip to comments.How Liberalism and Libertarianism Destroyed Liberty
Posted on 11/10/2009 11:55:00 AM PST by B-Chan
The passage of sweeping national health care legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives has set the stage for the greatest intrusion of the State into the everyday lives of the American people in the nation's history. Across the Web, the groans and cries of the free-marketers, capitalists, and libertarians have begun to echo in response. Surprisingly, many of these voices condemn the Catholic Church for its "socialist" commitment to feeding the poor, caring for the sick, and doing the other things Jesus Christ commanded of us. "Without the support of you bleeding-heart Catholics," the refrain goes, "this socialist nightmare could never have passed."
An element of truth exists behind this complaint. A pious Catholic's heart does bleed for the sick, the aged, the destitute, the lame, and the suffering; in this, it mimics the Sacred Heart of our Lord Himself, who gave all He had, including His life, for the sake of the suffering.
But is the Catholic Church "socialist"? Impossible. Socialism is a materialist doctrine with a dialectical and teleological basis that is utterly incompatible with the word and example or our Lord. As such, it has been repudiated specifically in the teaching of the Church, most notably in the encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) of Pope Leo XIII, which states
the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.1But if the Church is not socialist, neither is it capitalist. Capitalism, like socialism, is both philosophically materialist and ethically libertarian -- and libertarian thought (which is just Liberal thought with a different name) is completely in opposition to the teaching of Jesus Christ. Our Lord is not a free marketer, a capitalist, an entrepreneur, or a salesman. As the ultimate altruist and counter-example of rational sef-interest, He stands at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from Rand's Nietzschean superman John Galt. Jesus Christ is a King, not a CEO*, and He commands His servant Church to uphold the Natural Law, which proclaims that every human being is a Child of God -- and as such, is deserving of food, medical care, and the other basic hallmarks of human dignity.
The Church is called upon to provide these social services. The State has no just role in pubic life except to keep the peace, protect the borders, establish justice, and preserve the national patrimony. In a Christian social order, the State officially recognizes the Church's special role in the life of the nation, and protects and support the Church in its provision of social services. This was the pattern of social organization throughout Christendom until the advent of the Lutheran heresy, which proclaimed the cult of individual Liberty and its separation of Church and State.
By destroying the proper relationship between Church and State, the "libertarian" movement invited the State to overstep its ordained bounds and intrude into areas of life within which it has no just business. In a post-Reformation representative republic such as our own, which pretends neutrality in matters of faith, the State cannot fulfill the role of Protector of the Church given to it by God; as a result, over time, popular demand forces the State to assume the provision of social services which in a Christian social order would be provided by the Church.
Human beings have the positive and Divine right to daily bread, health care, and other aspects of human dignity. In his Luciferian quest for individual Liberty, however, Western man has destroyed the Divinely-ordained social order under which the Church provided these goods. As a result, the heavy hand of the State will now intrude into every aspect of public life in its futile attempt to build a just society. Ironically, the worship of individual liberty instigated by the "reformers" of the Church and the secular counterparts of the "enlightenment" has destroyed the liberty under God that individuals once enjoyed as organic parts of the Catholic and medieval social order.
Nationalized health care is a fact. Soon, the power of life and death will rest entirely in the hands of the State. And as the smothering blanket of socialism settles slowly across our land, I invite libertarians to quit their whining. In their quest for freedom from the Church, they destroyed the institutions that kept the State in its proper place. Libertarians made this bed; we are now all going to be forced to sleep in it.
*That was L. Ron Hubbard's gig.
So, do you want a theocracy?
Why are you posting Liberation Theology commie crap on FR?
Strange. They sure as hell respect Muslim and atheist values.
So it’s libertarians fault that the church couldn’t “protect” us from gvt?
I guess the papacy should be supreme over the United States, then, replete with forced conversions for all Proddies and Jews. I mean, it worked so well for the Spanish Empire.
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
-— Ronald Reagan, Reason Magazine, July 1975
So God provides the funding for these goods? How does that work, exactly?
Ya need about... oh, maybe three more paragraphs of padding between these mutually exclusive statements. While that won't actually respect the reader's intelligence, it will at least provide a polite illusion of doing so.
“Moral: A secular state cannot be expected to respect Christian values.”
Moreover, a secular state cannot be expected to respect any value system not determined to benefit the state. That is precisely why our founding fathers but huge constitutional restrictions on the power of the government that was formed.
They did not limit religion, they limited government.
Socialism, not libratarianism, is the cause of our current malaise. It has nothing to do with care of the poor and the sick and everything to do with power and control.
You need to work on your premise as it is flawed.
The problem is liberals claiming to be libertarian, who are nothing more than pinko scum.
True Libertarians believe in freedom from government, freedom of religion and freedom to pursue your own happiness as long as it doesn’t intrude on other people’s lives.
The author is a mouth-breathing idiot. Libertarians had absolutely nothing to do with this bed. Try reading up on what Libertarians think about this monstrosity.
What you (seem to) be advocating would require a new Constitution.
While our fellow FReepers have (rightly) been chopping up what passes for the "logic" of this argument as if it were a sheep dumped into a pirhana tank, this sort of personal insult is rather uncalled for.
Huckabee is that you?
Libertarianism means individual freedom but the individual has total responsibility for his own acts and must be held accountable.
Liberalism means individual freedom, if approved by the govt, but the individual has absolutely no responsibility for his own acts and cannot be held accountable.
Only an utter idiot thinks both are the same.
I want a Catholic monarchy. One won’t appear as the result of positive action, however; the restored Christian society will arise organically after the fall of the current global social order.
Reading for comprehension is obviously not your strong suit.
No they don't, they believe in pot smoking, orgies with underage children, open borders, carrying assault rifles everywhere...
< /S >
Rational analysis sure in the Hell ain't yours.
While that is very true on issues related to foreign affairs and international relations, I'm not so sure the case you make is valid. Libertarians support a return to small(er) government and have opposed ObamaCare or any form of nationalized health care.
OTOH. Sadly, too many libertarians are minarchists and in some cases, outright anarchists. Not something mainstream conservatives and traditionalists find appealing.
"... there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. ~ Ronald Reagan, Reason Magazine Interview, 1975
Through Church-sponsored hospitals, homes, and orphanages.
Such "freedom" is an illusion, and is not a Christian virtue.
Your mom doesn't seem to mind.
150 years of voting the same two parties into power destroyed liberty.
What I am advocating is a return to Western civilization prior to the so-called enlightenment.
I don’t. What are we going to do about that?
It's here that the author reveals himself as ill-informed at best and a deliberate liar at worst.
Modern day liberalism and libertarianism have absolutely nothing in common politically. The author would replace one tyranny with another, with the same results.
Whoever wrote this tripe certainly shouldn't be a member of this forum as he is plainly and squarely against the US Constitution.
Here’s what God has to say about monarchies:
1 Samuel 8
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
The guy is a monarchist. Hardly worth debating him.
To that end, I strongly suggest you on this very topic. I didn't agree with the Archbishop's conclusions but his answers are very telling of how many in the Catholic Church think and believe the role of government should be.
Or better yet, start your own dialogue with Archbishop Chaput on the topic. He reads and responds to his email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Finally, I find it highly ironic that someone on Free Republic is promoting a Catholic monarchy. Our founding fathers, including Catholic Charles Carroll, would not be amused.
I’m not going to do anything. I don’t have to. The positivist and materialist social order created as a result of the “Enlightenment”, which I assume you support, is unsustainable and contrary to the natural order of the universe; it will collapse and fall of its own accord. (It is already collapsing, in case you haven’t noticed.) From this collapse will come chaos, followed by the eventual rise of various ethnic warlords, whose tribes will serve as the nuclei of new nations.
The Catholic Church, which will preserve scientific knowledge and the knowledge of the Natural Law during the coming Collapse as it did during the last Collapse, will ultimately endorse one of these warlords and charge him with the protection of Christians and the establishment of a new Christian social order. This new Charlemagne will become the emperor of a restored West, and under his just rule our civilization will rise from the ashes of its own self-immolation.
Which is paid for how, exactly?
Certainly, there's no point debating him without knowing the premises that go into what passes for his "argument".
For instance, let's revisit this rather astonishing statement:
Our Lord is not a free marketer.In order to even understand where this notion came from, one would need to find and study the version of the Bible in which Jesus told of how the servants who doubled their master's money were cast into the outer darkness. It certainly does not follow from the traditional version, in which the story comes out quite the opposite.
Nail. On. Head.
This is exactly the point I tried to make to Archbishop Chaput back in August. Contrary to popular belief, Catholics are very open to dialogue and this is a hotly debated topic.
You are quite insightful and wise, for an unbeliever. I think I will kill you last.
Please stop. You're giving my church a very bad name.
Freepers do not want a return to feudalism. This country was founded who fled what was left of feudalism and sought to establish a true free republic where individual freedom was paramount and no man was a king. Your arguments are just plain silly.
The remedy, obviously, it to retain strict and clear separation from the state.
There is an odd mutant offshoot of what calls itself “conservatism” that is defeatist at best and quisling at worst, in that it hopes to enlist the enemies of civilization generally into its domestic partisan causes. See for example Neville, er, Dinesh D’Sousa’s latest scribblings and the disdain with which they were deservedly greeted here.
The same way in which it was paid for in the Middle Ages.
(Really, evading the question is -- I won't say "unlike you" because that would be a lie... I won't say "pathetic" because, while true, it would be rude -- so I'll say it's "unimpressive".)
The desire for “a true free republic where individual freedom is paramount and no man is a king” is not part of the patrimony of faith left for us by the Apostles. Instead, we are told “fear God; honor the King” (1 Pet 2:17).
“The same way in which it was paid for in the Middle Ages.”
Rape, pillage, feudalism, plague, conquest, oppression, etc.?
This must be a joke.
Going on a complete tangent here, but I always wondered what a person in Jesus’ day could do to get a 100% capital gain. I suppose you’d have to invest in livestock or something.
Because there is no such thing as a "conservative" Roman Catholic. Not after they've all lined up behind Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical.
Double-talking fascism -- global power over everything in the hands of a few, self-appointed despots.
The problem arises from the fact the papacy has no clue as to the mind renewed by the Holy Spirit or the liberty of a Christian conscience.
At least with the issuance of this duplicitous document Roman Catholic apologists can never maintain Rome believes in freedom or democracy or individual initiative. (Not that it ever did; Rome's always been a mobster unto itself.)
Through all this communistic drivel we have to wonder how William Buckley would have reacted to the pope's treacherous edict. Under the guise of helping the poor Rome seeks to enslave the sweaty masses once again, urging that America give up her sovereignty, defense, courts, social policies, immigration laws, borders and legal system to some "global authority."
Rome has become an enemy to America's very survival.
God willing, all mysticism and tyranny will go the way of the guillotine...unless Ratzinger wants to bring that back, too.
Then move to Spain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.