Inside Catholic has been kind enough to publish a reworked and hopefully more coherent account of my thoughts on Locke and Catholic political thought. For those who didn’t want to wade through my verbose musings, this ought to be more readable.
Locke & CST
Friday, November 5, 2010 \AM\.\Fri\.
Comments Off on Locke & CST |
Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic Social Teaching, Immortale Dei, John Locke, Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, Second treatise of civil government |
Permalink
Posted by Bonchamps
Catholic Political Thought & John Locke: Part III
Monday, October 25, 2010 \AM\.\Mon\.In the previous part of this series, I gave a detailed comparison of the views of John Locke and Pope Leo XIII on the state of nature, the origin of private property, and the proper use of private property. In this final part, I want to make a few more points regarding what I think can be called “Lockean” thought, at least as it exists in contemporary America, explore the relationship between the Catholic Church and the United States, and explain why I think all that has been considered thus far is relevant for our political situation today.
13 Comments |
Uncategorized | Tagged: Austrian Economics, Austrian School, Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic Social Teaching, Charity, Christian charity, Declaration of Independence, Immortale Dei, In Amplissimo, John Locke, Libertas, Pope Leo XIII, Private Property, Rerum Novarum, Ron Paul, Second treatise of civil government, Separation of Church and State, Tea Party, Tea Party Movement, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson |
Permalink
Posted by Bonchamps
Catholic Political Thought & John Locke: Part II
Saturday, October 23, 2010 \PM\.\Sat\.by Joe Hargrave
In the previous part I showed how Locke’s argument for government by consent was similar to, and may have even been influenced by, that of St. Robert Bellarmine. I also showed how some of the more well-known early-modern political theorists who dreamed of powerful authoritarian regimes also dreamed of obliterating the Church as an obstacle to their fruition. Now I will argue that there is a clear overlap between the political theory of John Locke, and that of Pope Leo XIII, the pope who is responsible for Catholic social teaching as we know it today. In the final part of this series I will address why these overlaps are important, and what they mean in our contemporary political situation.
3 Comments |
Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic Social Teaching, First Treatise, First Treatise of Civil Government, God Locke & Equality, Immortale Dei, Jeremy Waldron, John Locke, Karl Marx, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Peter Laslett, Pope Leo XIII, Private Property, Rerum Novarum, Robert Filmer, Second Treatise, Second treatise of civil government, state of nature, Theories of Surplus Value, Thomas Aquinas |
Permalink
Posted by Bonchamps
Catholic Political Thought & John Locke: Part I
Friday, October 22, 2010 \PM\.\Fri\.by Joe Hargrave
It is becoming fashionable in the now and unfortunately familiar leftist-traditionalist alliance to gang up on the political ideas of John Locke as the source and origin of all that is anti-Catholic in Anglo-American politics. Articles in the Distributist Review, books by certain prolific authors, and blog posts appearing on certain sites, all have produced the equivalent of a picture of Locke with devil horns and perhaps a long, thin moustache to twirl while he’s tying hapless girls to the railroad tracks. There’s certainly no denying that Locke was himself opposed to what he thought Catholicism was. But sometimes, even the enemies of the Church are sharing her premises in spite of themselves.
53 Comments |
Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic Political Theory, Catholic Political Thought, Discourses on Livy, Divine Right of Kings, Francesco Suarez, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Leviathan, Niccolo Machiavelli, Second treatise of civil government, Separation of Church and State, St. Robert Bellarmine, The Distributist Review, The Social Contract, Thomas Hobbes |
Permalink
Posted by Bonchamps
Catholic Distributarianism: A Preemptive FAQ
Friday, September 10, 2010 \AM\.\Fri\.I’ll begin by stating that part of the blame or praise for this post ought to go to Christopher Blosser and David Jones for their excellent overview and commentary on the ongoing political/economic dispute between Catholic Distributists and Catholic libertarians.
I wish I could easily come up with a logical, smooth flow to all of these points. But really I just want to get them out there, no matter how disjointed in appearance.
Finally, I really mean it this time: we will have a respectful discussion on this topic, or none at all. That means certain people and their comments will likely be banned from the discussion. It will not be possible to avoid charges of “being afraid” to debate with such indestructible champions of the one true political philosophy, given their amazing ability to rule out all other possible reasons, including their coarse and offensive personal behavior, as to why no one wishes to engage in discussions with them. C’est la vie.
The best way to contribute here, though, is to ask questions that I can answer for this FAQ!
*
Where does the word “Distributarian” come from?
The word “Distributarian” was pejoratively applied to me and a few others who have attempted to blend libertarian and Distributist ideas by those not so enamored with the project. Since I see it as a good thing, I don’t mind wearing the label as a badge of honor.
What is a Distributarian?
It is one who does not see a necessary conflict between the basic propositions of Distributism and libertarianism, and insofar as possible, seeks to incorporate both of them into their social vision.
What are these propositions?
The following propositions are both necessary and sufficient for each ideology:
Of Distributism: property should be as widely distributed as possible.
Of libertarianism: social relationships should be as voluntary as possible.
Naturally some doctrinaires will dislike the wording “as ___ as possible”; why should we care about what is possible when great ideas are at stake? Either they exist full-fledged without imperfection in the world or they may as well not exist at all! If we move past this childish expectation and begin with the possible, I think we will find that there is no contradiction between these propositions.
Distributism and libertarianism challenge each other in a good way. Distributism challenges libertarianism to move beyond individual autonomy and articulate a vision of the common good; libertarianism challenges Distributism to clearly articulate how property distribution ought to come about – through force, or through consent?
Not only do they challenge each other; they compliment each other. Property owners will thrive in an environment of economic freedom; genuine liberty will thrive as it is rooted in solid social institutions based upon private property. As property ownership will increase the self-sufficiency of individuals, families, and communities, it will decrease dependency upon the state.
Read the rest and comment here.
And please note that this is a work in progress!
Comments Off on Catholic Distributarianism: A Preemptive FAQ |
Uncategorized | Tagged: Anarchism, Catholic Social Teaching, Distributism, Edward Feser, John Locke, Joseph Schumpeter, Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, Natural Rights, Political Philosophy, Political Theory, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI, property, Property Rights, Quadragesimo Anno, Redistribution of wealth, Rerum Novarum, Scott McDermott, Second treatise of civil government, theory of property, wealth redistribution |
Permalink
Posted by Bonchamps