I am pro-life, I am a veteran, and I believe in the free market. 

I am voting for Ron Paul based on his social, foreign and economic policies, and well as his personal integrity.

forget it.  If you can only post a paragraph, then there is no possibility of a discussion.

You are confusing libertarianism with Objectivism.  Libertarians believe in charity as a moral obligation, and I have read an interview with Ron Paul where he said quite clearly that he parted with the objectivists and that was one big reason why.  He said he took Ayn Rand’s newsletter so long as it was published but it was to sharpen his own arguments against her logic, because her logic was intelligently stated.

You don’t have to believe in ‘libertarianism’ OR objectivism to believe in Ron Paul, however.

Who would you vote for if Paul isn’t on the ballot and it’s Romney vs. Obama?

Patrick—I, like the author of this email, will never vote for either Romney or Obama.  If the Republican party is so evil as to only provide that choice, then shame on them.  I will not partake in their evil by choosing it merely as the less evil of two options.

The mass media is a romneybot so go ahead an be an anyone else bot.  For my part, I’m a newt-paul-santo-bot.

Mark,

One good reason to vote for anybody but Obama is the appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court and other venues over the next four years…!!!

Think about it…!!!

Thanks,  Fran

A little off topic, but I’m really getting tired of the “think of the Supreme Court” argument for voting. For one thing there is no assurance that any President will appoint someone who will decide in the direction we want. Secondly, the Senate confirmation process can scuttle an appointee, so the decision isn’t only in the hands of the President. Third, there’s reason to believe that even if a “proper” appointee is selected that a case will come before them that is compelling enough to overturn 40 years of legal precedent. Fourth, even assuming the long-shot that Roe v. Wade is overturned (and I stress that this is a long shot by a wide margin, given the need for a new case to come forward that would justify overturning 40 years of precedent) abortion would not be outlawed in the U.S. It would simply mean that states could outlaw it if they so chose, as was the case before the Roe v. Wade decision, and the most populous states would certainly not outlaw it. People could easily cross state lines for abortions, so it wouldn’t be going away.

In short, there is no serious hope that electing a President in the hopes of Supreme Court appointments is going to have an effect on Roe v. Wade, and even if it did it would do nothing to eliminate abortion in our country. I find the constant call of “think of the Supreme Court” to be repugnant because it takes our mind off of the real issues that are likely to come into play for a President, and get’s people to overlook the very real evil and danger that every President is capable of on a daily basis in the hopes of a legal long-shot that won’t amount to much anyway. It seems to be one more way that a certain political party holds us Pro-Lifers hostage to whomever they decide to prop up for the Presidency.

Peace and God bless!

People have to be hurting, really hurting, to be botting for Ron Paul (or for that matter, any of the dwarfish bunch running for the GOP nomination) next year. What a car full of doltish clowns! In fairness to Ron Paul, be thankful he’s not nearly as doltish as his son, incredibly enough elected to represent the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the Senate. It’s terribly funny, but not kind to admit, how much pleasure I get watching videos of him whenever he says something stupid while serving on a committee hearing with both Bernie Sanders and Al Franken. Take a look at Steve Benen’s “Explaining ‘Penny Wise, Pound Foolish’ to Rand Paul” in the Washington Monthly ... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/explaining_penny_wise_pound_fo030458.php )
  If Al Franken wanted to write this script way back in his SNL years, even the show’s bosses would’ve laughed it out (rightfully then) believing the Senate wouldn’t have tolerated a guy like Rand Paul sitting on any committee save for the least significant, not one having any say over budgetary matters having life or death consequences.
  Why be a “bot” for even his old man, Ron? The old guy is just as stingy as the young one; with his saving political grace being that he’s more articulate and not as arrogant as his manchild son sitting in the Senate.
  Inasmuch as I disagree with the Obama Administration on its social issues agenda, let’s not forget the fact that slowly and surely, he’s turning the economy around, and beating our enemies abroad. Let’s also not forget that he’s dealing with an enormously powerful wing of the opposition party that’s managed to bottle up the Senate with its use of one filibuster after another, even refusing to allow debate on key taxation and job creation issues ... all for the purpose of deliberately tanking our economy so they can get enough people disgusted enough to vote Obama out of office.
  Mull on this gross and egregious display of ECONOMIC TREASON which led to last Summer’s debt ceiling debacle which might lead to a real penny-wise/pound-foolish situation when the Gang of Twelve “Super Congress” budgetary directoriate get down to the real dirty work of politikin’ this weekend. They want Obama out so badly that they’re willing to trash your job, your life’s savings, your dreams for your kids, just keep adding up your worst possible nightmares and ask if they’re not in any way directly or indirectly influenced by Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul’s fellow and senior KY Senator acting ever so imperiously as Minority Leader.
  Just look at Ron Paul and his real record. Look at the rest of the GOP’s and if you can vote for ANY of those dolts, well, you’ve all given the term “prolife” a whole new meaning, and a very dumbed down one at best. After all these are the same bots, dolts, skinflints who successfully took over the House, and darn near the Senate, on promises they’d do what it took to get more jobs.
  What happened? The clowns departed their campaign cars, took over the House and turned it into an Ideological Food Fight and Circus of outrageous proportions and disgraced the word politics further than one could ever have possibly imagined before. What the heck did defuding Planned Parenthood while also cutting the daylights out of the WIC program and other necessary spending programs for the “least among us” ... poor single moms with kids, or pregnant moms and our elderly, especially our rural poor elderly living in the outermost parts of Minn. and Vermont, as well as Kentucky and Texas, have to do with job creation?
  Zilch. While Obama’s people were busy getting the private sector back up and running, albeit not as fast as even he’d want it to be, the GOP was doing its best, er worst, to kill off so many public sector jobs, even in public safety. As Randi Rhodes said on her radio program show about a week ago, “what happened to the love affair Republicans had with the first responders right after 9/11?”  It only lasted as long as they wanted it to last before the GOP went back into its longstanding cheapskate mode of “thinking” when it comes to respecting public service. Naturally, when the unemployment figures come out, they’re not as rosy as they can and should be no thanks to the Republicans who have SOLD THEIR SOULS and patriotism to the likes of Grover Norquist in this “No tax” oath taken to him, in some cases even decades ago.
  Now some Republicans are whining that they can’t get out. They can hold up the national’s economic recovery, plot a political/economic coup de tat and now they’re saying “Oh pity me/us, we can’t squirm out of a (really dumb)thing we signed years ago to a self-appointed national Gauleiter who has never been elected to even a Town Meeting seat in his native Commonwealth of Massachusetts!
  This is pure COWARDICE, and if Ron Paul is part of that bunch of pols who’ve taken oaths to Gauleiter Norquist, and the rest of any of them are simply not qualified to run for any elective job, much less the highest one. All it takes is a one man/one woman who wants to be a truly patriotic leader and majority of one for starters by simply getting up on the House or Senate Floor and let Norquist have it upside, downside, and in every way imaginable and use every word allowable by the rules of each respective Chamber. In short, verbally run the varmint out of town and the racket he’s been pulling in Washington far too long.
  If our plutocrats are willing to buy politicians with all their campaign cash (and they’ll be “investing” a lot more no thanks to Citizens United) ... why aren’t there enough Republicans with sufficient backbones to stand up and be the first to take on Norquist, the Koch Brothers and any other shady non-elected people, e.g. health insurance companies, Wall Street hedge fund managers, et al, who are really calling the shots from behind the scenes?
  Answer is too simple to ignore. Today’s bots in control of the so-called “Conservative Movement” lack the bone material to do the simple brave act of calling out the real villains who are keeping this country where they want it to be, in their back pockets.
  Heck, we really don’t need any more geniuses running for office: we just need more people with backbone. Because it doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to see what’s really holding us back from becoming the nation we used to be once again. More bone matter than bots with brain matter. Then the ones with the brain matter can really go to work to help make this country get back to work.

Reading historian/economist, and Catholic convert Dr. Thomas Woods can be helpful in clarifying Dr. Paul’s brand of libertarianism.  It’s mostly quite compatible with Catholic social teaching and morality.

I, too, have lamented the moral disconnect between Ron Paul and some of his libertarian supporters.  I don’t fully understand why there is that chasm between them especially after having read his book, The Revolution, and after having viewed him many times on the news and witnessing his grandfatherly demeanor and well-reasoned and cool responses.  But then again, we are talking about media coverage of his followers and perhaps therein lies the problem.

Dr. Ron Paul knows more about Catholic Social Teaching than most Catholics.He thoroughly understands the Catholic position of subsidiarity:“The idea that larger and higher organizations should not usurp functions that smaller and lower bodies can perform more efficiently.” For a more thorough and scholarly explanation see:principle of subsidiarity by David Bosnich at the Acton Institute site:acton.org/pub/religion/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity.

True, Paul understands subsidiarity - but I think Mark’s point its that while Paul understands subsidiarity, he neglects the flip side if that very same coin - solidarity. (Much like a large number of conservative Catholics do as well.)

I am unashamedly a Paul supporter, and will vote for him in primaries and in the unlikely case he does end up on my ballot.

My reason is because I think that Paul’s “neglect” of solidarity is due in part to his libertarian influence, his focus on opposing central management, and I think that his “lopsided” stance is a forgivable balance.

Part of the authoritarian mindset we see in. America today is due to far too much emphasis on solidarity , a.k.a., a ” Lets all just get along”-style of trying to achieve social justice by imposing an unjust & artificial equality on everyone.

I think a president that leans a bit too far in the other direction would be a wonderful balance.

And in the more likely event that Paul is not allowed on the general ballot, I’m tempted to agree with the bumper stickers that say

“Why vote for the lesser evil? Cthulu 2012!”

Believing that government is not the proper instrument for manifesting solidarity is not the same as believing that solidarity is wrong. As Paul said in one of the early debates, society does have an obligation to care for those in need. That is why he treated Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, but refused to accept government money for treating them. He did so because he believed it was the right thing to do.

To Chris ka-ba,
Please specifically define your understanding of solidarity and exactly where Dr.Paul fails (in your opinion) in that regard.
Thank you

First, Steven ... please! You sound like a broken liberal record. 
As for the article, I can relate to Mark’s general points. I find myself always tugging, since I’man economic libertarian, but more socially republican.  The pprinciple I believe in is: a more free enterprise market coupled with a free press will correct itself more efficiently than a government oriented one. That goes for economic cycles and for wayward crooks.

To Peter Mains:
Thank you Peter. Perhaps your contribution will help Mark and Chris
understand Dr. Paul’s heart felt concern for the less fortunate. He has explained more than once his economic theories will be beneficial to all.
By the way, Mark, have you seen the recent photos of the Paul family? He does not represent the libertarian philosophy of no children as you stated.
Also, he is 100% pro-life. Isn’t that what Catholics want in a leader?
Mark, there is something behind the uncertainty of your approval of
the good doctor. I wish I could understand your position.

“Who would you vote for if Paul isn’t on the ballot and it’s Romney vs. Obama?”

As I’ve said many times, when (I no longer say “if”) we are forced to that choice, I will vote for a third party candidate who does not ask me to support intrinsic grave evils.  If no such candidate is on the ballot, I will scroll down to the next offices and issues on the ballot.  The Presidency is not the only thing we vote about.

And, bear in mind, the fact that Paul is a decent man who does not endorse grave intrinsic evil merely means that I am open to considering him.  It doesn’t guarantee I’d vote for him.  At present, the only two GOPers I would consider are him and Huntsman, since the rest of the field disgraced themselves by clasping to their bosoms torture and the lawless assassination of Americans (and anybody else they feel like killing) pioneered by Obama.  I think America is about the rule of law, not the capricious whims of tyrants proclaiming “peace and safety” as they gut the Constitution and tell you they are protecting you. With that display of the love of despotism, the GOP field instantly narrowe to only Huntsman and Paul.

“Dr. Ron Paul knows more about Catholic Social Teaching than most Catholics.He thoroughly understands the Catholic position of subsidiarity:“The idea that larger and higher organizations should not usurp functions that smaller and lower bodies can perform more efficiently.”

Well, yes.  All libertarians really like the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity.  If it comes to that, all heretics really love *some* fragment of the Church’s teaching.  That’s why they are heretics.  However, show me a libertarian who also likes the Church’s teaching on solidarity and then you will convince me they “thoroughly understand” Catholic teaching.

Liz:

I didn’t say he represents a philosophy of no children.  I said the libertarianism tends to be a philosophy that does not take children into account.  It tends to think horizontally and conceive of the human race as a collection of atomized individuals who are already adults.  It doesn’t take seriously ideas like the common good and our debt to the future.  It also doesn’t take original sin seriously enough.

Mr. Shea, it is laughable to suggest that Dr. Paul has no idea about Solidarity.  Have you ever read any of his books?  They have more to do with Catholic social teaching by far than they do with any sort of objectivism or anything by Ayn Rand.  Liberals love to go on about Solidarity, but usually they mean they want the state to care for the poor so that they don’t have to.  Dr. Paul understands, as should all Catholics, that it is OUR responsibility to care for the poor and marginalized of society.  Reminds me of the old slogan, “Liberals: Loving Poor People So Much That They Want Others To Steal From You to Help Them.”

“Believing that government is not the proper instrument for manifesting solidarity is not the same as believing that solidarity is wrong.”

Sorry, but this is nonsense.  The God-given task of the state is to guard the common good against the depredations due to original sin.  That’s not Karl Marx.  That’s Romans 13 and the entire tradition of Catholic social thought.  Solidarity, to be sure, is best preserved by citizens living and acting in charity.  But in this world, the fact remains that none of us does that all the time and some of us attack the common good so viciously that the state is necessary to punish such assaults.  It is dream world libertarianism, not Catholic teaching, that attempts to pretend the state is not a major factor in preserving solidarity and the common good.  If you want to see your vision of a world where the state has no role in preserving the common good, you’ve got examples of it, such as Haiti and Somalia.  You don’t have anything like your proposition reflected in Catholic teaching though.

Indeed, the Church’s teaching concerning the state gives libertarians the Global Heebie Jeebies:

CCC 1927 It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.

The sooner libertarian Catholics face and understand that and stop reflexively calling that “socialism” or advancing the nonsensical proposition that “government is not the proper instrument for manifesting solidarity”, the sooner they can stop talking as though subsidiarity is the only *real* aspect of Catholic social teaching.  It’s time for Catholics to embrace the whole of Catholic teaching, not just the subsidiarity part.

“Liberals love to go on about Solidarity”

Yes, and conservatives (and in particular, libertarians) love to go on about subsidiarity.

Catholics, however, prefer to go on about the fullness of Catholic teaching, which is my point here.  Catholics should get their catechesis about the Faith from the Church, not from their preferred ideological tribal group on FOX or MSNBC.

Good to read such a post on a well known Catholic blog. I am proudly a Ron Paul supporter. I have woken up to realize that the two party system is a fraud. They work together to ensure that a third party will never exist. And in so doing, they insure their interests.

I was pro-torture and pro-war for quite a while, but not because I wanted to be pro-torture or pro-war, but because it had been sold to me as a very American idea. Or honestly, Jack Bauer on 24 did a lot of the leg work. Perhaps we should start questioning the types of shows that are sold to us as entertainment and how they work subtly to change and influence our thinking.

The saving grace was going back to Thomas Aquinas and reading that “yes”, torture does not have to be debilitating psychical pain, but could also be mental anguish in the mind of the sufferer. If I suspect a young boy of breaking my window with a kick of his soccer ball, and to solicit this information from him I say, “I am going to kill you” that boy thinks that is what I am going to do, and thus the anguish in his mind ravishes him. If he actually dies from fear then I am guilty for putting that fear in him and then causing his death. Dignity of life does not start at conception—and then end when one is accused of treason or of withholding information. It was then I began to see that Ron Paul touts more catholic teaching than most republican politicians.

Secondly, Aquinas also talks about the just war theory which is now lost even in the minds of catholic thinkers of today. Just because we think our lives are in danger does not mean that we go on the offensive. It is the same way we were sold the war on Iraq.

Lastly, America should not be an empire. We have more covert operations in effect today than ever before. We toppled Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. Did we install a Christian democracy? No. We installed terrorist groups, drove away Christians and killed a number of children to get to the “bad” guys. Our CIA have been doing things under the guise of protecting America, but really it’s been protecting the interests of the government and her allies. But we Americans are not told, because they know our consciences will say “no” and demand a change. And so, because of this, it remains business as usual.

It is not isolationism to stay away from an unfortunate messy situation unless we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something needs to be done because of an imminent threat. For instance, during the Cuba missile crisis, pictures were exchanged to show Russian ships in Cuba. We showed our proof…and back then, we would have gone to Congress to obtain permissions necessary to keep the Russians away.

Right now, we are setting camp in Australia so as to be a visible threat to China. We have nuclear weapons, and so do they. We ought to put away the toys and learn how to disagree without killing innocent people.

Fundamental questions to ask yourself are, what is torture? Read Thomas Aquinas. What is the theory of just war? Read Thomas Aquinas.

We are at a pivotal crossroad. Do we continue under the yoke of the corrupt Republican party, or do we say, you’ve toyed with us too much and now, we will moderate the discussion so that our voices are heard.

“

As I’ve said many times, when (I no longer say “if”) we are forced to that choice, I will vote for a third party candidate who does not ask me to support intrinsic grave evils.  If no such candidate is on the ballot, I will scroll down to the next offices and issues on the ballot.  “

So through your inaction you will allow grave harm to continue?

seems by not voting for president you get the candidate you wanted—Obama—but with deniability.  Hope that makes your conscience feel better

I can make it easy for all of you. Write in H.H. Pope Benedict XVI!

Why are you waiting for a miracle to occur before you allow yourself to vote for your candidate of choice?  There is something troubling about your logic, that you will refuse to vote for or write in Dr. Paul because he doesn’t measure up to your standards, but you will readily tolerate a much worse candidate.  Why not vote your conscience?  What would happen if everyone in this country just voted their conscience, instead of caving in to the lesser of two evils?  Interesting things would happen.  For myself, I pledged to vote for Dr. Paul, and I intend to.

Wherever Mark casts his vote in a GOP primary or caucus, I’m fully confident he’ll do the intelligent thing by putting a check for Jon Huntsman; the other GOP Mormon, albeit with a working brain. Mark’s not a real “bot” in any true sense of the word because his political IQ is too superior to plunk him in the galley with the rest of the real bots the GOP’s counting on to help them destroy the economy so they can get back in the bidnez of putting new life in one of Calvin Coolidge’s longest maxim’s: “The business of America is business.”
  Cal was half right. He would’ve batted a thousand if he added “The religion of America is business, too.” Incredibly enough, that one quip of his is one of the loudest and most obnoxious rationales used by the plutocrats and their knavish abasers in today’s economy. How else could we explain such fawning and laudatory praises for an unregulated “free market” society in the aftermath of the Great Crash of ‘08? (They belong in a galley, alright if they want to let Wall Street chain ‘em in for yet an other crash after more cries for deregulating this, abolishing that and letting every thing go to pits.)
  At least Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan, the latter a real slobbering fawner of Ayn Rand, have admitted that the deregulation of our banking industry wasn’t such a bright idea after all, especially the smashing of Glass Steagall that kept the <r. Potters out of the normal day-to-day banking operations that worked fine for nearly seventy years, thank you FDR and New Deal Democrats.
  Not today’s GOP and deregulation cowboys like Ron/Rand Paul and Mitt Romney who never saw an industry collapse or home foreclosure he couldn’t find something to like about, not matter how much misery the tsunami-like ripple effects of GM’s and Chrysler’s collapse would’ve done to the economy, especially his “home state” of Michigan. The same goes for home foreclosures where he had the gall to flippantly tell newspaper editors in Las Vegas, the city suffering the most from foreclosures, that it it wouldn’t bother him in the least to see people pushed in the streets and the people living on the same streets have to live with their home values tanking as well. Hey, when you have scads of big cribs and manses across the country, what’s the misery of others to you if you believe in letting the cold market conditions be the rule? He’s got his, what’s “solidarity” and “subsidiarity” to a guy like Romney, America’s number one political job killer?
  When it comes to defending his kind of “people” you can well count on Mitt to be very discriminating as to what kind of “people” who’ll have his back! He was a big backer of Planned Parenthood before his ever so conveniently timed Damascus Road flip-flop just as he was readying himself to eschew running for re-election as MA’s governor so he could enter the South Carolina Primary.
  It’s okay to change one’s mind. But when a person turns it into a regular stage act, well now ... doesn’t it now appear as if Mitt changes positions as often as Newt changed his wives in his younger years.
  I’m not a Democrat, though I side with them more often than not. That’s true and yes, I’ve been in both parties and I’ve flip-flopped on things too. Haven’t most of us to some degree or another? It’s okay for a politician to change his or her mind, but to turn it into a second avocation within a vocation one says he’s not a part of, e.g., that ever oh so “durrrrty” world of politics, safe to say only Mitt could pull that stunt off. It’s a skill he’s developed quite nicely. Inasmuch as I’ll delight in watching Obama take Romney or any professional politician like him on in a debate, my more devious instincts make me wish Romney was facing Joe Biden, who’d eviscerate that nice hair guy claiming as many “home states” as he has mansions to run off to when his thrashin’s over next November.
  DWC, if you read over what I’ve written, you might even come a little closer, and put my remarks against the real record of the GOP and their economic freebooting buddies like the Brothers Koch and that Norquist fellow whose main goal is to do unto government what McConnell wants to do to Obama (politically speaking, of course)... perhaps you’ll come to a different conclusion about my “broken liberal record” of views. Maybe you and others will see that I’m actually more truly conservative in the sense that I’m expressing my views in hopes that they’ll help people understand what a radical bunch of clowns we have running the House, at least, and to a sneakier degree, the Senate via the Filibuster ... and how dangerous these people are when it comes to preserving the stability brought forth by the once solid American middle class.
  Do you want your kids forced to work on Sundays? If not, write to Utah’s Tea Party rookie Senator Mike Lee. Buckeye residents, you want to see your state parks turned into fracking fields for Gov. John Kaisich’s fatcat pals who dumped beaucoup bucks into his campaign coffers? And just imagine the joy of living next to one, a place you thought would add to your home’s return value only to discover that your guv sold out not only the state’s parks to his pals, but your home value down the toilet. But, but, but, be VERY careful when you go to use that toilet. Ya never know when that volcano might go.
  Mark’s no “bot,” and I hope to God more GOP voters like him, discerning voters, will soon enough catch on to the big scam that’s being pulled on the American voting electorate. That scam is simply, get the people so riled up they’ll vote for anybody and put up with anything just so long as it’s not Obama ... even if they’ve been lied to all along. It’s been pulled before; ask anybody about the skills of one Herr Doktor Professor Joseph Goebbels. Keep lying long and hard enough and hope the voters don’t catch on quick enough.
  Eventually, because there’s a lot of time left, the American people will make the right choice; unless of course, the radicals get their way. And who’ll be the real conservatives then? Prolife economic progressives like myself.

Kevin(s?):

It is not inaction to refuse to support grave intrinsic evil.  The principle effect my vote has is on me, not on the outcome of the election.  I live in Seattle, a town so blue it is almost ultraviolet.  My vote will have zero impact on what the electoral college does.  It will, however, have a huge impact on me if I agree to support policies I believe are worthy of the everlasting fires of hell.

Stephanie:  There’s nothing troubling about my logic.  Washington primaries are quite late in the game.  If Paul is on the ballot, I will likely register a pathetic protest vote for him, precisely because I agree that it is long past time that people stop knucklng under to the buffoons the GOP keeps serving up.  But it will make no difference.  The GOP would move heaven and earth to keep Paul from the nomination.  All the NotRomneys are going down in flames and the GOP will, once again, find itself nominating a man nobody wants.  When they do, I will, as you urge, vote my conscience.

Oh..and I too will not be voting if I am presented with any of the neo-conservative choices. What is the difference between Obama and any of them? I am not really sure. I will not be made a fool of again. Yesterday, I defended Bush and his values. Today, I realize he had none. I was sold a bill of goods with a smoke sceen and slight of hand.

I do not like Romney. But if I have to choose between Romney and Obama, it is very clear to me that I will vote for Romney.

Ron Paul helped me to realize that we all should remember how abortion came to be a ‘right’ in america. Lack of subsidiarity. A court room of 9 judges making laws for all 50 states. Grotesque misuse of power.

We need to get back to our roots.

Hi Liz & Peter,

I don’t know that I would say Paul “fails” in regards to solidarity, or that he has “no idea” about it. However, he does leave the impression that he thinks that individuals are completely capable of standing in unity.

IMO, it is unreasonable to think that.

As Mark noted, the state’s task per the Bible is to act as a guard for the common good. Without some kind of overarching entity acting to guard it, the common good is just as much at risk in a hyper-individualistic/capitalistic society, as it is in a communist/totalitarian one.

Both socialism & extreme individualism are condemned in the Catechism (CCC 2425).

  “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.
  Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”
  Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

I don’t completely agree with Mark about Paul, or about libertarianism, since there is a difference between “big L” Libertarianism, & “small l” libertarianism. Both tend to view the state with distrust, but “Big-L” Libertarianism holds to that view of capitalism & extreme individualism that the Catechism condemns, while “small-l” libertarian is somewhat less supportive of that extreme.

As I mentioned, I am unashamedly a Paul supporter & am willing to support him, as I did in 2008 (even becoming a caucus member in my state.) That way, my vote will say “I want something better”, not “I’ll just follow the crowd off a cliff at 80 MPH so I have the satisfaction of not following it at 120MPH.”

@Mike: What “roots” are you talking about? We’ve always had a judiciary, even under colonial rule. There has to be some authoritative body of qualified jurists to have the final say over what genuinely is or isn’t a “constitutional” law. We are THE United States; not the old former colonies working under the Articles of Confederation.

Have you read his “Plan to Restore America”?  He knows he can’t wave a magic wand and turn America into a Libertarian utopia.  He is very pragmatic on the issues.  He doesn’t touch social security in his plan because he would rather take care of the elderly than fight wars.  Those are priorities I can get behind.

Did you also know that he refused Medicaid from his patients, and that instead he served them for free?  He is not Randian.

But we are still tasked with the choosing, aren’t we? I will vote for the one who will allow the most freedom to be Catholic…fully Catholic. It means I will probably have to vote for someone I don’t back 100%. I also might have to write in. It is useless, but I can’t bring myself to do nothing.

I agree with you about Libertarianism. It seems to advocate the idea we each live in a vacuum, and we can make individual choices that do not affect the society as a whole. I once heard a Libertarian say that social conservatives will be the undoing of our country because they want everyone to hold the same values. Well, yeah. Strong societies are made not so much of laws, but of good citizenship. In order to have that, you have to have shared values!

Everyone of you with your venomous disparagement of the GOP candidates, including you, Mark, are identical in two respects. Your view of the world has been shaped for you by the medium of a media that is evil and not one of you offers anything to validate your point of view but the narrative that has been spoon-fed to you. Or you don’t even offer that, you just spew your ignorant bile. Every one of the GOP candidates would be a vast improvement over Obama.

Constitutional rights are given to individuals, not groups. The Libertarian, Paul - style, is not at all selfish. We are firmly committed to helping neighbor, but resent the fact big government does not trust us to do so. No, it forces us, through the tax system, to support the causes it deems appropriate. As a result little benefit goes to those who need it at the huge expense of those who pay. By the way, it is a fact that Dr Paul did a lot of free medical work for those in need. He is a thoroughly good man. If you think Libertarianism sounds harsh, look what the Democrats and Republicans are doing to the middle class!

“Everyone of you with your venomous disparagement of the GOP candidates, including you, Mark, are identical in two respects. Your view of the world has been shaped for you by the medium of a media that is evil and not one of you offers anything to validate your point of view but the narrative that has been spoon-fed to you.”

My view of the world is shaped, as best as can be, by the teaching of the Catholic Church about what is gravely and intrinsically evil.  By that measure, I will not vote for Obama (who advocates both abortion and lawless murder by executive fiat), nor for any GOP candidate who, variously, supports abortion, ESCR, torture, and lawless murder by executive fiat. As far as I can tell only Huntsman and Paul reach this incredibly low bar of common decency (though I may be wrong about Huntsman and he may support one of the other grave evils besides torture and murder by fiat, which he explicitly rejects.  The absurd claim that Catholics who oppose these grave evils are dupes of a media conspiracy is nonsense.  I base my opinion on what the candidate himself has explicitly said and compare it with what Holy Church teaches.  Knowing what a candidate say vs. what the Church says is not “ignorant bile”.  On the other hand, ranting baselessly that a Catholic who forms his conscience according to the Church’s teaching is a pawn of media mind control without a shred of evidence to support your assertion is uncommonly like ignorant bile.

So Mark (and it is just one of me)  you are saying the reprehensible torture of a handful of enemy combatants and the targeted assassination by drone strike of known terrorist is equivalent the the murder of millions of innocent unborns, so rather than taking a stance against at least that you will vote for no one and you feel like that is the moral position?  As for myself I will vote for the lesser of two evils in the hope that at least the graver harm can be stopped or slowed down

What you say about “Randian lunatics” I have also experienced. But I’ve also encountered far worse from leftist ideologues with far more sinister motives. I’m just sick of the greed/envy game and sick of pols in general. The world cares, less and less, for our “Catholic message”. Has there been a generation prior that has so worshiped the false idol of egocentrism on such a grand scale?
Sorry, I’m just tired. I’ll vote for whomever the machine chooses just to be rid of Obama.
The Lord be with you, JMG

Mark,

CCC 1927 It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level. 

Notice that it does not say that the state should impose these things on citizens.  Yes, there must be laws to protect people from harm.  No, there should not be laws that force people to do good.  Government can promote without imposing it own idea of good deeds on it’s citizens.

Also, anyone who is willing to fight the globalist bankers and corporations at this point in time has taken a mighty step in the correct direction.  Global government is not, in theory (think of the bureaucracy), necessarily evil.  Letting the current elites take over the government of the world would be.  Tyranny is evil and that is exactly what this elitist band of thieves and scoundrels want.

I am not convinced that a Ron Paul presidency can thwart the current march towards global tyranny, but it will certianly give us more of a fighting chance.  I choose, rather to put my trust in Jesus Christ and His mother Mary, not politics.  We seem to be headed for dark times.  I will vote for Ron Paul because he is on the side of the light.

I will vote for Ron Paul.  I have followed him for years and I believe he is closer to Catholic Social Teaching than anyone, even more than many of our bishops.  Catholic Social Teaching has been twisted by many to be synonymous with federal handouts.  The assumption being that if the federal government doesn’t spend the money, then no one will.  I believe this usurps the mandate for Christians to be charitable and to love our neighbor, and it also creates a terrible dependency by the recipient. 
There should be a safety net at the state or federal level for the truly needy only.  We have become a nation of 50% producers and 50% takers.  We have a professional community organizer occupying the White House whose job it was to help people learn how to get the freebies. 
How is it charitable when the government taxes us relentlessly and gives it away so recklessly to so many undeserving people?  Ron Paul understands this, even if many Catholics do not. 
My rule of thumb is, be careful what you ask for, because all government money comes with strings attached.  I am watching the Pennsylvania debate on school choice. It sounds great on the surface, allowing poor children to go to a better school.  Once again, I expect the bishops to come out in favor of school choice, not having learned their lesson from Obamacare.  Just as government-run healthcare will eventually mean the end of Catholic-run healthcare as they mandate abortions, birth control, euthanasia, etc., so will school choice mean the eventual end of Catholic schools as we know them.  Once the government’s nose is in the tent, they will want a say in hiring/firing, textbooks, student enrollment, curriculum, etc.  “You can’t force that student to learn the Catholic faith”… “You must hire that teacher even though she is not Catholic”… “You must teach our sex-education curriculum”, “You must teach that all faiths are equal”, etc.  Strings.  Always. 
The Catholic Church is at its best when we offer true charity, at the lowest level, keeping the government out of it as much as possible.  We need to get back to our roots and stop lobbying for government funding and government programs.
The Catholic Church is universal.  But when it comes to governments and spending, we Catholics become myopic, seeing only part of the circle but not the whole.  We try to fix something over here, unaware that we harm someone or something over there.  Ron Paul sees the entire 360 degrees.  Everyone plays by the same rules; governments cannot pick winners and losers, and no special treatment for special groups. 
Everything is driven by individual liberty.  There is freedom in the free market. 
Ron Paul has my vote.  I will not vote for any of the others.  (Was Rick Santorum really in favor of killing scientists who worked on Iran’s nuclear capabilities? What?!!)  Rick Santorum, I love him on the life issues, but how did he become so bloodthirsty on foreign policy?  This will be my first election where I do not vote for the “lesser of two evils.”  I’ve come to realize that if we are not going to change direction by electing Ron Paul, then I’m not going to vote for one of the other Republicans.  That would only slow us down as we draw closer to the precipice.  Why wait?  We may as well get it over with sooner rather than later with a second Obama term, then we can pick up the pieces and begin anew in a very different world.  Only then will people see how far we have veered off course, culturally, materially, and spiritually.  That may be our only option.

Annely,
It took me a while to digest your post. The facts you’ve given for our consideration are absolutely spot on. Heck, I could vote RP but I don’t think it’d matter much since I live in the only state that went 100% (county wise) for McCain. Most folks here fear the Perot-effect happening again and would likely no vote for a 3rd party candidate. It’s like Kevin said, most want to stop, or slow down, grave evils… this nation’s descent. Many despair and think it’s too late. But our hope is in the Lord.
The Lord be with you, JMG

If one candidate is pro-life, even if he wasnt at one time, we Catholics have an obligation to vote for him. Not voting for the pro-life candidate to make the statement that one is not happy with either candidate is egotistical. Not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. We’re suppose to vote our conscience not our egos. Shea is wrong again.

Dr Paul or bust.  None of the other candidates are 100% firm in principles (they flip flop daily), no other is pro life as hard as he is, none knows economic principles & monetary policies as he does, none is pushing for $1 Tril in cuts in first yr (& as Peter Schiff says ‘that doesn’t go far enough”), none is favored by all troops (who fight the wars), I could go on. 
The problem is people really don’t want freedom.  They like the word, they like how it sounds but in the practice of it they don’t care much for it (Joseph Shumpter, a former concentration camp member).

So called ‘conservatives’ don’t want to ‘conserve’ anything but big gubbmint anymore ... they look to gov’t for all problems & not to local neighbors, churches, etc (like we are supposed to do).

Go Dr Paul!!!

I will never accept Mr. Shea’s flaccid argument that it is better to not vote at all.  It is his story and he is sticking to it, but it is utterly incomprehensible. Throwing in the towel and refusing to make a hard choice is childish, and can have the real effect of letting evil flourish by default.

Excellent intelligent piece and comments. I pray that the US two-party heretics (it is not the Founders had in mind) will allow a Third Party to evolve. That would be Consistently Pro-life, respect subsidiarity and solidarity, use respect for the least among us as the benchmark for the society. Europe once tried it with Christian Humanism/Democracy which can be the most inclusive democratic system imaginable as the name “christian” properly understood implies.  Not the evangelical US version of “christian.”

Out of curiosity, what is your opposition to Gov. Huntsman?

Mark, Romans 13 tells us to obey government. It tells us that government is appointed by God, and that because of this we are to treat it with the respect due to His authority.  It says nothing about government’s role beyond being the hand of God. To say otherwise is dishonest and deceitful, a twisting of a passage into something it isn’t.  The role of government, any government, is to ensure order and create infrastructure so that the individuals and communities can do their part. Charity is not the province of government - it is rightfully the province of the individual and the community.  Christ will not, at the end of days, be asking us what our president or our congresspeople did to alleviate suffering and poverty. He will be asking each of us, as individuals, what we did.  Charity is always better done by individuals and community groups than it is by government. If you doubt this - compare the works done by Mother Theresa to the works done by the Welfare system. The Welfare system isn’t efficient, and it certainly isn’t effective at doing anything except creating dependency.  Mother Theresa, by contrast, was entirely funded by donations, stretched their meager funds to cover hundreds of thousands without any waste, and continues to inspire others to acts of charity. Government charity is a joke, and taxing people to create and fund government charities an even bigger joke.

“So Mark (and it is just one of me)  you are saying the reprehensible torture of a handful of enemy combatants and the targeted assassination by drone strike of known terrorist is equivalent the the murder of millions of innocent unborns.”

No.  I’m saying I will not support the torture and murder (and, just as importantly, the establishment of a precedent in law to do these lawless things).  Law works by precedent.  Recall that the abortion of millions was made possible by establishing that a single abortion was A-OK.  The notion that you can open a new floodgate of state-sponsored evil because you are only supporting a “few” acts of torture and murder is a devil’s calculus.  I belong to a Church that says it is wrong to torture or murder even one person even if it could save the world.

Recently, I ran across somebody who said that he would waterboard a five year old girl if it could save American lives.  I am glad you recognized that torture is wrong and I applaud you for it.  But you need to recognize that if, as you say, you vote for the lesser of two evils you are, in this case, saying yes to the logic of the person who says, “Better a little girl be tortured than that a whole nation should perish”.  That logic has been tried before, with unhappy results.

Pattie: I repeat it is not throwing in the towel to refuse to cooperate with grave evil. 

Blake: Imposing is what the state does.  It uses the means of coercion to force people to do certain things and not do other things.  It cannot, to be sure, force them to be charitable.  But it can be so ordered as to make it not pay very well to be sinful against the common good.

RobertW:  You write, “If one candidate is pro-life, even if he wasnt at one time, we Catholics have an obligation to vote for him.”  No.  We don’t.  That’s what Cdl Ratzinger’s letter is all about.  A Catholic may legitimately vote for a pro-abort candidate if he thinks there is a proportional reason to do so.  We do not have an obligation to vote for somebody merely because they stuck on a Precious Feet pin if they are also endorsing grave intrinsic evil.  Case in point: the National Socialist German Workers Party outlawed abortion (for members of the Master Race).  However, other features of their platform were somewhat problematic.  Nobody in their five wits would argue that a Catholic was “obligated” to vote for Hitler.

It is vital that Catholics get beyond the notion that opposition to abortion taketh away all sins and exhausts our obligation to the common good.

Annely:  I like the cut of your jib.

“Out of curiosity, what is your opposition to Gov. Huntsman?”

Nothing, so far.  But then I haven’t researched his positions.  He and Paul were the only two to give and honorable answer to whether they would support torture and lawless murder by executive fiat.  So I will consider him.  But I don’t know much about him beyond that.  If he turns out to be a pro-abort or a supporter of ESCR or fails some other lowbar measure of common human decency, he’s back off my list.

@ Mark Shea. “If he turns out to be a pro-abort or a supporter of ESCR or fails some other lowbar measure of common human decency, he’s back off my list”. What good could ever come of a president or congress that supports the killing of little kids. That kind of people will do anything to anyone for any selfish reason they desire. There is no argument against it, only stupidity.

Brandy Miller; The Emperor doled out corn to the people as part of govrning. The deacons took over that job when the Church steeped uo to the plate when the barbarians disturbed the Pax Romana. Government does have the care for the mosst vulnerable in principle. How that is organised is above my pay scale as the saying goes!

Larry:  I don’t think we disagree, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Brandy:  You write:

“It says nothing about government’s role beyond being the hand of God. To say otherwise is dishonest and deceitful, a twisting of a passage into something it isn’t.  The role of government, any government, is to ensure order and create infrastructure so that the individuals and communities can do their part. Charity is not the province of government - it is rightfully the province of the individual and the community.”

Actually, it doesn’t say the state is the “hand of God”.  Also, I’m not sure what you think is dishonest and deceitful in what I wrote.  I cited Romans 13 and an elementary point from the Catechism.  That’s wrong why?  I agree that governance is about making it possible for individuals an communities to flourish in their lives of charity.  I’m not at all convinced of the libertarian myth that the state has zero role to play in helping to facilitate works of charity for the common good.  Our tradition is chockablock (beginning with the story of Joseph in Genesis) of state actors who use their power to organize works ordered toward the common good.  Many a Catholic king in our history used his power to organize works of charity for the poor.  The fantasy that only individuals can be the source of charitable work is a libertarian dogma contradicted by actual fact.

@Steven:  Actually, Mike knows more about our constitutional roots than you do.  In the view of the Founders, the judicial branch is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution.  Jefferson, for one, said that judicial supremacy was a dangerous doctrine that “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” 

We have three co-equal branches of government, each of which has equal authority to interpret the Constitution.  It’s called “checks and balances.”  Too many of us have been brainwashed by liberals into thinking that a Supreme Court decision is necessarily the “law of the land.”  Not so.  For a start, see Andrew Jackson and the Second Bank of the United States, or Abraham Lincoln and the Dred Scott decision.

@chris [Wednesday, Nov 16, 2011 3:13 AM (EDT)],

You wrote:

You don’t have to believe in ‘libertarianism’ OR objectivism to believe in Ron Paul.

And I would add that it is perfectly logically consistent to be a libertarian* and a Catholic who is faithful to the teachings of the Church. I not only am one, the majority of the libertarians I know are Catholics, and we are libertarians because it is at heart possible to be one and be act in full consonance with the Church’s teachings, including the seemingly self-contradictory insistence on meeting the needs of the poor while respecting the rights of private property. Neither the Republican nor Democratic parties qua political parties has been able to reconcile that apparent contradiction, because both realize that doing so would deprive them of the ability to “bribe” their constituents.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

It is insane to proclaim: “I won’t vote for either Romney or Obama”; you sound like a child who storms off when they can’t get their way!
Politics is ALWAYS about choosing the better of 2 imperfect candidates. Man up & vote for the better of the two. This is our responsibility, as a citizen of our Republic - the united STATES of America.
P.S. Obama’s 2008 defeat of McCain,(with 54% of the Catholic vote) was assisted by this immaturity. Please don’t let it happen again, whoever the final candidates turn out to be. Liberty may not survive, just as millions of babies have already perished under Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history.

@KiloWhiskey

No, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

The willingness to choose the “lesser evil” is not evidence of standing up & fighting, but of surrender.

It shows you’ve given up on fighting for what’s right, and are willing to settle for whatever depraved load of garbage you can get as long as you reasonably think you “could have gotten worse”.

My understanding of Mark’s stance (& he’s free to correct me if I’m wrong), is that it’s not demanding perfection to expect at least a minimum level of human decency & adherence to morals from people that ask for our support in their pursuit of being the “ultimate leader” of a country.

Mark,
Please remember when you speak of the “state” that in the US there are multiple levels of government including federal, state, and local. So when you take the view that a task is best done by the “state” you then need to determine which of these levels is best. Dr. Paul is running for federal office, so he has generally confined his policy proposals to federal activities. A person who wants an activist state (working for “solidarity”) could happily vote for Dr. Paul at the federal level and still also vote for activist state-level officials.

Paul is the only one Catholics should be looking at to support….Period.  He up holds the US Constitution, is totally pro life, has a big clue about the economy, understands what foreign policy ought to be (peace, trading with others, no in tangling alliances, based on influencing the world through example not force), has a true respect for the Catholic Church, knows that if we don’t uphold the individual human person than there is no way to uphold the collective family, supports homeschooling and alternative ways of educating our young people…he is virtuous and most of all, because of his libertarian views, he recognizes that when freedom is allowed to flourish, than and only than, can morality change, because the Church can then do its job…changing hearts, rather than dancing around issues afraid of upsetting the political balance.  Only moral people will produce a moral society….no matter what system of governance is in place, but only through true freedom and liberty can the responsibility of morality be nurtured.  Responsibility and morality are diametrically apposed to socialist and collective authority structures. Everyone else, other than Paul, is walking down the path to more authority for authority sake, not freedom for responsibility’s sake….that is the difference.  GO PAUL GO!  CATHOLICS for RON PAUL….LETS FINALLY INFLUENCE THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!!

Has anybody checked Dr. Paul’s birth certificate lately, if for nothing else than to have an idea of how old he is and will be after (may God forbid, 4 yrs in the WH or may He doubly forbid) if for some freakish fluke of terribly bad luck for the nation he becomes our 44th president? (May God also forgive us as well for committing the civic sin of spectacular stupidity.)
  The problem with Libertarians is that they all too often approach their civic understanding of our unique system of government much the same way the Antebellum Southern States, particularly South Carolina, view their mutual responsibilities within our Federal system. It’s all for the individual state or person. I want or got mine, tough luck for the rest of you. (Heck, South Carolina is still heavily infected with the bad case of Ten Amendmentitis it picked up during the “glory days” of John Calhoun. Rumor has it SC’s Tea Party Gov. Nikki Haley has been shopping around for designers willing to deck her out in the finest gray n’ gold uniform suitable for today’s up n’ coming Sunbelt nullifyin’ Libertarian pols.)
  Putting Ron Paul in the Oval Office would be like putting in another James Buchanan who wimpishly wrung his hands whilst watching the nation tear itself right before his eyes, much as Herbert Hoover muttered woe is us and our economy all the while he was fishing and telling the nation not to expect any thing but small potatoes in any kind of “relief” from the national government.
  Libertarians in government are the kinds of civic-minded Pharisees who’ll say it’s not a bright idea to stand in walk through passing street traffic, and after a pedestrian’s been hit, he’ll stand there and repeat the same warning with not only a “Told you so” wisecrack, but a follow up reminder that it’s not his responsibility to help you get the medical aid you need. That’s the job of Good Samaritans and where in the Constitution does it say any citizen has to be a Good Samaritan?”
  Think I’m kidding? Go ask Senator Rand Paul who has a very peculiar view about providing health care and “slavery.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54769.html
  It really is a sad spectacle to watch so many Catholics embrace libertarianism which is nothing more than a slickly packaged form of anarchy romanticized to fit today’s far more individualistic times. Just listen to the excuses so many Catholics used to justify their wanderings into the far more individualistically styled “Bible Christianity.” Then take the “just me, my Bible and Thee” mentality and see how easily it fits into the more individualistically styled political anarchism called libertarianism. “Just me, my Constitution and my candidate.”
  Hmmm, what about our civic version of Tradition which reflects not just what the Constitution says, but how ... and most importantly WHY ... it has been interpreted down through the years? Today’s (predominately Tea Partyish) class of rookie greenhorn Congressmen and Senators who couldn’t wait to tout all their enthusiastic “COnstitutionalist” drivel are very much like the proverbial nay-saying “Bible Christian” ever ready to challenge somebody whose opinion he disagree with not based on what he considers more researched facts to bear his points out. Oh no, that Constitution Thumpin’ libertarian-leaning pol or non-elected hack can be just as reliably counted on to ever-so-dourly pull out his little paperback Constitution and say, “Where is THAT in this document?”
  Perhaps most pathetically, is the tendency of this crowd of small-thinkers, to pull “Constitutionalist” proof-texting to justify gouging the stuffings out of any progam designed to help the needy feed their kids, or even afford the oil they need to keep themselves and their loved ones from freezing to death in the Winter months.
  “Where in the Consitution am I required to pay taxes to help pay feeding all those poor kids and their mothers in the projects or some granny’s fuel bills?”
  Hmmm, do the words ” ... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ... ” ring a bell?
  Hungry, poor and economically oppressed people, especially people who had their jobs stolen out from under them no thanks to an unregulated market economy, fully privatized health care and pension “systems,” and a decimated social safety net reflecting a society that’d turned its back on its youngest, most financially strapped and vulnerable and elderly poor, among other egregious societal offenses against the Lord, is hardly a truly free society at liberty to do what it so chooses. After all, it’ll have to be watching its back even moreso no thanks to a binge of “civic” selfishness that could result if the nation embraces this form of philosophical mental illness called libertarianism.
  At the risk of putting too fine a point on this issue, does anybody seriously believe for a moment that had this nation embraced libertariaism or the likes of Ron Paul or his fellow “candidates” (LOL)... not to mention Rand Paul, back in the late 30’s and during the Second World War, the Germans, Italians, Japanese, (and Soviets during the Cold War) wouldn’t have succeeded in carving up the world for themselves?
  Well now, because we’ve got to have life our way, as cheaply as possible, don’t get too complacent while the Chinese are masterfully worming their take over of our nation from within through their manipulation of their currency so they can take advantage of our lust for cheap products, no matter how expensive these cheap goods are for both workers in China and our growing list of unemployed Americans.
  I think it was Lincoln who said we’ll never be beaten by a foe from afar; rather we’d do the job on ourselves and go out in a wimper. How does the sound of “Thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart” sound for today’s version of Lincoln’s “wimper”?

Very good Steven. Very Catholic as in communitarian, very Constitutional as in understanding its social-communitarian dimensions. Very long also but very good above all. Thanks.

@Steven,

Unfortunately, it isn’t what you think you know that is appalling.

You write [emphasis added]:

no thanks to an unregulated market economy, fully privatized health care and pension “systems,”

(1) Our economy is regulated to the point that the U.S. Congress adds tens of thousands of pages of new regulations of the business community annually. The mortgage and mortgage securities markets, in which the current economic collapse eventuated in 2008 was, at the time under Federal regulation by 115 separate agencies. Do you honestly think having 116 such agencies will do any better?

(2) The vast majority of U.S. workers in what you and I would both consider reasonably good jobs, do not have privatized healthcare, and have not done beginning in WWII. We have syndicalized healthcare—the insurance options of the worker are those which their employer has chosen to provide. The history of how this came about is out there. Why not actually take the time and energy to look into it? How happy do you think you would be if your employer specified your choices and partially paid for: (a) your groceries, (b) your automobile, or (c) your housing? I suspect you would wake up to the fact that your choices have been interfered with in matters having little or nothing to do with your employment.

(3) Pension systems for most medium and large business employees are largely not privatized, either. First, you have Social Security, the great Ponzi scheme of FDR. As a worker, you pay for it (whether you would choose it or not). Other than that, you have the choice of participating in your employer’s government-regulated pension plan, run either by the company or more typically by a specialist firm (usually insurance company—far from unregulated or investment firm—again, far from unregulated). You may alternatively be able to choose your own IRA—but of course not your own 401k. None of those are unregulated either. Even if your employer doesn’t offer any sort of retirement plan, you can open your own IRA, subject, of course, to all of the rules and regulations that the Federal government (including the IRS) imposes on IRAs.

Where is this mystical set of unregulated “systems” to which you refer.

What is appalling, dear Steven, is what you think you know that simply isn’t so. I think I still prefer to live in the real world in which I have been placed by God, rather than inhabiting the one you seem to see, which is not to say that the real world is not fallen also.

I will leave your transparent ignorance of what it means to be libertarian (please note that Libertarian is a political party, the uncapitalized form of the word refers to a set of moral and political values) for someone else who has sufficient time to inform you.

If you have countervailing evidence to support your claims about the topics I addressed above, I would be most happy to address them.

Pax et bonum,

Keith Töpfer

“Politics is ALWAYS about choosing the better of 2 imperfect candidates.”

We’re not talking “imperfect”.  We’re talking about supporters of grave intrinsic evil worthy of the everlasting fires of hell.  Wishing to avoid hell and attain heaven used to be the goal of a Catholic.  Now this is denounced as “perfectionism”.  Amazing.

Politics is the art of the possible and the art of compromise. One prays, lobbies and works for the ideal position. As noted, even for Catholics Josef Cdl Ratzinger as head of the GDF, now POPE B XV1C said we could vote for a pro-choice candidate IF she/he had other acceptable positions that are consistent with the Gospel and therefore the Church’s goals and long term objectives. Converting this curent post-Christian civilisation will take a while and lots of patience. One day at a time.

Regarding: “Politics is ALWAYS about choosing the better of 2 imperfect candidates.”

Mark wrote: We’re not talking “imperfect”.  We’re talking about supporters of grave intrinsic evil worthy of the everlasting fires of hell.  Wishing to avoid hell and attain heaven used to be the goal of a Catholic.  Now this is denounced as “perfectionism”.  Amazing.

I’m sorry that politics offends you, but that’s the reality. The pro-lifers who chose to not vote for McCain, helped Obama get elected. 

Perhaps you need to reframe this and realize that you are doing the BEST YOU CAN when you vote against the worst candidate. But not voting is a cop-out, with dangerous consequences.

Yes, Catholics still seek heaven. I appreciate your blog - keep it up!

@HermitTalker: Thank you for your kind remarks. Yes, I’ll admit I overworked my keyboard and some folks eyes; but this issue about Libertarians and so-called “conservatives” who deluding themselves with notions of being conservative, whilst confusing so many others as to what their real identities and motives are ... well, to borrow from a Republican who was anything but libertarian, “there they go again, getting me all riled up.”
  Actually I don’t know why since it’s not worth the time of day to pay any attention to people spouting such grossly disengenuous tripe about social security being a “Ponzi” racket of sorts. Oh well, what else can we expect from the bunch Russell Kirk called “chirping sectaries?”

@Steven,

You write:

people spouting such grossly disengenuous tripe about social security being a “Ponzi” racket of sorts.

Thank you very much for making my point about what you don’t know. I’m sure it will surprise you, but that is what your quoted words are, an admission that my assessment was fundamentally accurate.

Here are the relevant facts:

One of the members of FDR’s Committee on Economic Security which crafted teh Social Security System in 1934, and the one often identified as “the architect of Social Security,” was Princeton Management Professor emeritus J. Douglas Brown. Prof. Brown died at age 87 on Sunday 18th January 1987. One or two Sundays earlier, Prof. Brown was the subject of a profile piece, including interview comments, published in a non-news, Sunday-only section of the Washington Post newspaper, to which I was then a subscriber, and of the contents of which article I have very clear and distinct recollections.

In the article, Prof. Brown freely acknowledged that all of the memgers of the Committee “knew that the system would go bankrupt.” As Prof. Brown stated the case “the only mistake we made” was to have made the assumption that human life expectancy would continue to increase at the same rate as it had in the decades prior to 1934. To state this more precisely, they did not realize that the rate of change in the rate of change of life expectancy (stated mathematically that is the second derivative of life expectancy as a function of time), would increase as rapidly as it had by 1987 (recall that this interview occurred about 42 years after the adoption of Social Security). Their 1934 calculations had indicated that SSS would default in about 2050, a fairly egregious error. Rather than expressing regret for their fraudulent creation, Prof. Brown was quoted as saying that “the only mistake they made” was in their estimation of when it would become insolvent. I would assert that making that error was their second mistake—the first was in assuming that the U.S. government had the right deliberately to defraud citizens not yet born.

Be that as it may, Prof. Brown volunteered an observation about the morality of the entire committee when he indicated that they all thought that they would be dead and buried before their fraud was uncovered and “no one would be able to do anything to them” for having designed such a fraudulent operation.

Just so I am certain that you understand how Social Security works, allow me to provide a summary of how the system was designed to, and always has functioned:

• Working people pay a percentage of their earnings into the system through their FICA deduction and their employer (except for the Federal Government) pays an identical percentage of that amount in what is commonly referred to as the payroll tax.

• The moneys thus paid to Social Security are replaced by paper promises to pay in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund and the funds actually received are placed in the General Fund of the U.S. government. Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum. A record of how much is paid for each earner is maintained under the earner’s SSN, and will serve as the basis for calculating the “benefit” at the time of retirement.

• Existing SSA annuitants receive a monthly check which, when cashed, is paid from the General Fund of the U.S. government.

• Since the enactment of Medicare in the 1960s, that system has functioned in an analogous manner, with the exception that the government has not deemed it necessary to create the charade of a Medicare Trust Fund.

• Any questions?

N.B.: The system pays current “beneficiaries” from the “premiums” of current workers (who are the intended “future beneficiaries”) and the government uses the language of insurance to disguise what amounts to a non-actuarial, non-depository welfare system.

Before we proceed, please note that there is nothing up my sleeves, my hands are always in view and there are neither smoke nor mirrors present in my words.

Now, let us examine that which makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme:

• The initial “investors” “invest” their money with the person proposing the investment (let us call him Ponzi, for convenience).

• Ponzi places the money in his pocket, creating a record of how much the “nth investor” has “invested.”

• Ponzi identifies a second group of “investors” and convinces them to “invest” in his idea, placing the money in his pocket.

• Once Ponzi has enough money in his pocket from the second group of “investors” for his own needs and those of the first “investors,” he repays that first group of “investors” their capital plus some “profit”: (enough at least so they neither suspect foul play, nor go to the authorities) and places the balance of the money from that round in his pocket.

• Rinse and repeat.

—————

Now, rather than launching into a diatribe as to whether it is you or I who is deluded, I will leave it up to this fine group of commenters to decide who is delusional, and who sane. In the meanwhile, I would ask of you to point out in detail, given the above summaries of how both Social Security and Ponzi schemes work, the specific differences that make a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme and Social Security somehow fundamentally different. And, by the way, I don’t think any sane and thinking person would deem the fact that one is operated by an ordinary citizen and the other by government is a fundamental difference.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Interesting blog post, Mark. I have a lengthy commentary on it on The Catholic Hour website: 

http://thecatholichour.org/ron-paul-the-constitution-and-the-catholic-church-3/

I hope you and the readers of your post will read it and comment on it. God bless you.

@Keith: “I’m sure it will surprise you, but that is what your quoted words are, an admission that my assessment was fundamentally accurate.”
  Yes, Keith, I am “surprised,” but not for reasons I suspect you’ll ever catch on to.

@Liz, thank you for your great link about subsidiarity & our US Bishops: http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity   Ron Paul is also very much in favor of solidarity in his support of voluntary charity and the charity/moral guidance provided by churches. I have just recently become a Ron Paul supporter! I am passionately pro-life and struggled for a long time with what seemed like a pro-choice position on his part (let the States decide), but some friends finally helped me understand that Ron Paul is NOT protecting a false “right” to choose abortion, but that he is protecting the principle of subsidiarity which is essential in protecting us against such national tyranny as Roe v. Wade. Just a note - Ron Paul explains himself a bit better in his written word than in his spoken word sometimes, so really study him carefully.

If Ron Paul and his not-ready-for-prime-time “senatorial” son Rand, are serious about letting the churches do most of the work, let them go before their respective evangelical church’s well-paid and practically part- time working pastors to see if they’ll accept a 6/7th’s salary “hair-cut” first.
  Folks, if you ever want to really get into why this nation is so damned slow when it comes to developing the kind of social safety net we need for a nation of 300 million diverse people, you only need to look at the Protestant work ethic and its (REAL day-to-day) pernicious effects that ripple far beyond the mere bookish abstract studies on Weber.
  What I find even more alarming is that so many converts who are joining are bringing this garbage into our church with them and not leaving it outside our doors in the garbage where it belongs. It’s economic anti-Catholicism.

Steven: Been teaching about the Calvinist ethic for decades with little supprt or back-up. It is even worse thah “ethic” it goes back to the half-baked OT idea that if we have it, God blessed you and if not you sinned or were not chosen. HOW in the name of a Merciful Shepherd could the Churches, even nif they all gave as generously as Catholics do to relieve human hurt could they take care of major medical and human needs cases. The Government’s role is to protect its most vulnerable not kill its young and spend billions on foreign wars that they cannot win.Not to mention bailing out its bankers who gambled the money away while homes were foresclosed on, jobs lost and they got huge bonuses and escaped jail.

Steven…I’m not able to understand from your rant…WHO exactly do you support? You are seriously claiming the Marxist Obammunist is “turning the economy around”??? Maybe turning it COMPLETELY totalitarian and fleecing the rest of us for his cronies, but somehow I think you rather approve of that. Why be “stingy” when you can spend other peoples money and their childrens futures??? You presumably being one of those with “brain matter” who should be in charge of the rest of us. The things people post on blogs….

I really don’t think you are a “Paulbot”.  You agree with him but dismiss his chances.  I am sick of political gurus playing as naysayers, to promote a message of “no chance”.  Your negative opinion eliminates you as a “Paulbot”.  He only getting stronger.  Please stop discouraging people from voting for the best candidate.

I hope Newt “NUKES” them all. I am a US citizen now living in Europe, hearing the critics here fearing Germany’s 21st century conquest of Europe economically. Waiting for PM Cameron to realize the Empire has gone and they must play ball with the EU or die.