- Oct 31, 2008
- 20,398
- 12,089
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I was watching a podcast the other day and the guest (surprise surprise, Fenwick's talking about Eric Sammons again) was brought on to discuss his article that was published on June 28th. In it he discussed libertarianism and integralism and what we need to consider as Catholics (and thus conservatives). He identifies as a libertarian but he acknowledges the many flaws with that view, specifically noting that it too easily crosses over into libertinism. He also addresses the issues of integralism as a belief that the state itself should be converted as a mechanism to serve the Church.
But in both cases he makes some excellent arguments (i.e. with integralism, since the state has a monopoly on violence should then the state wield its authority to mandate baptisms?)
So then, he presents a moderated option. He's hesitant to call it a "Catholic third way" but he explains what he calls Natural Law Libertarianism, and I really like the idea. He writes:
I like the distinctions he makes here, because I think most/all of us can agree that there are things that are well within the domain of the state to intervene on, like abortion. And yet there are many things the state needs to stop sticking its nose into.
This feels to me like what the Founders and Framers meant when they drafted the founding documents. It's clear that they had at least a concept of Natural Law when they wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, I believe it's because they were highly influenced by Bellarmine, Suarez, Aristotle, Aquinas, and others who discuss Natural Law, virtuous vs corrupted regimes, and what modes of governance allow for the Natural Law to thrive. Bellarmine, noting that monarchy is the best form of regime but only when it has a great monarch - and history actually shows us how rare that really is (how many kings have been canonized?). So Bellarmine argues that the best option is a mixed regime, which is what the founders developed a century and a half later when they created the federal government with a separation of powers (Executive/Monarchy, Judicial/Aristocracy, Legislative/Polis or Republican).
If we take a closer look at the nature of the government prior to the reconstruction era, it was much smaller and thus closer to this form of Natural Law Libertarianism is that Sammons describes. It protected Natural Law and the rights granted therein, but it didn't overreach until we started ratifying the 14th and then the 17th and later amendments. Then like smoke, the true republic was gone.
What are we left with, according to Aristotle, when a republic becomes corrupted? A democracy.
Obviously Natural Law Libertarianism isn't a total and complete solution, there will be no such thing this side of eternity. But it is a point of view, and I think it's a good one. What do you think about it in principle?
----
Here is the article: The Political Path for Conservative Catholics
And here is the podcast episode where they discussed it:
But in both cases he makes some excellent arguments (i.e. with integralism, since the state has a monopoly on violence should then the state wield its authority to mandate baptisms?)
So then, he presents a moderated option. He's hesitant to call it a "Catholic third way" but he explains what he calls Natural Law Libertarianism, and I really like the idea. He writes:
According to natural law libertarianism, the role of the State is merely to prevent violations of the natural law. If something requires divine revelation to know and understand (such as the need for baptism), then it’s not the role of the State to enforce it. But if it’s part of natural law (such as the sanctity of life or marriage as a union between a man and a woman), then the State has a role in enforcing it. Anything beyond enforcing violations of the natural law (funding the arts, printing money, etc.) is outside the purview of the State.
I like the distinctions he makes here, because I think most/all of us can agree that there are things that are well within the domain of the state to intervene on, like abortion. And yet there are many things the state needs to stop sticking its nose into.
This feels to me like what the Founders and Framers meant when they drafted the founding documents. It's clear that they had at least a concept of Natural Law when they wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, I believe it's because they were highly influenced by Bellarmine, Suarez, Aristotle, Aquinas, and others who discuss Natural Law, virtuous vs corrupted regimes, and what modes of governance allow for the Natural Law to thrive. Bellarmine, noting that monarchy is the best form of regime but only when it has a great monarch - and history actually shows us how rare that really is (how many kings have been canonized?). So Bellarmine argues that the best option is a mixed regime, which is what the founders developed a century and a half later when they created the federal government with a separation of powers (Executive/Monarchy, Judicial/Aristocracy, Legislative/Polis or Republican).
If we take a closer look at the nature of the government prior to the reconstruction era, it was much smaller and thus closer to this form of Natural Law Libertarianism is that Sammons describes. It protected Natural Law and the rights granted therein, but it didn't overreach until we started ratifying the 14th and then the 17th and later amendments. Then like smoke, the true republic was gone.
What are we left with, according to Aristotle, when a republic becomes corrupted? A democracy.
Obviously Natural Law Libertarianism isn't a total and complete solution, there will be no such thing this side of eternity. But it is a point of view, and I think it's a good one. What do you think about it in principle?
----
Here is the article: The Political Path for Conservative Catholics
And here is the podcast episode where they discussed it:
Last edited:
