Orthodoxy and Libertarianism

[Faithful Skeptic]

It seems to me these quotes lay out some foundations for an orthodox economic outlook. Whether or not it is Orthodox, I can't say. Does anyone else have other quotes, particularly from the Fathers, on the subject?

Thanks for those, I'll be saving the ones I wasn't familiar with. The odd thing is that I wholeheartedly agree with all of that, and am still a libertarian. Do you know why (this question isn't to you specifically)? None of those quotes advocate the use of force. Do you know what happens when you don't pay taxes? Men with guns come to arrest you, and then charge you even more. There are legitimate reasons to not want to pay taxes, and instead donate part of your wealth to the needy. One of which is not wanting to help finance a war you are morally against, or torture, or forcing others to do things against their will. Am I heartless for agreeing with Dr. Paul?

[FONT=&quot]You were called, brothers and sisters, to freedom; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]— Galatians 5:13-14[/FONT]

Through FREEDOM and LOVE, it does not say through FORCE. How is forcing your brethren loving them as yourself? Do you like it when people force you to do things against your will? If you have no problem with taxation, then that's fine for you because despite the threat of force, you'd do it voluntarily anyway. What of your brethren that have valid reservations? Must they, too, be forced simply because you and others are OK with it? This is exactly why the income tax was ruled unconstitutional the first time it was pushed through, and why only apportioned taxes are permitted constitutionally. With an apportioned tax, the taxpayer knows where the money is going and consents to that service, so the tax is voluntary in so much as you wish to reap the perceived benefits of the service. The income tax goes to wherever the government feels like it should. Even the social security tax is abused by the government and that is why there is nothing left there--they took all of the money to do whatever they wished.

As for what you said, E.C., I refuse to vote for any evil, lesser or otherwise. I will vote what my conscience and faith tells me is morally right. Also, while Ron Paul started the tea-party, he's not the star of the show any more. The tea-partiers are far more interested in Glenn Beck and Bachmann, who twisted principled positions of Ron Paul and marketed them very well. I'm not a fan of the tea-party, personally, and many tea-party 'libertarians' might not always agree with the non-aggression principle, which, as I said early is the core tenet of libertarianism. Most of them are simply very fiscally and socially conservative.

As for Ron Paul's electability, he actually is in the Republican party because he believes libertarianism is what Republicanism used to be, and he wants to return it to that. He also polled 49% to Obama's 51% in a Rasmussen poll that asked how voters would vote if a hypothetical election between the two happened today. That's not too bad. Ron Paul appeals to a great number of people on the left. I would know, as I left the "left" to become a Paul supporter. He is also picking up steam and random endorsements from rappers, actors, businessmen and the like.

Either way, he isn't stealing my vote from anyone. If it weren't for him, I probably wouldn't be voting anyway, since I wouldn't vote for someone that I don't morally agree with. Actually, I'm most likely going to register for the first time to vote for him in the primary, and I know other non-voters that he has motivated to vote.

 

[Brother Vasilyevich]

Any ideaology that would leave a poor man to die, mock/harass a man with parkinsons, puts the individual before the whole and so on, I will have no part of. I'm a nihilist.

 

[truthseeker32]

What I find even more heartless is forcing people to do things against their will by threatening to do violence to them if they do not. God did not FORCE his goodness on us, who are we to attempt to force some sort of perceived goodness on others?

The problem with most other ideologies is that they promote force as a legitimate means to an end.

Perhaps you and I are thinking too much in black and white terms. Perhaps it would be best to develop an incentive of some sort for those who give to worthy charities. They could get a discount on vehicle registration or something like that.

Another thing to note is that any government is going to restrict an individual in some manner. It comes with being part of a society. The question is: where to draw the line?

No matter what you get unwanted violence. In a state that compels individuals to pay taxes, those who refuse are subject to restraint which may be violent if further resistance occurs. If the state is free and economic stratification occurs, poverty leads to increased crime rates.

 

[truthseeker32]

Any ideaology that would leave a poor man to die, mock/harass a man with parkinsons, puts the individual before the whole and so on, I will have no part of. I'm a nihilist.

an orthodox nihilist? I never would have thought...

 

[Brother Vasilyevich]

an orthodox nihilist? I never would have thought...

Well, nihilist is probably to strong, Anarchist would probably be better.

 

[truthseeker32]

Well, nihilist is probably to strong, Anarchist would probably be better.

The line between anarchy and libertarianism is not so clear my friend.

 

[Brother Vasilyevich]

The line between anarchy and libertarianism is not so clear my friend.

Meh, not really in my opinion.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

Perhaps you and I are thinking too much in black and white terms. Perhaps it would be best to develop an incentive of some sort for those who give to worthy charities. They could get a discount on vehicle registration or something like that.

Another thing to note is that any government is going to restrict an individual in some manner. It comes with being part of a society. The question is: where to draw the line?

No matter what you get unwanted violence. In a state that compels individuals to pay taxes, those who refuse are subject to restraint which may be violent if further resistance occurs. If the state is free and economic stratification occurs, poverty leads to increased crime rates.

We probably are speaking in too black and white of terms, but its those terms that are usually used to marginalize libertarian moral positions, so forgive me if I came out a bit harsh.

To a libertarian, the line is drawn with the non-aggression principle. Force can be legitimate (though it isn't necessarily so) only in defense. When forced is used aggressively, that's where the government is permitted to intervene. The government, as it stands today, though, ignores the non-aggression principle itself whenever it feels like it, so how can we expect it to properly enforce it? I'm not a fan of registration either, unless there is a strong case which shows that it is necessary to protect individual liberty. Furthermore, I'm still not a fan of offering government incentives. As Saint Chrysostom says, it is the heart that needs to be changed, and an incentive does not change the heart--the best incentives can possibly do is give people excuses to act decently. It puts a bandaid on the actual problem.

I really do not see the economy becoming any more stratified in a free society. Right now, we use tax money to bail out the rich so that they can remain in their position of privilege. In a free society, there is no safety net to catch the rich when the fall due to their own stupid decisions. If anything, it would be significantly less stratified than it is now.

Ron Paul is going to be on the Daily Show tonight, which is a pretty left-leaning, socially-minded TV show on Comedy Central. Hopefully some of you tune in to at least hear the guy out. I'm sure Jon Stewart will actually ask him some decent questions.

Meh, not really in my opinion.

Have you looked into libertarianism? I know quite a few libertarians that would would prefer anarchy, but still like the strong governmental limitations of libertarianism (like myself).

 

[truthseeker32]

I've mentioned to you that my fear of libertarianism is that in such a system people would be too self centered to look after the common good. I could be wrong, or course, but what an unfortunate circumstance it would be if we lived in a voluntary state where people, as they do now, chose not to give willingly because they are under the impression that people are poor because they are lazy, or they don't have any obligation to the less fortunate because its their money.

I am a big supporter of capitalism, but I think it should be regulated (NOT manipulated or restricted) in order to reward those who practice business in an ethical way.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

My God-parents are Libertarians.

 

[Thekla]

Any system can look kinda good on paper - none of them are the answer and all suffer in implementation passing through 'human hands'.

I do have respect for Ron Paul, and I do not claim to know much about Libertarianism, but from what I do know it makes me uncomfortable.

My primary exposure was through two Libertarian friend in College; both went on to Law School to further the Libertarian ideal through the legal system. Per these discussions, US Law was (at the time) the main organ through which change was to be achieved.

And there's the rub. In actuality, one's ability to gain redress through the legal system is almost entirely dependent on one's ability to afford the best legal team.

The parallel to this is the Supreme Court rulings on Corporate personhood, but moreso the ruling that "money = speech". The more money, the more one can be heard.

Put these two together, and we have the formula for increased suffering. Consider the likelihood of winning a suit against any Corporate entity. Consider the rights of a community to clean water vs. the right of the Corporation to exist (where this leads to the degradation of water sources or air).

Government regulation can offer some sort of stop-gap, or leveling in this instance. Repealing a government's ability to regulate and issue standards can have dire consequences. (Consider lax regulation in Mexico, for example, and the cost to human health. Children raised in the valleys below corporate farms have high rates of neurological problems, lowered IQ, and inferior health status.)
I am blessed to be able to buy meat and milk from local farmers - I can visit the farm, talk to the grower, and to some extent "see" the potential risks. Most people can't; for these, there is the FDA. Not perfect, but (even hampered by the voluntary status of recalls) important.

Lack of regulation (through both repeal and through failure to enforce existing regulation) lead to the S&L Crisis and the crash of 2008. Nor is this over. And while on the matter of the economy and "the markets are self stabilizing" mythology, the market will no longer include the small investor (except as a tragedy). Algorithmic robo-trading has taken over (and concomitant flash crashes); the newest development brings trading time down to micro-seconds. Cables are planned to further reduce trading time (one through the Aegean,iirc), and the biggest guns are those who can purchase real estate near exchange locations for their servers to shave more time.

I don't think Libertarianism is the answer. Not to even mention Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan.

I don't think any system will potentially much different from any other system in the long run. Either taxes through govt., taxes as inflation, or the taxation of high unemployment lowering incomes (which, imo., the welfare system can contribute to). Why do you suppose humans keep changing systems ?

So, in fact, no system is perfect, and of course no politician is a "savior" for any crisis or situation.

 

[Brother Vasilyevich]

Have you looked into libertarianism? I know quite a few libertarians that would would prefer anarchy, but still like the strong governmental limitations of libertarianism (like myself).

Yes however when I say 'Anarchy' or 'Anarchism' I am not refering to anything related towards capitalism thus it would not be similar to my own views is what I'm saying. This being said, if we are using the term 'libertarian' loosely I can sympathize with some libertarian left tendencies and could I suppose be called a 'Libertarian Socialist' (though I prefer the term Anarchist) however I don't believe this is what we are discussing and I oppose the conception of the state outright as inherently oppresive.

 

[Knee V]

Before I was ever a libertarian I had become a staunch believer in non-aggression and non-coercion, and I try to apply that to every area of my life. Part of why I have become a Libertarian is because I was already a libertarian. It allows people to live their own lives peacefully, whatever their own goals and values may be. Also, by ensuring that others with conflicting values have the ability to live life as they see fit, the Christian has the most opportunity to work out his salvation in peace. But when we open the door of forcing others to live by our values, the seed has been sown to have our own liberties removed from us as well. The Libertarian model allows for a great deal of diversity while still permitting those diverse people to live side-by-side.

I realize that that sounds idealized. I also realize that the more complex a social structure gets, the more difficult it becomes to define what it means to "step on someone's toes". "Live and let live" becomes a more difficult reality when we get into things like a very complex economy and rapidly changing technology, which force us to re-evaluate where some rights begin and end. I get that. Be that as it may, I still adhere to the principle and try to find every to make it work, simply because I think it's the right thing and most consistent with the gospel.

 

[Thekla]

I thought to add another concern: privatization.

The idea that the profit motive is a guarantor of quality is disturbing.
The idea that the people of a country only "own" of that country what they can afford is sad - what does a nation become when all aspects of the national interest are privately owned ?
Prison privatization has led to heavy lobbying from these organizations to affect laws, and the creation of another class of ultra low wage employment (prisoners) that US employees outside the prisons must compete with - degrading real income.
Until the average citizen has as much government access and influence as the paid lobbyists, can we actually call this a democracy and an economy based on competition ?
Finally, I find the ithos of the Chicago School of Economics (Neoliberalism) deeply disturbing. Why would I vote to give more power to a movement for whom good is not a moral category ?
Good = Profit "by any means necessary" seems to me to be a debased ethic.

 

[Thekla]

For those interested (as I mentioned this in my post above), a link to the full text of the study on the effect of pesticides on children in Mexico :

An anthropological approach to the evaluation of preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico.

Image from above cited article:

Again, I mentioned this in association with the potential value of government regulation.

I understand the concern over government intrusion into people's lives.
I think it is also important to recognize the effect of corporations on people's lives; imo, the effect of Libertarianism would be to replace one with the other.

On this latter point, one may wish to research the effect of water privatization in Bolivia, or the effect of Neoliberal policies (Chicago School) on personal savings and pensions in Chile under Pinochet.

 

[Thekla]

What I find even more heartless is forcing people to do things against their will by threatening to do violence to them if they do not. God did not FORCE his goodness on us, who are we to attempt to force some sort of perceived goodness on others?

The problem with most other ideologies is that they promote force as a legitimate means to an end.

Forcing will on another is covered both by abortion, but also the effects of a degraded environment on the unborn, no ?

 

[MKJ]

Just to be really basic here, Jesus was pretty clear that the government has the authority to take in tax revenue. And that wasn't a democracy, it was a rather brutal occupying force.

I find it a bit hard not to roll my eyes when people talk about taxes and people being forced to give up their money.

 

[JohnTh]

Just to be really basic here, Jesus was pretty clear that the government has the authority to take in tax revenue. And that wasn't a democracy, it was a rather brutal occupying force.

I find it a bit hard not to roll my eyes when people talk about taxes and people being forced to give up their money.

Sure, I agree. But I think that we must stress what the Jesus stressed: We must give the things which belongs to God to the God also. Hence, the goverment must not mix in a negative way in our spiritual life, but rather to enhance it assuring the adequate environment for it.

Unfortunately tough, the people are very sensitive about their money and not about their spiritual life (I speak generally, no offense intended).

just my2c & hth

 

[TheCunctator]

Ron Paul is probably one of the most dangerous men in America today.

His heartless policies on Healthcare, if introduced would be akin to survival of the richest...

You do know that Ron Paul is a doctor, right? Probably with much more knowledge about the medical system than you and I could ever imagine.

He can't be any more 'dangerous' than Obama. He's been rather prudent his entire career. And even though I feel he exaggerates in some of his political beliefs - such as on the legalization of heroin, among others - he is consistent and wise enough to admit that ideally such acts would be regulated by the states, not by the federal government.

Don't take this as an insult, but in Ireland you don't really understand the American frame of mind. Just because someone proposes a healthcare system that isn't publicly funded by the government, that doesn't make it "heartless". Many here do feel you can provide an efficient private healthcare system by reforming the existing regulations. Part of the element that is missing in Ireland is that of freedom. Many Americans have a fear of the federal government encroaching upon their personal lives. Healthcare by those who oppose Obamacare is seen as a further step in that direction, away from individual and states' rights.

So the terms just seem very vague to me. It sounds well and good to "defend life, liberty and property" until we realize that all three of those terms are meaningless without reference to some moral absolute...otherwise we just play shell games by changing the meanings of the terms on the fly. Stealing your neighbor's lawn mower is a theft of property...cheating on your husband, then getting a quick divorce and taking half his property in the settlement is...individual liberty...

What Libertarians are often missing (and your analysis is dead on) is that you need a moral glue like Christianity to keep a society together. The old free market system worked effectively in the past partially because of the overarching Christian influence on society. This deterred some of the more aberrant features of "unbridled capitalism." However, things took a turn for the worse with the decline of Christianity since the 1960s' Cultural Revolution.

 

[TheCunctator]

I thought to add another concern: privatization.

The idea that the profit motive is a guarantor of quality is disturbing.
The idea that the people of a country only "own" of that country what they can afford is sad - what does a nation become when all aspects of the national interest are privately owned ?
Prison privatization has led to heavy lobbying from these organizations to affect laws, and the creation of another class of ultra low wage employment (prisoners) that US employees outside the prisons must compete with - degrading real income.
Until the average citizen has as much government access and influence as the paid lobbyists, can we actually call this a democracy and an economy based on competition ?
Finally, I find the ithos of the Chicago School of Economics (Neoliberalism) deeply disturbing. Why would I vote to give more power to a movement for whom good is not a moral category ?
Good = Profit "by any means necessary" seems to me to be a debased ethic.

No it's not. Privatization often allows for better quality because companies become interested in serving their customers better because it leads to higher profits. The biggest opposition to privatization comes from those who have monopolies over certain services.

Think about UPS Vs Federal Express Vs the US Post Office. Who do you think gives you better quality? If the Post Office could provide such better services, why doesn't it? Because it's a government bureaucracy, and as such, it is at an inherent disadvantage, and people look elsewhere.

Privatization hasn't led to lower wages - the abolishment of trade barriers with places like China and India have. We've allowed companies to simply relocate and have allowed ourselves to be in unfair competition with China. Proper trade tariffs would resolve the issue fairly quickly.