Skip to main content

Classical Liberalism Is Not Christian, Or Sustainable

It presupposes that justice is reckoned only to the individual, and that his 'liberty'--absolute autonomy--is the measure of justice. In days past, the encroachment of various collectivisms allowed us not to face this important truth. What we call "conservatives" here in the US made common cause with libertarians, and uneasy cooperation continues to this day. But undue coercion is not the only threat to human flourishing. Indeed, man's own selfishness and vice can be as great a tyranny as any state.

The question that matters is, "Does the state exist solely to defend private property, and to protect individuals from unjust aggression? Is it in that sense, a necessary evil?" I have to answer that with a "no." The state exists to promote the common good, both natural and supernatural. What is the common good? The common good is the set of conditions necessary for every person to reach the end for which they have been made. It doesn't diminish when it is participated in, because it's not material, as such. Education is a common good, and is part of that overall good. Safety is a common good. Churches are a common good. Families, and strong ones, are common good. We may well argue until we are blue about how to provide these things, but it seems to me that the biggest problem with the non-Left is that it denies that the common good exists. What do I see as the biggest problem with the Left? Its ends are not good. It is hostile to the individual as such, and the state--as the purported instrument of everyone's good--exists only to propagate itself.

But we cannot continue to believe that fantastic wealth and crushing poverty existing in the same nation comports with justice. Justice is the responsibility of all of us, and frankly, primarily of the state, as our instrument. It neither denies an individual's duty to justice, nor a person's right to the fruit of his labor. Yet we cannot remove the duty of justice, from ourselves, or from the state, and call what we ought to do "mercy." Mercy is the amelioration of the consequences of culpable actions; by its very nature, it is undeserved. Justice is imposed as an obligation by the dignity of the human person, and by the end for which he exists. That's why life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable; they are not conferred by any man or group of people, and they cannot be taken away arbitrarily, or even curtailed, without grave reason.

  America has had a peculiar sickness in recent decades; we have come to believe that religion is exclusively private, and that anyone who appeals to it threatens to impose it upon the unwilling. Moreover, some doubt that anything of the kind exists. Such people are free to believe and do as they wish, within the limits of justice and reason. But the genius of America is not only that it is governed by its people, and that the government is limited by the rights of those people, but that the consent of the governed is bound by an even greater Law. The religious affiliation (or lack thereof) of those who founded America is not material to this unavoidable fact: The justice of a thing, whether an action or a law, is not established by consent alone. People who are not moral are not free.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...