Category Archives: Libertarianism

Yesterday, I looked at what I thought were the top seven stories about the Catholic Church in the United States during 2014. Today, lets look ahead to 2015 and the stories I anticipate will be generating a lot of buzz and getting a lot of attention here at Distinctly Catholic.

1) In September, Pope Francis will be making his first ever trip to the U.S. The itinerary is still not decided, although we know he will be stopping in Philadelphia for the World Family Day celebrations. I have previously noted that the line-up of speakers for the Philly event, which spans several days, is not exactly the list I would have devised. And, the event will occur just a few weeks before the second synod on the family in Rome, so he will be speaking to the whole Church, not just the Church in the U.S. Still, in terms of emphasis, I am hopeful he will keep to his strong suit, the themes of accompaniment and reaching out to those at the margins, the Church as field hospital, and stay away from the kind of moralistic nastiness that will be on display from some of the other speakers.

It is anticipated that he will also make a visit to New York to address the United Nations: the General Assembly meets in September and given the Holy Sees long-standing support for the UN, you can bank on him making that stop. It is also likely he will come to Washington, D.C. Congress has extended him an invitation to address a Joint Session. I am still trying to decide if I think that is a good idea or a bad one: The setting is so obviously political, it might be jarring but, on the other hand, it would be great if he read them the riot act. His predecessors also came to Catholic University when they visited Washington to address Catholic educators and that would certainly, for me, be the highlight of the entire trip as it was for Benedicts trip. The then-President of the university, then-Father, now-Bishop David OConnell, got me a seat on the aisle and directed the pope to my side of that aisle as he left the room. I was able to kiss his ring and thank him for his ministry. It was nice.

It is unclear if the popes visit to the U.S. will be preceded by a visit to Mexico. If so, many of us hope that he will stop at the U.S. border and say a Mass for those who have died trying to cross that border, as he did at Lampedusa in 2013 and as a group of U.S. bishops did at Nogales, Arizona this year. If he were to make the stop, it would undoubtedly yield the emotional highlight of the entire trip and forcefully call attention to one of the most urgent humanitarian problems facing both the U.S. and Latin America. I can also think of no better way to call attention to the economic pressures many families face than to highlight the extreme pressures placed on family life by unjust immigration laws. If he does not go to the border, the bishops should recommend that the Holy Father stop somewhere in the U.S. with a substantial Latino population. That is the future of the Church, indeed, in many dioceses that future is already here. A Mass in Spanish for a largely Latino congregation would be a huge shot in the arm for all those engaged in Hispanic ministry. If the Southwest or Los Angeles is too far, Chicago is now majority-minority too.

When these papal trips are planned, there is a lot of advance consultation. It will be curious to see whom the pope and his advisors in Rome listen to in deciding what he should say and how he should say it. Given everything we know about his generous heart, I doubt he will denounce same-sex marriage as the most pressing threat to marriage today and, as some would have it, to civilization itself. I hope he will confront the spread eagle consumer capitalism of American society in at least one of his speeches, and I suspect he will, and the only question will be how strong his words are. And, if he addresses the U.S. bishops at some point, which is a staple of most such papal trips, it will be interesting to see if he is more encouraging or more censorious: As we saw in his address to the curia, the Holy Father is not shy about calling prelates to account. I would expect a mix of both admonition and encouragement.

2) The preparations for the synod is both a local and an international story. How extensive will individual bishops be in conducting their consultations? We know that Archbishop Cupich in Chicago has already asked his archdiocesan pastoral council, the archdiocesan womens council, and the presbyteral council to work together on a plan for such consultations. Will others follow suit or merely go through the motions? Will the USCCB take a break from issuing its draconian statements against Obama and hire CARA to conduct some serious surveys?

The U.S. bishops are not used to this sort of synod preparation. In Latin America, meetings of CELAM are proceeded by two or three years of consultation with the lay faithful and the clergy. Pope Francis clearly thinks the CELAM approach has worked well and wants to break its methodology to the universal Church. But, some of the brethren are not in the habit of seeking advice outside a small circle of confidants, and most of those confidants already share their opinions. The pope has asked pastors to acquire the smell of the sheep and the preparation for the synod is a specific task that requires them to do it. I hope the nuncio has a riding crop at the ready to prompt the bishops to get with the program.

3) The nomination of new bishops is always newsworthy and, in the coming year, we will find out if the appointment of Archbishop Cupich, in which the pope was personally involved, will become the norm or prove the exception. Archbishop Sheehan in Santa Fe is already past the age of 75. Next year two additional archbishops will turn 75, Archbishop Schwietz of Anchorage and Washingtons Cardinal Donald Wuerl. +Wuerl is in better shape than I am and I suspect he will be asked to stay at his post for a few extra years.

Every diocese is important, but two large dioceses also have ordinaries who will turn 75 in 2015, Rockville Center, New York and Arlington, Virginia. Arlington is a special case because its clergy, dating back to the creation of the diocese in 1974, it has been a hotbed of conservatism. At the time it was broken off from the diocese of Richmond, any priest with more liberal inclinations stuck with Richmond. Bishop Paul Loverde is a lovely man and has, at times, stood up to the more extreme craziness in the diocese. At other times, such as lending his approval to loyalty oaths for Sunday school teachers, he has caved. Given the large number of federal politicians who live in the diocese, it is imperative that +Loverdes replacement not be a bomb thrower.

How will we know if the changes Pope Francis is asking of the higher clergy are being manifested in the selection of new bishops? I would look for two things. First, if there are fewer candidates with time working in Rome on their resume and more time working in parishes, that would indicate things are moving in the right direction. Second, are new bishops being recruited from the ranks of directors of Catholic Charities and other social justice ministries or are miters still going primarily to men who served as secretaries to bishops or as seminary rectors. It is no slur against seminary rectors to point out that they engage the Church at its most self-referential. That goes with the turf. And, let me add, there are some wonderful seminary rectors who would make fine bishops. But, the mold has to be broken.

See the original post:
2015: Stories To Keep Us Busy!

LIBERTARIANISM INTELLECT PEACE
The fulfillment of libertarianism by transcending the intellect with scientifically validated Vedic science.

By: JON KIRKPATRICK

Original post:
LIBERTARIANISM INTELLECT PEACE - Video

In a thoughtful recent post, conservative political theorist Peter Lawler comments on my review of Damon Roots new book on the conservative-libertarian debate over judicial review. Lawler argues that libertarians overemphasize the role of judicial review protecting individual rights against state infringement, that the Founders assigned a much lesser role to judicial review, and that many of the rights libertarians (and liberals) seek to protect through judicial review cannot be squared with originalism. There are some problems with his analysis on all three issues.

I. The role of Judicial Review in Protecting Individual Rights

On the question of the effectiveness of judicial review, few serious libertarian commentators imagine that the judicial intervention alone is enough to protect the individual rights. Rather, they recognize that the road to victory for constitutional reform movements usually involves a combination of litigation and conventional political action. That has been a successful winning formula for the civil rights movement, womens rights advocates, gun rights supporters, and most recently same-sex marriage advocates. It has also underpinned the recent progress made by property rights advocates. The Institute for Justices efforts to revive public use constraints on eminent domain has involved just such a combination. While it has not so far achieved anything like complete victory, it has managed to secure important gains.

As evidence against the utility of judicial intervention, Lawler claims that the Courts record on race has generally been terrible and cites this as proof that it is ridiculous to rely all that much on the Court to protect our rights. The Courts record on racial discrimination has indeed often been poor relative to the ideal outcome. But the more relevant question is how good its record has been relative to the political branches of government. The case for strong judicial review is not that the courts are particularly good, but that, in protecting some types of important rights, they routinely do better than the available alternatives. By that standard, the Courts record on racial issues since the enactment of the Reconstruction Amendments is actually far better than many imagine. During the Jim Crow era, for example, the Court issued a number of important decisions striking down forms of racial discrimination that had prevailed in the political process. For example, it invalidated peonage laws and laws mandating residential segregation.

Although its record during that period was far from perfect, it was, overall, much better than that of Congress, the presidency, and many state legislatures. More recently, courts have been more willing than legislators to curtail racial preferences in government contracting and college admissions. Supporters of affirmative action understandably view these decisions as a negative, but conservative opponents including Lawler surely do not.

II. Originalism, the Founders, and the Role of the Judiciary.

Lawler doubts that judicial review was ever meant to be much more than an auxiliary precaution that would be rarely used, citing the Federalist Papers in support. While the Founders probably did not intend judicial review to be the primary method for protecting individual rights, they did emphasize its importance as a tool for enforcing constitutional limitations on government power. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 78:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

[emphasis added].

In addition judicial review may have a greater role to play in protecting rights today, than might have been supposed in the 1780s. In a world where the size and scope of government is vastly greater than it was 225 years ago, it is far more difficult for voters with limited knowledge and attention spans to police all the many different possible ways in which government threatens liberty.

Here is the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Libertarianism, conservatism, and judicial review

Libertarianism #39;s Obsession With Genocide
Well, to the KKK, they were just doing their duty. Nazis were just following orders. This time it #39;s maintaining company policy. All sysnomous with Manifest D...

By: Tim Caffery

The rest is here:
Libertarianism's Obsession With Genocide - Video

Rick Santorum Criticizes the Flaws of Libertarianism
Rick Santorum asserts that strict libertarianism is foundationally wrong in its thinking and is based on flawed ideas of the nature of society, the nature of...

By: Jeff Morgan

More here:
Rick Santorum Criticizes the Flaws of Libertarianism - Video

Libertarianism The Purpose of Freedom
Discussing the purpose of freedom within Libertarianism This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at http://Majority.FM Download our FREE app: http://major...

By: Sam Seder

Read more:
Libertarianism & The Purpose of Freedom - Video

It is a given that politicians will say foolish things. Last week, perhaps one of the most foolish arose in the aftermath of the tragedy of the Martin Place siege.

Introducing Senator David Leyonhjelm. The NSW senator entered Federal Parliament at the last election as a member of the Liberal Democratic Party. He is something of a rarity in Australian politics in that he espouses libertarianism. It would have seemed to him, we assume, that his comments were a logical extension of this philosophy.

However, whichever philosophy one adopts, it must exist in the real world, and in the real world, say, a busy cafe in Sydney's CBD, there are boundaries.

After two innocent people Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson died during the siege (in which the hostage-taker and gunman Man Haron Monis also died), Senator Leyonhjelm said he believed Australia was a "nation of victims" because of the restrictive nature of the gun laws.

Advertisement

He told the ABC: "What happened in that cafe would have been most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even in Switzerland as well." It would have been probable, "statistically speaking", that some of the victims if the siege had occurred in those places would have had guns on them. They would have been able to defend themselves. Gun versus gun.

The senator argued that recent legislation on tougher security measures against terrorism had no effect in preventing the Martin Place siege. "We've got tougher laws . . . they did nothing to prevent this bloke committing evil acts in the name of Islamism. They didn't prevent him from getting a gun." Obviously, this is true. However, the senator finishes his point with this: "It's just not acceptable that we are all disarmed victims."

There are many questions that need to be answered as to how Monis, given his background and record, slipped through the cracks. Calls are growing for an independent and open examination of all matters pertaining to Monis and the conduct of security and police agencies before and during the siege. This should be established, for the sake of the victims.

However, the answer is not the arming of the citizenry. The LDP considers "the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting andself-defence(our italics) as fundamental to a free society, irrespective of how many choose to do so. It does not believe governments have a general right to limit the ownership of firearms."

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 in which 35 people died and 23 were wounded, then prime minister John Howard greatly tightened gun laws, so much so that the senator had to give up six semi-automatic rifles. He also gave up his membership of the Liberal Party.

Go here to read the rest:
More guns are not the answer

One of the most dismissive terms thrown around in foreign policy circles is isolationist. If you are an isolationist, you clearly have not considered the issues carefully and rationally, and need not be taken seriously. Libertarian leaning politicians such as Ron and Rand Paul are frequent targets of this epithet.

There may or may not be a handful of actual libertarians who are isolationist, but the reality is that libertarianism is among the most internationally minded philosophies. Examining several key areas of international relations makes this clear: International trade, diplomacy and the military, and institutions.

The most obvious place where libertarians are internationalists is economic relations. True libertarians advocate the free flow of trade and investment, without government restrictions. This is about as international as you can get. For libertarians, the origin of a product or service is irrelevant. People around the world should be able to buy and sell from each other without government interference.

In the international arena, libertarians can and will have a strong voice and play an important role. That role should not be diminished by simplistic and inaccurate cries of isolationism.

Unfortunately, in most countries today, there is a strong sentiment for favoring domestic economic actors over foreign ones. This feeling manifests itself in various forms, such as tariffs and Buy National procurement policies. Libertarians stand almost completely united against this nationalist feeling, believing that trade and other economic interaction with foreign actors benefits us all.

Diplomacy and the military is a more complicated policy area, involving a number of instances of potential relations between domestic and foreign. Here, though, there is a strong case that libertarians are more internationalist than most others. Of course, in part this depends on what one means by internationalism.

Libertarians are most frequently accused of isolationism when they object to military intervention in foreign territories. That libertarians usually object to these interventions is not in doubt. However, use of the military cannot always credibly be called internationalist. Colonialism and conquest, although they do require contact with foreigners, are not generally a positive form of international relations.

More controversially, libertarians may sometimes object to peaceful aid to foreigners as well. But this is not done out of anti-foreigner sentiment. Rather it is based on skepticism over the effectiveness of aid and its misuse as a foreign policy tool, and a general preference for markets over government support. Libertarians certainly believe in private outreach among civil society groups in one nation to the people of other nations. The objection is only to the mismanagement of governments when they get involved.

Thus, for libertarians, war and government aid do not reflect true internationalism. To some extent, they are really about government bullying and condescension towards foreigners, the idea that we are superior to them and can use our power to re-make them in our image. In contrast, libertarians believe in treating citizens of other countries with respect and acting with humility.

Finally, there is the issue of international institutions. This is the area where libertarians are most likely to reject what is conventionally thought of as the internationalist position, as they worry about the power of these institutions. In reality, libertarians are not rejecting the idea of international institutions, but rather the specific policies pursued by some of these institutions. For example, if the IMF advocates Keynesian fiscal policy, and libertarians object, it is the policy they object to, not the institution itself. If there were international institutions that supported balanced budgets (or protected property rights), for example, libertarians would likely be supportive. There is no fundamental libertarian objection to international cooperation through institutions; the only concern is on specific issues of substance.

Read more from the original source:
Libertarian Internationalism

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
Encyclopedia of Libertarianism documentaries documentary documentaries 2014 youtube documentaries documentaries online documentaries discovery channel docume...

By: documentary movise 2

More:
Encyclopedia of Libertarianism - Video

Just A Summary | Libertarianism By David Boaz
JUST A SUMMARY - THE SUMMARY YOUR FAVORITE BOOK =--- Where to buy this book? ISBN: 9780684847689 Book Review of Libertarianism by David Boaz If you want ...

By: Just a Summary

Read more:
Just A Summary | Libertarianism By David Boaz - Video