ReasonTV is political, but is super open for discussion. I think Trent will go anywhere that will speak with him, reasonably or sometimes unreasonably lol
Libertarianism brought me to the Catholic Church. Specifically Traditional Catholicism. I noticed how may people I listened to were Traditional Catholics and started to read St Thomas Aquinas.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas If I am Catholic then I would have to be a Theist. Therefore I am. The existence of God is self evident. Look at St Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs.
@@justintrefney1083 First of all, I know at least one Roman Catholic priest who has admitted that he is an atheist, so your first assertion is not exactly correct. Secondly, if God was "self evident", that implies that one can see, feel, smell, taste and touch God with ease.
Yeah, it's weird that they went out of their way to bring on Trent Horn instead of an Acton Institute guy. Then again, prioritizing content creators is par the course.
@@SirBlackReeds I would say Trent Horn is a skilled propagandist. Did you notice how he blew off Zach's mention of Jesus' parable of _The Rich Man_ with a long monologue? Zach got so schooled he did not know it.
I must admit that, to my Catholic sensibilities, the term 'libertarianism' initially suggests 'licentiousness'. I lost all respect for this woman when I realized she was a libertarian . However, as I watched the video, I regained my respect for her. Libertarianism does not exactly mean what I thought it meant.
I enjoyed this conversation so much. More and more, I adore liz and her input. I would have liked to hear the Catholic perspective on personal autonomy. When is another person allowed to impose on another persons autonomy? "I exist on the borders of things" I have some criticisms of Jordan Peterson, but that speaks to me deeply
I can't give you an answer, part of the problem would be that Catholicism operates under a different framework. I recommend looking into Bp Barron on youtube (he has talked about this and related subjects frequently over the years) or simply read the Catechism which goes into this and similar questions. The issue is I can't respond in a way which doesn't open a can of worms. Trying to answer your question is more suited for a book than a comment
@jaggedplanet One can hold certain standards in the political realm while having somewhat different perspectives in the moral sphere. For example, let's say you want to eat fast food every day. A libertarian would say that it is your business, not the government's. But a priest could still tell you that you're committing the sin of gluttony in his sermon on Sunday. Of course, your membership in the Church is voluntary, but if you attend, you can't say that the priest is interfering with your freedom. You are exercising your freedom by looking to the Church for guidance.
The people who ask "How can a libertarian be a Catholic?" or "How can a Catholic be a libertarian?" wouldn't even be asking this question if they actually tried to understand how broad "libertarianism" is in itself. People try to put it inside that same box with Republicans and Democrats, but libertarianism isn't really a "moral" framework because it doesn't have a particular stance at the baseline. It's more of an economic and legalistic framework than anything. This is why you'll often two opposing libertarians, such as Chase Oliver and Tom Woods agree on the core tenets of liberty, but both have completely different moral arguments. It just so happens that libertarianism and Catholicism can mesh pretty well when it comes to concepts like natural law, because both view it as being very important.
It's important to remember that Adam Smith wrote TWO pieces The Wealth of Nations, which was a work explaining how to create wealth by laws of nature and a work on morality and the need to inject faith and morality to create civil and moral societies. Capitalism is merely a descriptions of how wealth is created and distributed in a world without government intrusion. It was meant to be an AMORAL understanding of the natural world.
1. Moral You should not "give to the poor" because some book or some single authority says so, but because you see the beneficial effects a moral system like this has on people and the social environments we design. 2. socialism / capitalism Capitalism is "bad" by design, considering you see the following things as bad: Capitalism is designed to offer you consumption in regard to the capacity of your capital. So "working" people only get access to a minor amount of consumption, in first place the consumption necessary to preserve your life, while some "lucky" people, who often gain a major step ahead because of wealthy heritage, have an inherent access to huge amounts of consumption. That's not a flaw in capitalistic design - it IS capitalistic design. Socialism, while in theory is "good" by design, is extremely vulnerable to the people who run the system. In pretty much all attempts people started to build socialist systems a capitalistic elite formed to controll it and alienated the system to take most of the benefits for themselves and split the rest onto the "socialistic" managed base. So there are bad socialists, and bad capitalism. Not the other way around. Naturally, only as long as you say selling slaves for work and your mother and daughter to men for money is a bad thing - both things would be pretty much encouraged actions in true capitalism and by illegalizing theese practices you automatically limit capitalism, while in true socialism / Marxism every form of slavery would pretty much create a paradox in definition. So - imho - since capitalism for itself is bad and true socialism is weak we NEED a combination of both systems. 3. Sweden Thats wrong. Sweden has 26 billionaires for 10.500.000 residents and the us has 756 billionaires for 333.000.000 residents (about 30 times the billionaires for about 30 times the residents). So the relative numbers are pretty similar. A difference is to be noted - us-billionaires are about ~20% richer in average than swedish billionaires, while this still is pulled up by an extremely small amount of crazy rich people, while far less swedish "workers" die because of untreated illnesses etc.
I disagree on your first point, only because, whatever the reason, even if you are agnostic or indifferent, then end result is, still, a net positive for society.
It cracks me up whenever folks think religion has any value. Mythical thinking is bad. It's bad when it pushes socialist ideas and thinking and it is bad when it pushes the ignorance of any faith based "thinking". It isn't objectivism that makes so many Libertarians atheist. Atheism is logical and based on reason and logic the same way we would like government to be. Both issues demonstrate the harms caused by centralized power. Religion probably had, as an origin, people doing primitive science and trying to figure things out, but religious thinking today cannot help people understand the world. In fact, most religious people who are in science have discovered things in science DESPITE their religious beliefs and often which run contrary to the beliefs of the churches.
Wow this is VERY unexpected. But welcomed. I've been struggling with the catholic teachings on these things because it seems to very much favor socialists
What often passes as "Catholic teaching" these days is not at all that. Much of the hierarchy (bishops) are very liberal, and their words can be ignored, as they do not reflect authentic Catholic teachings.
It doesn't really have to. As Trent said in the later parts of the video, the Church is pretty diverse and has people of many political backgrounds. As long as you understand and accept the core teachings of Catholicism, you're fine. For example, the Church doesn't have an official stance on whether one should accept Creationism or Evolution. We are free to believe either one, as long as you recognize that it's all coming from God anyway. I myself don't have a problem with "social safety nets" and such, but I obviously don't want to have someone exploit me to pay for it. the Church's Catechism states in paragraph #2420: The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it." In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships. I'm sure you know that libertarianism itself is quite broad, for example, as both Chase Oliver and Hans Hermann Hoppe are libertarians, but are essentially in complete opposite fashion. They both probably have different moral frameworks. Regarding Catholicism, it just so happens that there is a mutual overlap between libertarianism and Catholicism when it comes to things like natural law. I think the Paleolibertarian approach is pretty good at this. I hope this helps!
I mean, my argument against being any kind of Christian and a socialist is that socialism violates "Don't covet", then "Don't steal", then "Don't murder". Then again, I'm just a lowly Protestant, so what do I know? :)
Im a recent Catholic convert, but I appreciate that it's the Protestants in America keeping the ship afloat (just look at voting patterns). But interestingly, for hundreds of years protestantism was heavily tied to socialist politics. Even the early settlers to America were very utopian and socialist. Even the Utah Mormons started as a heavily socialist community, but now Utah Mormons are a solid Republican voting block (though their economics still to this day have a socialist streak, as my W2 can attest to). Its something to look into for some interesting history of protestantism and even early American history. In some sense America had communism antibodies, because it was tried early on and failed
@@AjaxNixon Yeah, some Protestants were tied to socialist policies (though, obviously, not most or voting would have gone a lot differently than it did). That being said, Mormons aren't Christians, and therefore can't be Protestants.
Yes, just not a Marxist. Just as libertarians are not the same as conservatives, not all socialists are marxists. Can a catholic be a libertarian is a bit difficult. Depends on how libertarian.
Paleolibertarian is perfectly factible. Just because you're getting rid of big government doesn't mean you have to get rid of morality and social values. Strictly speaking, the official ideology of the Roman Catholic Church is the Social Doctrine of the CC. Any ideology that promotes or develops access to human freedom, private property and social justice is in accord with Church teaching.
When any religious person insists on the powers of the state to undergird their faith tenets, there is the danger that the power necessary for the state to provide the desired outcome will be permanently assumed by the government, which will then be the victims of that same suppression. Another reason for "Christian Libertarianism" is that the realm of politics is not supposed to be where the Christian makes the case of G~d's law -- to do so is to assume that politics is a religious world. Surrender unto Caesar
I'm a Benedictine Oblate and reading the Rule of St. Benedict, you can't help but come to the conclusion that Benedict was a socialist (small s). He did not like private property and all the stuff the monks use are owned in common. The Benedictine order is over 1,500 years old and its Rule is still used. Socialism (small s) can work but only in small communities. Trying to implement it in a city, town or country has never worked.
I would define the monks or nuns living under the Rule of St. Benedict as living in a cooperative, not socialist community. The voluntarily join their communities, they understand what is expected of them, and they are free to "opt-out" (leave). They are not forced members of the community (society), unlike those living under socialism.
Exactly, this is a subtle but huge difference. Also, on a practical level they have several unique characteristics, such as; being a group of celibate adults of the same sex, a strong and shared identity and culture, and a clear understanding that this system does not produce economic prosperity and requires austerity.
The monasteries were actually one of the first examples of private ownership of productive property. I'm an Oblate with St Vincent's Archabbey, who are you with? 😊
with respect, I disagree that (small s) socialism can't work on a larger scale - check out the theory of distributism and it's application, especially Spain's Mondragon, founded by a Jesuit priest in the Basque country in 1941. Interestingly, my answer is also in your answer ...you say "Socialism (small s) can work but only in small communities" ...yes, that should be the goal - creating a system which encourages the growth of millions of interlocked small communities
The liberation theology movement was always pretty heterodox, since it shifts the emphasis of the gospel to social reform and tends to mark particular political systems theological obligatory. But even if it were within the Catholic mainstream, you'd be looking at one perspective within that, not a representation of the whole.
@jamesinwood381 I don't believe it's as heyerodox as some claim it to be. The grandmomma of Libertarianism (Ayn Rand) promoted the concept of the strong overall the weak. Most adherents to Libertarianism simply saw the flaws in the philosophy and have been willing to introduce other ideological beliefs in the mix. Same happened with Socialism.
@@jamesinwood381 not mainstream true, I was simply trying to address the premise of the question can a Catholic be socialist. Thinking of this as one example even if it's not chapter and verse socialist theory no pun intended. Despite heterodoxy is it social reform fundamental concept?
this is why I prefer science to politics or religion. it's built into it that testing of ideas, and accepting the results, is how we move forward as such, we no longer need to retread the conversation of, let's say, whether bacteria exist but every generation we need to argue the merits of socialism or whatever. it's infuriating
I can understand that. In my opinion Christianity when done correctly opens things up for science. Theology used to be called the chief of the sciences.
@@Weavileiscool In the best case Scenarios, yes. Galileo (a devout caholic) said that god endowed us with senses and reason to give us knowledge of the world around us And The current calendar was made by priests. But too often, our shortcomings as humans gets in the way of even those noble pursuits. Galileo is again a great example
Why do these leaders always feel the need to speak in code that has to be interpreted on a program like this one? His speech shouldn't have to be followed by people saying "I think what he means here"
Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas "It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need" Sounds pretty dang socialist to me.
The capitalist’s Motte-and-Bailey: They claim Scandinavian nations are capitalist, but when you say let’s enact the same policies…suddenly Scandinavia becomes a socialist dystopia.
They are a welfare state economy that pays for their social programs with foaming at the mouth pro business policies and insanely high tax rates at 60% if you make 60k per year. They also have very small and ethnically homogenous populations. It’s not a simple “they’re also socialist” you have to tell the whole story of how they’re able to afford such programs.
Perhaps it bears expressing when considering the Samari (?) view of Catholic intervention in the public square vs a more lassez faire (sp?) Libertarian approach, that we should err on the side of freedom, that is, government not restricting citizens' choices and not promoting ideologies. However, I do believe the idea that you can do that perfectly is very naive, especially as government is in the business of education. You cannot take all judgment and ideological belief out of public policy, but the more foundational principles that the country was founded upon should be promoted. Elsewise, you have a society that is much more vulnerable to division and self-destruction.
I guess that balance can't be achieved without people honestly asking those questions of themselves that Trent talked about at the end and trying to better themselves and the lives of those around them.
Socialism is about bad psychology. That bad psychology can also be employed by Conservatives. In both cases, this is unethical. Epistemology and education are ethical.
The secular reasoning that happened in this was interesting. Whenever the discussion actually went into faith, my eyes kind of glazed over, and everything sounded pretty meaningless to me. But, I guess if I think about this enough, maybe I can persuade my Catholic family members that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are actually both horrible for the country and neither should do anything beyond sit and rot for his remaining years.
I have to disagree, libertarians do Not have a better grasp of humans than socialists. Both are equally wrongheaded. Libertarians think men are islands of rational industry. Socialists think men with the right material conditions form communities of good will. I would no sooner side with one than the other.
And libertarianism is as internally consistent in its pure form as communism. Both rely on wildly inaccurate pictures of the human person and his relationship with others. Libertarianism is as humble as "my will be done."
I think when people are given the “freedom to do whatever they want” and when people prioritize there autonomy as an “individual” that will always snowball into mass degeneracy and societal degradation because we have a natural inclination to sin. I am not advocating for socialism by any means but I think we can find a combination of the state preserving specific social values while having a market economy that allows for growth and innovation.
The north of the state is unfortunately. As a Louisianan I don’t understand why we have a giant chunk of redneck country attached to the French regions.
@@Jinkaza1882 , Wrong, on all counts. Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., not a communist. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., not a communist. The late Fr. Hardon, S.J., not a communist. Papa Francesco, S.J., not a communist.
if you can ignore the exploitation of value and labor, if you can close your eyes to the leverage used to keep most people wage slaves in order to live "freely" and only look at the benefits of it, and corporate capitalism being the driving force of ethics, than I guess you're making the pill easier the swallow 😂 On the other hand, if you conflate authoritarian communism with community driven, bottom-up economy of Socialism you can twist it into something evil. This channel hides behind big words to explain simple ideas. Capitalism has destroyed the world that God gave us, and drives inequality and greed. It's that simple. Kindly explain your quote "the problem with capitalism is capitalists" and tell me exactly what capitalism is WITHOUT capitalists 😊 Here's the truth: Socialism may not be the answer, but whatever the hell this is isn't either. These rich dirtbags that own the world and have been lying for a century to get you to believe them are losing the facade. They're scared the guillotine is coming back, and scared we figured out what they have done to the world So they start a new moral panic and blame an economic model that has never been allowed to flourish, instead of looking in the mirror.
The ironic part about your reasoning here is the same kind of reasoning could be used to show the exact opposite. For instance the majority of big corporations and billionaires support the democrat party, mass immigration, black lives matter, lgbtq, transgender, etc. don't believe me? Just look at campaign financing, look at any streaming service, look at the social media feed of the major corporations. So all these same big bad guys you are talking about are the ones pushing progressivism. This shows pretty clearly that the big bad corporation capitalists aren't libertarian or even Republican but progressive Democrats.
@@jakelm4256 contracts are generally incentivised legally (arbitration, courts) or by force. A religious individual believes that there is a higher power that will ultimately hold people accountable for their actions. I think if you understood better what he was saying, you might not agree with him, but it's not "taking an L"
@@TheWhitehiker don’t you think those are bad reasons to be a Lutheran, considering they have nothing to do with why Luther revolted against the Catholic Church?
Wouldn't Seamus Coughlin have been a better guest since he's an actual ex-Libertarian? Plus, Trent Horn places content creation above all else. That's why he keeps shaking his fist at Father James Martin, barely utters a peep about Father Altman, and stays silent on Bishop Joseph Strickland and Steve Bannon.
Religion derives from logic and understanding of the natural world. That which we do not understand is where we have faith. Calling that gibberish is remarkably unintelligent
The question isn't if someone worships, but what they worship. Humans are religious animals. It's proven by looking at how humans and societies act now and in all times. So really it's a matter of finding the best mode of worship, there is no vacuum.
I would have never expected Trent Horn to appear on the political side of youtube. I'd really like to see Trent Horn and Tom Woods talk together.
ReasonTV is political, but is super open for discussion. I think Trent will go anywhere that will speak with him, reasonably or sometimes unreasonably lol
@@zuffin1864 yeah. i do appreciate that about them.
Wait, weren't there grooming allegations or something pertaining to Tom Woods? That doesn't give you cause for concern?
Tom Woods can help Trent Horn drop some of that residual statism.
Wow I would PAY money to see that conversation!
Totally wasn't expecting this crossover, but it's a welcome one nonetheless!
Libertarianism brought me to the Catholic Church. Specifically Traditional Catholicism. I noticed how may people I listened to were Traditional Catholics and started to read St Thomas Aquinas.
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@ReverendDr.Thomas If I am Catholic then I would have to be a Theist. Therefore I am. The existence of God is self evident. Look at St Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs.
@@justintrefney1083
First of all, I know at least one Roman Catholic priest who has admitted that he is an atheist, so your first assertion is not exactly correct.
Secondly, if God was "self evident", that implies that one can see, feel, smell, taste and touch God with ease.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Did you notice Liz Wolfe's stated reasons for her Catholic faith? Boiled down, it makes her feel good.
@@SergeantSkeptic686, that's true of almost ALL religionists. ☝️
This was actually a great episode! Thanks! PLS do more about Catholics and libertarianism!
Yeah, it's weird that they went out of their way to bring on Trent Horn instead of an Acton Institute guy. Then again, prioritizing content creators is par the course.
Great discussion. As a evangelical, Trent is a very respectable Catholic apologist. He does make you think 🤔 and question your priors.
Or is he? 🤔
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@SirBlackReeds I would say Trent Horn is a skilled propagandist. Did you notice how he blew off Zach's mention of Jesus' parable of _The Rich Man_ with a long monologue? Zach got so schooled he did not know it.
¡Gracias! Great interview with Tent Horn.
I must admit that, to my Catholic sensibilities, the term 'libertarianism' initially suggests 'licentiousness'. I lost all respect for this woman when I realized she was a libertarian . However, as I watched the video, I regained my respect for her. Libertarianism does not exactly mean what I thought it meant.
Same
Yoooo, are you kidding? My boy Trent and Reason? Made my day
Thanks much for this video.
Thanks, never expected such an episode. I'm glad Mr. Trent Horn and Reason did this.
I enjoyed this conversation so much. More and more, I adore liz and her input. I would have liked to hear the Catholic perspective on personal autonomy. When is another person allowed to impose on another persons autonomy?
"I exist on the borders of things"
I have some criticisms of Jordan Peterson, but that speaks to me deeply
I can't give you an answer, part of the problem would be that Catholicism operates under a different framework. I recommend looking into Bp Barron on youtube (he has talked about this and related subjects frequently over the years) or simply read the Catechism which goes into this and similar questions.
The issue is I can't respond in a way which doesn't open a can of worms. Trying to answer your question is more suited for a book than a comment
Ay Trent Horn! Great guest good job and great thinking about does the Catholic faith favor an economic system
But inaccurate. There is a Catjolic economic teaching, which he downplayed dude to.his personal affinity.
Great discussion, I'm a libertarian catholic and I learned a lot here!
@jm30603
New video: "Can a catholic also be a libertarian?"
About as sus as being a marxist 😋
I’m curious, how can one be a Catholic and a libertarian?
@jaggedplanet One can hold certain standards in the political realm while having somewhat different perspectives in the moral sphere. For example, let's say you want to eat fast food every day. A libertarian would say that it is your business, not the government's. But a priest could still tell you that you're committing the sin of gluttony in his sermon on Sunday. Of course, your membership in the Church is voluntary, but if you attend, you can't say that the priest is interfering with your freedom. You are exercising your freedom by looking to the Church for guidance.
The people who ask "How can a libertarian be a Catholic?" or "How can a Catholic be a libertarian?" wouldn't even be asking this question if they actually tried to understand how broad "libertarianism" is in itself. People try to put it inside that same box with Republicans and Democrats, but libertarianism isn't really a "moral" framework because it doesn't have a particular stance at the baseline. It's more of an economic and legalistic framework than anything. This is why you'll often two opposing libertarians, such as Chase Oliver and Tom Woods agree on the core tenets of liberty, but both have completely different moral arguments. It just so happens that libertarianism and Catholicism can mesh pretty well when it comes to concepts like natural law, because both view it as being very important.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 this seems to assume moral relativism though
It's important to remember that Adam Smith wrote TWO pieces The Wealth of Nations, which was a work explaining how to create wealth by laws of nature and a work on morality and the need to inject faith and morality to create civil and moral societies. Capitalism is merely a descriptions of how wealth is created and distributed in a world without government intrusion. It was meant to be an AMORAL understanding of the natural world.
1. Moral
You should not "give to the poor" because some book or some single authority says so, but because you see the beneficial effects a moral system like this has on people and the social environments we design.
2. socialism / capitalism
Capitalism is "bad" by design, considering you see the following things as bad:
Capitalism is designed to offer you consumption in regard to the capacity of your capital. So "working" people only get access to a minor amount of consumption, in first place the consumption necessary to preserve your life, while some "lucky" people, who often gain a major step ahead because of wealthy heritage, have an inherent access to huge amounts of consumption. That's not a flaw in capitalistic design - it IS capitalistic design.
Socialism, while in theory is "good" by design, is extremely vulnerable to the people who run the system. In pretty much all attempts people started to build socialist systems a capitalistic elite formed to controll it and alienated the system to take most of the benefits for themselves and split the rest onto the "socialistic" managed base.
So there are bad socialists, and bad capitalism. Not the other way around.
Naturally, only as long as you say selling slaves for work and your mother and daughter to men for money is a bad thing - both things would be pretty much encouraged actions in true capitalism and by illegalizing theese practices you automatically limit capitalism, while in true socialism / Marxism every form of slavery would pretty much create a paradox in definition.
So - imho - since capitalism for itself is bad and true socialism is weak we NEED a combination of both systems.
3. Sweden
Thats wrong.
Sweden has 26 billionaires for 10.500.000 residents and the us has 756 billionaires for 333.000.000 residents (about 30 times the billionaires for about 30 times the residents).
So the relative numbers are pretty similar.
A difference is to be noted - us-billionaires are about ~20% richer in average than swedish billionaires, while this still is pulled up by an extremely small amount of crazy rich people, while far less swedish "workers" die because of untreated illnesses etc.
I disagree on your first point, only because, whatever the reason, even if you are agnostic or indifferent, then end result is, still, a net positive for society.
"Shut in video game libertarian"
How apt to hear while playing Metal Gear 😅
It cracks me up whenever folks think religion has any value. Mythical thinking is bad. It's bad when it pushes socialist ideas and thinking and it is bad when it pushes the ignorance of any faith based "thinking". It isn't objectivism that makes so many Libertarians atheist. Atheism is logical and based on reason and logic the same way we would like government to be. Both issues demonstrate the harms caused by centralized power. Religion probably had, as an origin, people doing primitive science and trying to figure things out, but religious thinking today cannot help people understand the world. In fact, most religious people who are in science have discovered things in science DESPITE their religious beliefs and often which run contrary to the beliefs of the churches.
Wow this is VERY unexpected. But welcomed. I've been struggling with the catholic teachings on these things because it seems to very much favor socialists
I was not let down. Very cool talk
What often passes as "Catholic teaching" these days is not at all that. Much of the hierarchy (bishops) are very liberal, and their words can be ignored, as they do not reflect authentic Catholic teachings.
It doesn't really have to. As Trent said in the later parts of the video, the Church is pretty diverse and has people of many political backgrounds. As long as you understand and accept the core teachings of Catholicism, you're fine. For example, the Church doesn't have an official stance on whether one should accept Creationism or Evolution. We are free to believe either one, as long as you recognize that it's all coming from God anyway. I myself don't have a problem with "social safety nets" and such, but I obviously don't want to have someone exploit me to pay for it.
the Church's Catechism states in paragraph #2420: The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it." In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships.
I'm sure you know that libertarianism itself is quite broad, for example, as both Chase Oliver and Hans Hermann Hoppe are libertarians, but are essentially in complete opposite fashion. They both probably have different moral frameworks. Regarding Catholicism, it just so happens that there is a mutual overlap between libertarianism and Catholicism when it comes to things like natural law. I think the Paleolibertarian approach is pretty good at this. I hope this helps!
I mean, my argument against being any kind of Christian and a socialist is that socialism violates "Don't covet", then "Don't steal", then "Don't murder". Then again, I'm just a lowly Protestant, so what do I know? :)
Im a recent Catholic convert, but I appreciate that it's the Protestants in America keeping the ship afloat (just look at voting patterns). But interestingly, for hundreds of years protestantism was heavily tied to socialist politics. Even the early settlers to America were very utopian and socialist. Even the Utah Mormons started as a heavily socialist community, but now Utah Mormons are a solid Republican voting block (though their economics still to this day have a socialist streak, as my W2 can attest to). Its something to look into for some interesting history of protestantism and even early American history. In some sense America had communism antibodies, because it was tried early on and failed
@@AjaxNixon Yeah, some Protestants were tied to socialist policies (though, obviously, not most or voting would have gone a lot differently than it did).
That being said, Mormons aren't Christians, and therefore can't be Protestants.
I get the best of both worlds in this interview!
Yes, just not a Marxist. Just as libertarians are not the same as conservatives, not all socialists are marxists.
Can a catholic be a libertarian is a bit difficult. Depends on how libertarian.
Please elaborate on what the difference between a socialist and a Marxist. From what I understand, they are one and the same.
Paleolibertarian is perfectly factible. Just because you're getting rid of big government doesn't mean you have to get rid of morality and social values.
Strictly speaking, the official ideology of the Roman Catholic Church is the Social Doctrine of the CC. Any ideology that promotes or develops access to human freedom, private property and social justice is in accord with Church teaching.
No, one cannot be a Catholic and a true socialist. This was famously said by Pope Pius XI.
@brycewilson1741 Marxism is an inherently atheistic ideology. Socialism is just a way to govern.
@brycewilson1741
Marxism is a subset of socialist and is atheist. There is Christian socialism and other types of socialism as well.
Yes, lots of people have contradicting beliefs.
When any religious person insists on the powers of the state to undergird their faith tenets, there is the danger that the power necessary for the state to provide the desired outcome will be permanently assumed by the government, which will then be the victims of that same suppression. Another reason for "Christian Libertarianism" is that the realm of politics is not supposed to be where the Christian makes the case of G~d's law -- to do so is to assume that politics is a religious world. Surrender unto Caesar
Yeah, but even Caesar is subject to God.
I'm a Benedictine Oblate and reading the Rule of St. Benedict, you can't help but come to the conclusion that Benedict was a socialist (small s). He did not like private property and all the stuff the monks use are owned in common. The Benedictine order is over 1,500 years old and its Rule is still used. Socialism (small s) can work but only in small communities. Trying to implement it in a city, town or country has never worked.
I would define the monks or nuns living under the Rule of St. Benedict as living in a cooperative, not socialist community. The voluntarily join their communities, they understand what is expected of them, and they are free to "opt-out" (leave). They are not forced members of the community (society), unlike those living under socialism.
Exactly, this is a subtle but huge difference. Also, on a practical level they have several unique characteristics, such as; being a group of celibate adults of the same sex, a strong and shared identity and culture, and a clear understanding that this system does not produce economic prosperity and requires austerity.
The monasteries were actually one of the first examples of private ownership of productive property.
I'm an Oblate with St Vincent's Archabbey, who are you with? 😊
with respect, I disagree that (small s) socialism can't work on a larger scale - check out the theory of distributism and it's application, especially Spain's Mondragon, founded by a Jesuit priest in the Basque country in 1941. Interestingly, my answer is also in your answer ...you say "Socialism (small s) can work but only in small communities" ...yes, that should be the goal - creating a system which encourages the growth of millions of interlocked small communities
@@frankopaddo9647 sociosm is rightly condemned by thr church, and distribuism is just a hairbrained soft socialism.
Can't get any better than Catholic + capitalist. Love Trent Horn, Tom Woods, Fr Sirico et al at Acton Institute
What was liberation theology all about then? I don't think it defended capitalism, So what do you say?
The liberation theology movement was always pretty heterodox, since it shifts the emphasis of the gospel to social reform and tends to mark particular political systems theological obligatory. But even if it were within the Catholic mainstream, you'd be looking at one perspective within that, not a representation of the whole.
@jamesinwood381 I don't believe it's as heyerodox as some claim it to be. The grandmomma of Libertarianism (Ayn Rand) promoted the concept of the strong overall the weak. Most adherents to Libertarianism simply saw the flaws in the philosophy and have been willing to introduce other ideological beliefs in the mix. Same happened with Socialism.
@@jamesinwood381 not mainstream true, I was simply trying to address the premise of the question can a Catholic be socialist. Thinking of this as one example even if it's not chapter and verse socialist theory no pun intended. Despite heterodoxy is it social reform fundamental concept?
this is why I prefer science to politics or religion. it's built into it that testing of ideas, and accepting the results, is how we move forward
as such, we no longer need to retread the conversation of, let's say, whether bacteria exist
but every generation we need to argue the merits of socialism or whatever. it's infuriating
I can understand that. In my opinion Christianity when done correctly opens things up for science. Theology used to be called the chief of the sciences.
@@Weavileiscool In the best case Scenarios, yes. Galileo (a devout caholic) said that god endowed us with senses and reason to give us knowledge of the world around us
And The current calendar was made by priests.
But too often, our shortcomings as humans gets in the way of even those noble pursuits. Galileo is again a great example
subscribed. thanks for featuring catholic view on this. love this crossover.
Why do these leaders always feel the need to speak in code that has to be interpreted on a program like this one?
His speech shouldn't have to be followed by people saying "I think what he means here"
Hayek wrote about the freeloader problem and how liberty is not sustainable if people who CAN work DON’T work.
Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas
"It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need"
Sounds pretty dang socialist to me.
Great job Trent defending the Catholic perspective and faith 🙏✝️🇻🇦😇
LOL. Ms. Wolfe said "Hi Zach" in such an emotionless tone.
@Sebastian Servis, You will not accept the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Something taught in all embryology textbooks today.
more catholic crossover pls
The capitalist’s Motte-and-Bailey: They claim Scandinavian nations are capitalist, but when you say let’s enact the same policies…suddenly Scandinavia becomes a socialist dystopia.
They are a welfare state economy that pays for their social programs with foaming at the mouth pro business policies and insanely high tax rates at 60% if you make 60k per year. They also have very small and ethnically homogenous populations.
It’s not a simple “they’re also socialist” you have to tell the whole story of how they’re able to afford such programs.
Sweden dumped it’s socialist policies in the ‘90s, in favor of free markets.
@@ludwigvonsowell5347 they are NOT socialists.
@@pdxnikki1 it’s an offshoot, they’re a capitalist economy with a massive welfare state. 60% tax rates with low regulation of industry.
💯
Wish they'd brought up the idea that AI will eliminate most jobs, and what might be alternatives to socialism in that scenario.
They are
socialism is explicitly condemned by the Church
No.
Perhaps it bears expressing when considering the Samari (?) view of Catholic intervention in the public square vs a more lassez faire (sp?) Libertarian approach, that we should err on the side of freedom, that is, government not restricting citizens' choices and not promoting ideologies.
However, I do believe the idea that you can do that perfectly is very naive, especially as government is in the business of education. You cannot take all judgment and ideological belief out of public policy, but the more foundational principles that the country was founded upon should be promoted. Elsewise, you have a society that is much more vulnerable to division and self-destruction.
I guess that balance can't be achieved without people honestly asking those questions of themselves that Trent talked about at the end and trying to better themselves and the lives of those around them.
Socialism is about bad psychology. That bad psychology can also be employed by Conservatives. In both cases, this is unethical. Epistemology and education are ethical.
The secular reasoning that happened in this was interesting. Whenever the discussion actually went into faith, my eyes kind of glazed over, and everything sounded pretty meaningless to me. But, I guess if I think about this enough, maybe I can persuade my Catholic family members that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are actually both horrible for the country and neither should do anything beyond sit and rot for his remaining years.
Not unless they are ignorant or sinister.
I mean worshipping men in funny hats is a core function of their religion.
I have to disagree, libertarians do Not have a better grasp of humans than socialists. Both are equally wrongheaded. Libertarians think men are islands of rational industry. Socialists think men with the right material conditions form communities of good will. I would no sooner side with one than the other.
And libertarianism is as internally consistent in its pure form as communism. Both rely on wildly inaccurate pictures of the human person and his relationship with others. Libertarianism is as humble as "my will be done."
How about a National Socialist?
I think when people are given the “freedom to do whatever they want” and when people prioritize there autonomy as an “individual” that will always snowball into mass degeneracy and societal degradation because we have a natural inclination to sin. I am not advocating for socialism by any means but I think we can find a combination of the state preserving specific social values while having a market economy that allows for growth and innovation.
1:09:25 It sounds like he's suggesting Louisiana is Protestant. It's quite Catholic!
The north of the state is unfortunately. As a Louisianan I don’t understand why we have a giant chunk of redneck country attached to the French regions.
Better Catholic: Dorothy Day or Francisco Franco?
Neither.
Both/and. Franco on a national scale, Day on a local scale.
If you count Jesuits as Catholics, then yes it is possible....the word of focus there is "IF"
Based
There are many fine Jesuits today. You haven’t looked very hard, that’s all.
@@NickFromDetroit Communist priest preaching Liberation Theology.
@@Jinkaza1882 , Wrong, on all counts. Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., not a communist. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., not a communist. The late Fr. Hardon, S.J., not a communist. Papa Francesco, S.J., not a communist.
@@NickFromDetroit Right on all accounts. Jesuits= communist.
Yes, there is a Catholic politics. See John Paul II
if you can ignore the exploitation of value and labor, if you can close your eyes to the leverage used to keep most people wage slaves in order to live "freely" and only look at the benefits of it, and corporate capitalism being the driving force of ethics, than I guess you're making the pill easier the swallow 😂 On the other hand, if you conflate authoritarian communism with community driven, bottom-up economy of Socialism you can twist it into something evil. This channel hides behind big words to explain simple ideas. Capitalism has destroyed the world that God gave us, and drives inequality and greed. It's that simple. Kindly explain your quote "the problem with capitalism is capitalists" and tell me exactly what capitalism is WITHOUT capitalists 😊 Here's the truth: Socialism may not be the answer, but whatever the hell this is isn't either. These rich dirtbags that own the world and have been lying for a century to get you to believe them are losing the facade. They're scared the guillotine is coming back, and scared we figured out what they have done to the world So they start a new moral panic and blame an economic model that has never been allowed to flourish, instead of looking in the mirror.
The ironic part about your reasoning here is the same kind of reasoning could be used to show the exact opposite. For instance the majority of big corporations and billionaires support the democrat party, mass immigration, black lives matter, lgbtq, transgender, etc. don't believe me? Just look at campaign financing, look at any streaming service, look at the social media feed of the major corporations. So all these same big bad guys you are talking about are the ones pushing progressivism. This shows pretty clearly that the big bad corporation capitalists aren't libertarian or even Republican but progressive Democrats.
Of course they can. Thats what the Jesuit order is.
No, not only incompatible but explicitly grounds for Excommunication even if you try.
One would not be excommunicated for being a socialist. If you disagree cite canon law.
@@bman5257 has been that way since 1954 officially.
@@bman5257 not to mention the entire field is a stnic coven.
@@bman5257 Can Catholics be stnists? No.
@@bman5257 do socialists commit every s1n That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance? YEs.
The anti-Christ doesn't need to reveal himself.
Can a Catholic be a Socialist? Might as well.
Did you even watch the program?
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 No
Laisser-faire.
let's see how fast Trent misrepresents and strawmans the left.
almost immediately wow
3:00 what overarching state is enforcing contracts between nations?
This guy is taking Ls right out the gate
Lmao, unless you're arguing that authority doesn't exist, everybody is accountable to somebody
@@sil3ntwint3r it appears you’re not understanding what he said
@@jakelm4256 contracts are generally incentivised legally (arbitration, courts) or by force. A religious individual believes that there is a higher power that will ultimately hold people accountable for their actions. I think if you understood better what he was saying, you might not agree with him, but it's not "taking an L"
I'm not Roman Catholic, so this is one step removed for me; not of interest.
Convert.
@@youngKOkid1 Oh, dear!
@@TheWhitehiker you don’t have to be a Roman Catholic. You can be a Byzantine Catholic or one of the other non-Latin rites 🕊️
@@youngKOkid1 A good Lutheran, thanks much--our architecture is better, and the liturgy is entirely sung.
@@TheWhitehiker don’t you think those are bad reasons to be a Lutheran, considering they have nothing to do with why Luther revolted against the Catholic Church?
Wouldn't Seamus Coughlin have been a better guest since he's an actual ex-Libertarian? Plus, Trent Horn places content creation above all else. That's why he keeps shaking his fist at Father James Martin, barely utters a peep about Father Altman, and stays silent on Bishop Joseph Strickland and Steve Bannon.
This is cringeworthy right-wing lunacy of the highest order.
When you start reading the authors of socialism you realize pretty quickly it's the most sane take you can have.
@sirellyn I feel like a third way is best. Let people have property rights but don’t let big business take over the whole country.
@hismajesty6272
When Boeing is essentially a de facto state owned enterprise (soe) and silences it's whistleblowers like Soviet chernobyl exposers.
@@hismajesty6272 Well you're in luck, people have property rights in socialism.
@@sirellyn, All socialists are gnostic Satan worshipers.
Let's not mix gibberish (religion) with the real world
It is socialism, liberalism, and the whole so-called “enlightenment” that is gibberish.
Religion derives from logic and understanding of the natural world. That which we do not understand is where we have faith. Calling that gibberish is remarkably unintelligent
The question isn't if someone worships, but what they worship. Humans are religious animals. It's proven by looking at how humans and societies act now and in all times. So really it's a matter of finding the best mode of worship, there is no vacuum.
@sil3ntwint3r at least you admit the of the gaps. I find I don't know more satisfying
@AjaxNixon meh. If anyone has any serious worship, nevermind what it is, I am rightfully concerned