catholicteapartyhippieA commenter sent the below in.  I wanted to respond to it, my response and additional information is below the original poster’s comment.

atheist-libertarian-for-lifeIf you call yourself a “pro-life libertarian” you have already qualified your libertarian view-point with a moral teaching your hold (rightfully) dear. What this said to me are two things. If you must say “I am a pro-life libertarian” you recognize that some libertarians are not pro-life and hold in particular to an understanding of libertarianism that apparently supports pro-abortion thought. Also that you are qualifying your libertarianism with a moral thought. I.e. I am libertarian except when it comes to murdering our unborn. I also found myself in that boat. I then read further and realize there are several things I would qualify my “Austro-libertarian” beliefs by. I could sum it up to I am a libertarian except when it conflicts with my Catholic faith. Thus I coined, not a new term I was to find out of Catholic or Christian Libertarian.

I am a Catholic first, a libertarian second. Here is more detailed information showing that ChurchandLibertarianthe founders of the Austro-libertarian view point were pro-abortion and remain so today.  If you really want to understand more ready The Church and the Libertarian by Chris Ferrara.  In truth if I had a choice to vote for the Police party, or the Nanny Party, and a Libertarian, I would of course vote for the Libertarian.  This current form of government needs so much “Change” that nearly anyone other they the people who brought us here would be a positive influence.


 1) Your comment about libertarians being pro-choice is wrong. In fact percentage wise it is about as true as saying Catholics are pro-choice. There is a split among libertarians who believe that the unborn are deserving of all rights and those who believe it is just part of the mother. I am a Catholic Pro-life libertarian.

2) God gave man Free Will. He did not give you the authority to take that free will away from others. Forcing others to do what YOU think God wants is immoral – God would force them if he wanted to – instead he gave them a choice.

3) Nowhere in Catholicism is coercion used to compel a man to action. Judgement day is the only consequence of our morality, and even that consequence is completely our free will to choose.

4) God did not ask us to eliminate poverty. He asked us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sad and visit the interned. None of this compels a catholic to vote for welfare. Never once did Christ ask I was lonely, did you vote for welfare? Our obligation to Christ is a personal obligation to Him and He asks for personal acts.

5) I believe that people who vote for govt programs and promote social justice through govt coercion are evil and cowards. They would rather violate another persons free will than take personal action to help others. They authorize a govt to use police force and threat of jail to take property from others so that they can calm their personal guilt over not doing more for the poor. There is no more immoral position than this.

6) Govt has never cure poverty – the facts are conclusive. With the govt now taking 50% of some taxpayers money and borrowing 40% more from among others China, it still insists it needs more. That money is taken from investment that would have created jobs and prosperity.

Preach, condemn, shake the dust from your sandals, but you have no right to force others to live a certain way – God gave us free will, you have no right to remove it.

austo-libertarian0The most extreme version of libertarianism is the version started by two Viennese agnostic Jewish liberals Carl Menger (1840-1921) and Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) both who represented the “fin-de-siecle Viennese modernism” of the last years of the Hapsburg Empire. The reason I always make the point that they were agnostic Jews is to highlight the point that when the concepts of Austro-libertarianism is compared to the Catholic faith and differs, it is the Austro-liberationist that are nearly always wrong. Rothbard was Mises’s great student and heir to the Misesian mantel. The founder and head of the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and its leading polemicist, Thomas E. Woods are both Catholics this movement, I say the “Austrian heresy” has particular interest to us. In particular Woods spent a life time arguing against the Church’s social teaching have provoked many famous Catholic commentators to use just that term. As early as 2002, Thomas J Fleming, editor of the respected journal Chronicles, had dubbed Woods’s position “the Austrian heresy’ and as his book goes to press Chronicles has recently completed publication of a series critiquing Woods’s “Austro-libertarianism” under the title “Is Tom Woods a Dissenter?”

110612-catholic-vote-lgFollowing the logic of “natural rights” as defined by, he insisted until his death in 1995 that, insofar as his “ethics of liberty” is concerned, women have the right to abort their children because a woman “has the absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. Rothbard refused to recognize what he derided as “the right to life doctrine,” holding the term “right to life” to be “ambiguous” because it could be construed” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. A duty to sustain someone else’s life would violate Rothbard’s property-based theory of natural rights which has already mentioned rejects the “the right” to compel someone to do a positive act…” Rothbard was satisfied that concept of “self-ownership,” that is “the right to have one’s person free from aggression” sufficed to protect the property right to life in born people, a right he would not accord to humans in utero.

CatholicFlagUnder Rothbard, Menger and Mises a parent “owns” their child, but has not duty to keep their children alive since once again “No man can have a ‘right’ to compel someone to do a positive act…” Thus Rothbard concludes” “The parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. This ethnical principle “allows us to solve such vexing questions as” should a parent allow a deformed baby to die? The answer is, of course, yes, following a fortiori having the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. But, Rothbard assures us, “in a libertarian society, the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.” The man the Mises Institute hailed posthumously as “dear Murray” produced some of the most wretched thinking ever seen in the history of attempts to concoct “natural law” and “natural rights” without God.
You will then hear pro-life Catholics try to defend Rothbard saying he changes his views. To the contrary, in the Introduction to the most recent (2002) edition of Ethics of Liberty, the leading Austrian thinker Hans-Hermann Hoppe reveals that Rothbard “did not waver on fundamental matters of economic or political theory,” and that “until the end of his life, he would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect, and insisted on a mother’s absolute legal right to abortion and of letter her children die.”
And although many Catholics believe in abortion, I do not, nor does the Catholic faith as expressed in the CCC teach that abortion is right. Thus while many people who call themselves Catholic may say and or believe what they want, the Catholic faith as defined in the its official teachings is right. The CCC is the Catholic’s understanding of the Word of God. All of it is correct.