Skip to main content

The Three Questions That Change A Political Philosophy

Ever since I was 21 or so, I self-identified as a political conservative, and a Republican. A reasonable person could easily argue that I came by it a little emotionally, and not by reason. A big part of it was simply wanting to hear an opposing view, unwilling to concede as a starting point that "liberals" are more intelligent, more informed, more compassionate than everyone else. I maintain a visceral distaste for smugness, though of course I am a hypocrite. I can be very unfair if I don't like someone, or some thing.

Anyway, the most basic question concerns the goodness of government as such. If governments of people hold power because those under its influence lack the force to overthrow it, or the willingness, one should say that that government is a permissible evil. Short of that position are countless others, advocating for more or less intervention according to preference.

These are the questions that have altered the moral landscape for me. They now require an affirmative answer:

1. Is the common good real?

2. Are there things that cannot, and should not be made into commodities?

3. Are government actions which do not violate the moral law presumed just, even if I think they are unwise?

Why I'm not a libertarian, in three simple questions.
Labels:

Comments

Nathan said…
I'm a centrist, green-streaked libertarian. I would answer these questions:

Maybe; common goods are real, but why do you make it singular? Also, while real, common goods are dangerous excuses; Ahab and Jezebel are well motivated to declare Naboth's vineyard a 'common good.'
Yes, both types exist distinctly.
No. Something should only be presumed just if it is just. Otherwise, the presumption is in error. Why would this presumption be true? Governments have participated in most of the great injustices on record.
1:12 PM
Jason said…
It's not an unassailable presumption, but it's a presumption. Governments are also bound by the principle of subsidiarity, a conviction that problems should be handled at the lowest level of social organization whenever possible. In addition, subsidiarity includes the willingness to assist people at lower levels to attain their ends. The other principle that is important is solidarity, a firm determination to act for the common good. Since private property is affirmed, (CCC, 2402-2403) the common good cannot be used to sanction the theft of private property.
2:44 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Post a Comment
Read more
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar
13 comments
Read more