A Response to Integralists
A Critique of a Critique of Trent Horn
My integralist1 friends Qoheleth (or just Q) and Connor critiqued popular Catholic apologist Trent Horn on libertarianism. Their video aptly titled “Catholics CAN’T be Libertarian” is a response to an interview Horn did with libertarian media outlet ReasonTV where Horn explains his supposedly libertarian beliefs.
I am not Catholic, but I found a number of things that they said to be problematic. Let’s take a look.
Why can’t Catholics be libertarian?
Though this question is teased in the title, remarkably little is said about why Catholics can’t be libertarian. Q seems to rest his case on a John Paul II encyclical— Laborem exercens.2 The Pope states:
In the latter case, the difference consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood. Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.
Being that a libertarian is someone who holds the right to private property is absolute and untouchable, Q concludes that a Catholic cannot be a libertarian. In reality, it isn’t that simple.
As Q and Connor concur later in the video, the extent to which private property should be left unmolested is a matter of prudence. Essentially, every time government intervention is floated as a solution to a problem, the pros and cons must be weighed before the government intervention is approved. If the intervention frustrates the goals of the intervener, then the intervention should not be approved.
I would argue that it is imprudent to weigh the pros and cons of every single policy. How many times must policies horribly fail before we conclude that government intervention is not wise. If on 99.9% of the issues, government intervention leads to worse outcomes than non-intervention, then would it not be permissible for a Catholic and Christians to affirm the right to private property as generally instrumental to achieving their goals?
Q may retort that since another value is the goal, then the person cannot be properly considered libertarian. To the contrary, the individual is affirming private property is absolute and untouchable, but for different reasons—prudential reasons. Many people do this. For example, there are pacifist libertarians who affirm the non-aggression principle for the reason that it makes us a more pacifist society. The pacificist libertarian does not relinquish the title of libertarian simply because he is dedicated to a higher goal or value; he is a libertarian because of his non-libertarian goal, just as a Catholic and Christians in general can be libertarian for their dedication to the Dominion Covenant, the law of love, the non-violent principles expressed in scripture, or simply a concern for the well-being of their fellow man.
Secondly, the encyclical Laborem exercens is not directed toward libertarians. This is not to say that it has nothing to say to libertarians, but it should call into question if John Paul II would alter his message if it were directed to libertarians. This encyclical was written in the age of Reagan and Friedman. Its criticism of the free market should be taken within that context, not in the context of Austro-libertarians of the Mises Institute—an institution that frames its defense of the market on robust moral and economic grounds and boasts of many Catholics among its ranks. Again, the encyclical should not be rejected out of hand, but it should be read in context.
Furthermore, many integralists direct their criticisms to liberalism. They mistakenly consider liberalism to be representative of all strains of libertarianism. It does not seem like the Popal documents are immune to this confusion. What I like to call illiberal libertarianism, which is representative of my views and better describes the views of Rothbard and Hoppe, requires its own treatment by Catholic thinkers. It is insufficient to wave around a Papal quote out of context.
Turning off the economic way of thinking
At one point in the video, Connor remarks, “The state should ban pornography, prostitution…and abortion. Banning them does not lead to worse outcomes.” Q further states that porn regulations have been “wildly successful.” Says who?
This is a tendency I find among many former libertarians. They are really good at working out all the problems and potential flaws with numerous economic regulations, but when it comes to their pet issues, they turn off the economic way of thinking and exclaim, “Well, clearly this should be banned!” or “Clearly the government ought to do something!” Essentially, they put on their political science thinking caps.
I have seen little on the success of state pornography restrictions, and the unseen costs are likely numerous, but yet to be fully investigated, but this is far from saying, “Banning them does not lead to worse outcomes.” It is true that some adult media cites have been blocked in certain states, but is this the sole metric of success? I don’t think so. We must be prudent, right? Let’s do some brainstorming about the possible negative effects of pornography and prostitution prohibition. We will leave the abortion issue alone for this article.3
Like the prohibition on alcohol, pornography regulations may lead to more localized production and distribution of pornography in order to better evade detection. This essentially bypasses direct accountability through monitoring of porn sites. This brings pornography closer to those who are not intended to access it—mainly minors—and the production may occur within the group that is not intended to access it, which would be an absolute disaster.
Following the pattern of both alcohol and drug prohibition, banning pornography would lead to relatively more violence being used in the production and distribution. Since the industry would be illegal, there would be a lesser cost of using illegal means of production, since they are already evading detection by the authorities. The inevitable result is that an industry that already has a reputation for being exploitative toward women, will become outright physically coercive. The same also applies to prostitution.4
In the case of alcohol and drug prohibition, the high cost of smuggling led to the increase of the potency of the substances—meaning a higher alcohol content. This was to get more bang for their buck so-to-speak—avoiding detection by smuggling more in less space. What this may look like when it comes to pornography is illegal porn might become more depraved. Since porn tastes escalate in depravity over time, it might be expedient for consumers to go straight for the more depraved forms of porn since it would minimize their time in the market and therefore minimize the probability of apprehension.5
The violence associated with prohibition may spill over to unrelated third parties—innocent people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
What will people alternate into if pornography is banned? Drugs? Casual sex? In the case of age verification laws, we must ask ourselves what other gratifying habits will minors alternate into? Will the activity they alternate into be better for them? Or will it make them worse off?
Pornography is a substitute good for prostitution and vice versa. The simultaneous prohibition of both will lead to some people moving from one to the other. Of course, it may be the case that the total quantity consumed of both decreases, but some who did not consume one before will move to the other. Is that change in their consumption patterns worth it?
One adult media company made an interesting argument against this law. Here is an excerpt from the statement: these regulations drive “users from those few websites which comply, to the thousands of websites, with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply.” While Q’s “wildly successful” pornography regulations in Texas drove adult media companies out of the state, it did not necessarily drive out porn consumption. In fact, it may have directed it to sites that house content that is less moderated.
The costs need not be limited to what has been listed above. Usually, the unintended negative consequences take an unexpected form. We must always be aware to how policy can affect human behavior in undesirable ways. Many libertarians make the judgment that the potential and unknown effects of policies are not worth the risk even if little is known. When it comes to the history of government intervention, it doesn’t seem like this is an unwarranted or unreasonable assumption.
Of course, the total consumption of these sin goods may fall—that is the apparent benefit of these prohibition policies, but the costs are not yet fully elaborated, and from what we know regarding previous prohibitions, the costs are probably undesirable. In many ways, depravity and violence increases as a result of these prohibitions. But I’ll leave weighing the costs and benefits to our eminently wise and prudent Catholic policymakers.
All integralists are libertarians
Integralists must affirm God’s property right in the universe and everything within it. If the cannot, then moral agents have no obligation to follow Him and the Catholic faith. Scriptures seem to affirm this property rights view.
God created the universe and everything within it. By virtue of this act of creation and His active maintenance of the universe, God homesteaded all of creation—establishing a property right in all things—even us. This seems to be how Scripture presents it. The Pentateuch—the books containing the Law of Moses—made a point to not simply contain the Law, but the history of the Jewish people all the way down to creation. The Law is not simply something that must be obeyed; there is a reason to obey it—it was from the God that created all things and handed down to the descendants of those first men who rebelled against God—taking on the debt of original sin which was passed down from generation to generation. Demonstrating the origin of creation and the history of man’s transgressions is essential to show legal obligation.
Psalm 100 (NKJV) seems to concur:
Make a joyful shout to the Lord, all you lands!
2 Serve the Lord with gladness;
Come before His presence with singing.
3 Know that the Lord, He is God;
It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;
We are His people and the sheep of His pasture
We must serve the Lord with gladness—giving Him a free will offering of song (Psalm 199:108, Ephesians 5:19-20). Why? The Psalm immediately shows why we should be glad and full of song—He made us; we did not make ourselves. If we had made ourselves, then God would truly not have any claim on us. Man is not legally autonomous. He is bound to God’s commandments. Truly, “We are His People and the sheep of His pasture.” We belong to Him. We are His property.
Since all of the obligations to God originate from God’s legitimately established property right in us and the universe, then integralists must rest their case on property rights, which ultimately makes them libertarians—although an odd variety of libertarian.
This is why Q stating that “Libertarians and integralists cannot be further apart,” is wrong. According to the definition of libertarianism Q established, all integralists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are integralists. I would go as far as to say that if libertarians were consistent, they would affirm God’s ultimate property right in creation; therefore, making them some variant of integralist.
I have dealt with this issue of God owning all of us in a prior article entitled, “God Owns You.”
The Common Good
Q states that libertarians do not talk about the common good. This is true, libertarians do not use this term, but is it truly absent from libertarian theory? Not at all. Respecting private property rights is part of the common good, but what is the point of using the term “common good” when the term is used across a wide variety of ideologies to push for the growth of government? The negative connotations associated with the term “common good” is sufficient to justify not using the term, especially when we can get by fine without using it.
Private property is most certainly a good that is common in the sense that it is something everyone should value. However, this does not imply that private property is the only common good. Libertarian theory is a compartment of thought within ethics. There may be other goods that are common, but it is not the job of libertarian ethics to investigate these other common goods. Perhaps there are principles that can be derived from private property. These principles would therefore be part of the common good, but once you step out of private property, you step outside of libertarian theory and into a different subdiscipline of ethics.
Libertarianism is a political theory. It mandates that private property be respected. How should people act individually and collectively? That is not for the libertarianism to decide, but the other subfields of ethics. However, the common goods of the other subfields must not contradict private property, or else the entire ethical system becomes contradictory.
A short remark on Roe v. Wade
Q claims Roe v. Wade as an integralist—rather than libertarian—victory. While it is true that it is certainly an integralist victory (4 out of the 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe), libertarians share in this victory as well. Roe was a centralizing decision. It used aggression in one sphere of life to defend liberty (abortion rights) in another sphere of life. Essentially, it defended the property rights of some at the expense of the property rights of others. For those that affirm the non-aggression principle, this is not a permissible action. Roe was not a libertarian decision. In fact, there were many at the Mises Institute, which Q takes to be representative of true libertarianism, that celebrated the overturning of this decision on roughly the same grounds.
I deal with the issue of central governments imposing libertarian laws on the states in my blog post, “Libertarians Should be Anti-Federalists.”
Separation of Church and State
Q asserts that if you are a libertarian, then you are committed to the separation of church and state. This is wrong. The state, if it must exist, must be subject to Christ. If we are to have public education, it must teach truth, which is Christian. If we are to have civic ceremonies, they must thoroughly Christian. If we must have monuments and grand government complexes, they must be humble, pointing toward Christ rather than exalting mortal men.
On what grounds can a libertarian justify this? Firstly, government “property” is not the property of the government. It is stolen property. The true owners of the property must be allowed to express their preferences regarding their property. Imposing the separation of church and state on them would be a violation of their property rights. If they want public property, which is really their property to be directed toward religious goals, then that is their right.
Secondly, if multiple have claim to so-called government property, and they cannot decide amongst themselves what end it must go toward, then what does matter if the government agent applies the property to fulfilling a secular or religious end. If it is not known what the legitimate owners of stolen property desire, then the only legitimate thing a thief can do is to return the property. If they are not going to return the property, and instead apply it to accomplishing some goal, then why does it matter if that goal is secular or religious? The restriction is completely arbitrary.
I recently dealt with this issue with respect to the proposed Louisiana law requiring public schools to have the 10 commandments posted in classrooms. Check out my article, “Against the Separation of God and Education,” for more.
Upkeeping a moral order
The following question was posed: “How do libertarians suggest that we upkeep a moral order?” I would respond to this by saying that libertarianism is not obligated to answer such a question. A better question would be, “How can a moral order be maintained in a libertarian society?”
Covenant communities and social pressure are two methods. They can be quite effective. Of course, they are not perfect, but what is? A third way is through the civilizing process. Hoppe discusses how free markets are conducive to the lowering of time preference rates, which means that the people generally require a lower interest rate to prefer a later satisfaction to the same satisfaction in the present. Essentially, people become less present-oriented and more future-oriented, subsequently adopting character traits that are future-oriented and abandoning present-oriented traits, which are usually associated with degenerate behavior that is denounced by Catholics and Christians in general.
Someone might respond to this by saying, “We have a free market now and look where that is getting us!” Don’t make me laugh. Yeah, our policymakers are influenced by liberalism, but that does not imply they are committed to free markets or that free markets are what we get in reality. With the regime of taxation, inflation, and regulation that we have, it is hard to say that we have a free market. It becomes more interventionist every day, and the integralists, such as the prominent Patrick Deneen, want to increase economic and social regulations. They do so at the risk of making us more present-oriented. But do they care? No. When the problems arise, they will act like good political scientists and just say that they didn’t do enough and ramp up their interventions.
I would recommend reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy: The God that Failed for more—particularly his chapters on time preference and decivilization.
Who cares about the Constitution?
Q further argues for rejecting the U.S. Constitution when it prevents good regulations from being enacted. I appreciate the sentiment. I do not put much weight on the Constitution either. If the Constitution prevents libertarian policies from being enacted, then the Constitution must be rejected. For a libertarian, this is done on the grounds of principle, but on what grounds does a prudential integralist reject the Constitution? Is it prudent to set a precedent of overturning the Constitution whenever it is convenient? Sure, the progressives try to do it all the time, but what happens when conservatives try to do it? No doubt good things would result, but what of the bad policies? Should we just not care? This does not seem very prudent.
Conclusion
I am clearly critical of the integralist position; however, there are some elements that I agree with. Their concern with uniting theology and public policy is attractive. Though I might disagree with them about where that project leads, the project itself is worthwhile. Additionally, as I argued above, Christians are committed to some variant of integralism, but this integralism must be built upon private property. Lastly, I also appreciate how integralists are questioning the sacred cows of liberalism. Calling into question the separation and church and state and the overturning of Roe are two welcomed steps in the direction of liberty. Though our paths may diverge after this, credit must be given where credit is due.
If you want to check out more of Qoheleth’s content, check out his blog at Integralist Revival. He also has a YouTube channel where I imagine he will post future content and host livestreams.
For the purposes of this article, integralism will be used to refer to Catholic integralism. This is a position which holds that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public policy. This means implementing laws which advance the moral vision of the Catholic church.
As a non-Catholic Christian, I do not reject the wisdom of Papal documents altogether simply by their association with the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the Pope is a prominent bishop among the clergy of all the various denominations. Should he not be shown respect? Should his words not be heeded? There are definitely many points at which Catholics diverge from reformed Christians, but that does not mean there is nothing of value in the vast store of Catholic thought. With respect to social teaching, such as that found in the Papal document cited above, John Paul II lays out Catholics should approach economic issues—something that many protestants shirk away from evaluating from a Christian perspective. Of course, as a reformed Christian, I do not believe that the Pope’s teaching should be deferred to or is infallible, but to say that nothing can be gleaned from it is nonsense.
The reason I am leaving the abortion issue alone is because there are many libertarians that are pro-life and believe that people are just in intervening in abortions to save the child’s life. Though I do not believe that the pro-life position is consistent with libertarianism, many libertarians have upheld this plank of the theory, despite all opposition. Ron Paul and Dave Smith are both pro-life libertarians, and there is a sizeable caucus in the Libertarian Party which is explicitly pro-life. Furthermore, many libertarian Christians hold the pro-life view, such as Kerry Baldwin, who has vigorously argued against Walter Block’s evictionism position. Ultimately, someone could oppose government on every issue, be the most consistent anarcho-capitalist imaginable, and yet be in favor of pro-life policies. This should not disqualify them from the label because what else would you call such a person?
“Violence and the U.S. Prohibition of Drugs and Alcohol,” Jeffrey Miron, NBER.
The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton, Mises Institute.