ABSTRACT Catholic Libertarianism? Garrett McMillan Director: Timothy W. Burns, Ph. D. What are the similarities and difference between Catholic political thought and Libertarian political thought? What are the chief principles of libertarianism, and is it a self-sufficient political philosophy? What are the chief principles of Catholic political thought, and does it have anything to learn from libertarianism? To what extent, and in what ways, can the political thought of these two traditions be considered compatible, and to what extent and in what ways do they conflict with each other? This thesis will first examine the origins of libertarian thought, the concept of natural rights, and the goal of economic prosperity among the liberal political philosophers of the 17th century, alongside more contemporary libertarian thinkers. It will then examine an interpretation of the political thought of St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, alongside a comparison of the doctrine of natural rights and the doctrine of natural law. Finally, this paper will examine two justifications of liberalism by contemporary Catholic authors, the first through a thorough analysis of the social encyclicals, and the second through a joint examination of Catholic principles and economic analysis. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS _____________________________________ Dr. Timothy W. Burns, Department of Political Science APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: ____________________________________________________________ Dr. Elizabeth Corey, Director ii DATE: __________________________ CATHOLIC LIBERTARIANISM? A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Garrett McMillan Waco, Texas May, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . iii Chapter 1: The Origins and Principles of Libertarian Thought . 1 Chapter 2: Pre-modern Catholic Political Thought . 54 Chapter 3: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Social Encyclicals . 99 Chapter 4: A Contemporary Attempt to Reconcile “The Church and The Market” 143 Conclusion . 199 Bibliography . 202 iii INTRODUCTION Libertarianism’s chief political principles are the securing of natural rights, economic prosperity, and social peace, and libertarianism lowers the political goals of the state compared to pre-modern Catholic political thought. These principles ought to be viewed with caution, but not rejected. Indeed, while arguments on behalf of a seamless development from the natural law doctrine into a natural rights doctrine are unconvincing, due to the historically differing goals of their proponents, it will be demonstrated that natural rights can be infused with morality and justified based on moral principles, which would bring natural rights to be more in line with natural law. Liberalism in general, and libertarianism in particular, should be cast “in the role of a handmaid,” in order to save them from various dangers and errors they lack the judgment to deal with without a correct understanding of the human person. Likewise, the Church would benefit from adopting liberal principles, and should embrace, natural rights and the desire for economic prosperity while molding them in more moral directions. Additionally, I argue that the social encyclicals demonstrate the acceptance by the popes of the core tenets of capitalism, along with many aspects of liberalism, while rejecting “ideological capitalism.” Yet, while the principles of Catholic Social Teaching are well defended by the popes, much of their analysis is prone to historical and economic error. The popes themselves acknowledge that the existence of the discipline of economics leaves many questions of public policy open to judgment. Unfortunately they, along with other Catholic thinkers, often misdiagnosed economic problems, thereby iv recommending counter-productive solutions. With regard to such matters, I argue that libertarian thought has a strong historical, economic, and moral case on behalf of its proposed solutions to the economic problems of our day. 1 CHAPTER ONE The Origins and Principles of Libertarian Thought Our first task is to examine what prominent classically liberal and libertarian thinkers themselves have to say about libertarianism. Before beginning such a discussion, however, a brief overview of elementary libertarian distinctions and concepts is called for. The first such distinction concerns the scope of the libertarian project, and separates “thick” libertarianism from “thin” libertarianism. These adjectives signify the extent to which libertarianism is not only a political program but also a cultural program. Thin libertarianism is simply a support for the political program of libertarianism. Thick libertarianism is libertarianism that also has outside social and cultural commitments, usually leftist or liberal.1 The second elementary divide to be understood among libertarians is the divide in how libertarians should support their political positions. The consequentialists support generally libertarian policies because their effects align with the goals sought by the consequentialists, namely, social peace and economic prosperity. The deontologists, by contrast, support libertarianism based on principled moral grounds, as defined by the non- aggression principle (a moral axiom that states that it is always wrong to initiate violence, 1 Charles Johnson, “Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin | Charles Johnson,” July 1, 2008, http://fee.org/articles/libertarianism‐through‐thick‐and‐ thin/. 2 also known as the use of force, against another person) and based on the concept of natural rights.23 There can be fierce criticism among these different factions. Consequentialist libertarians criticize deontological Libertarians for a willingness to ignore the effects that their principles have when put into practice, whereas deontological libertarians criticize consequentialist libertarians for using their ends to justify their means. It is important to keep such differences in mind moving forward. And yet, however important these differences are, they are often overridden by what many refer to as “the happy coincidence.”4 This happy coincidence is that libertarian means are the best way to achieve libertarian ends, thus eliminating any contradiction between them. The final elementary concept that must be understood before moving into a discussion of the works of the liberal thinkers themselves is the concept of negative vs. positive rights. If you have a negative right to do something, no one has a right to stop you from doing that thing. You do not have an obligation to do that thing, but neither do you have a warrant for someone to give you that thing. Negative rights impose a duty on others to refrain from doing something, or to not interfere with your exercise of a certain liberty. These rights do not conflict with one another. Positive rights, by contrast, either impose an active duty on others to provide something for you, or impose on you an 2 Aaron Ross Powell, “Libertarianism and Virtue,” Libertarianism.org, accessed March 31, 2016, http://social.libertarianism.org/blog/libertarianism‐ virtue. 3 For the purposes of the NAP, the threat of violence can also be classified under certain circumstances as violence. 4 Matt Zwolinski, “Bleeding Heart Libertarianism,” Bleeding Heart Libertarians, March 3, 2011, http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/03/bleeding‐heart‐libertarianism/. 3 obligation to provide something for others. These rights can conflict, as, for example, in cases of scarcity. As Aeon Skoble explains, if 100 people are arrested, and there are only 10 public defenders available, not all of the defendants can have their positive right to an attorney fulfilled. Positive rights can also involve the violation of negative rights, if they impose a duty without a contractual agreement.5 Having established these basic concepts, in the remainder of this chapter we will examine both the liberal origins of libertarianism and its foundational principles, including its moral grounding in natural rights and its goals of economic prosperity and social peace. The subjects of foreign policy and social policy will remain, for the most part, outside of the scope of this thesis, as will the divide between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Hobbes The concept of natural rights, in the modern sense, is arguably derived from the writing of Thomas Hobbes. Writing during the English Civil War, a period of immense religious and political violence, Hobbes was concerned with developing a political theory with the power to end such strife and establish peace and firm rule in the England of his day. He was not interested in orienting men towards a “greatest good.”6 Instead, he concerned himself with establishing workable political relations in service of those with irreconcilable disagreements that, Hobbes argued, are sometimes called “heresy,” but are 5 Aeon Skoble, “Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights,” Libertarianism.org, accessed March 31, 2016, http://social.libertarianism.org/media/around‐ web/positive‐rights‐vs‐negative‐rights. 6 Thomas Hobbes and E. M. Curley, Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668 (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1994), 57. 4 actually simply private opinions misliked.7 Instead of happiness as the final end of all men, self-preservation, peace, and a contented life are the ends towards which political life should be oriented.8 These beneficial inclinations towards peace are contrasted with less beneficial inclinations—especially