[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish'

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Economic Science And Catholic Social Teaching
Source: Chronicles Magazine
URL Source: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Storck/NewsTS0617104.html
Published: Feb 6, 2007
Author: Thomas Storck
Post Date: 2007-02-06 19:56:01 by gargantuton
Keywords: None
Views: 1228
Comments: 93

June 17, 2004

ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

by Thomas Storck

Even among otherwise orthodox Catholics in the United States there is generally little knowledge of or interest in Catholic social doctrine, that body of Catholic teachings which concerns man in society, especially with reference to the political and economic orders. Since Leo XIII began vigorously to develop and apply this teaching to the changing conditions of the modern world, especially with his encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Catholic social doctrine has seemed to many to constitute an alternative both to free-market capitalism and all forms of socialism and communism. But lately an objection to Catholic social teaching has arisen from an unexpected source, in fact, from some of those who claim to be especially devoted to Catholic life and tradition as it existed before the Second Vatican Council. This is ironic, for during that era Catholic social teaching was championed much more than it is today by the hierarchy, including the papacy, and was, I think, much more in the consciousness of the ecclesiastically literate Catholic. But the objection that has arisen from some who call themselves traditionalists is novel in one respect, yet in another respect not. It is novel in that it bases its explicit rejection of such doctrine on the supposed teachings of the science of economics. But it is not novel in that the hallmark of dissenters and heretics throughout the ages has been precisely to take some human science, theology or philosophy often, elevate it above the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church and pose the false quandary: If I accept such and such a teaching of the Church I must go against my God-given reason. But since reason is from God, I cannot contradict it. Therefore I must reject this teaching of the Church.

The latest among those who take this approach is one Thomas Woods, Jr., who argues that Catholic social teaching and economic science are fundamentally at odds, and that it is the former that must yield to the latter. Woods is not shy about stating his position.

The primary difficulty with much of what has fallen under the heading of Catholic social teaching since Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891) is that it assumes without argument that the force of human will suffices to resolve economic questions, and that reason and the conclusions of economic law can be safely neglected, even scorned.... This attitude runs directly counter to the entire Catholic intellectual tradition, according to which man is to conform his actions to reality, rather than embarking on the hopeless and foolish task of forcing the world to conform to him and to his desires ["Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension," paper delivered at the Austrian Scholars Conference at the Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama, March 2002, p. 4. The entire paper is available here].

And he dismisses as "perfectly nonsensical" the claim that his position "involves himself in `dissent' from Church teaching" ("The Trouble with Catholic Social Teaching," lecture delivered at the Austrian Scholars Conference, Mises Institute, Auburn Alabama, March 2004, p. 2.). Why? Because

In the absence of any attempt to address these issues [i.e., the issues that Woods considers important], it is difficult to see how the economic claims of the social encyclicals can actually constitute authoritative Catholic doctrine binding upon the consciences of all the faithful” ["Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Law: an Unresolved Tension," pp. 33-34].

And he goes on to say:

One hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesiastical power, but surely the attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding the entire Catholic world, principles that derive from the popes' intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics, seems dubious. At the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church's legitimate teaching office into areas in which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error [Ibid., p. 35].

This is the question in a nutshell: Thomas Woods believes that certain teachings of Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II, teachings which these pontiffs certainly conceived of as part of their legitimate teaching authority, are wrong because he thinks they contradict the tenets of economics.

Now in the first place, I must agree with Woods, that both cannot be right. If these economic beliefs are correct then the papal teaching is wrong, for truth cannot contradict itself. Otherwise we would be headed toward the notion of a double-truth which was implicit in some of the theories of the medieval Latin Averroists, that is, that the same thing could be true in philosophy and false in theology. But as every loyal Catholic knows, there is not nor can there be any conflict between authentic Catholic teaching and the genuine findings of any human science. Such as thing is not possible.

What can one say in reply to Woods, then? First, that since a whole series of popes has taught certain moral truths connected with economics which they believed was entirely within their competence, it is monstrous for anyone claiming to be a Catholic to argue against this teaching, and second, that what Woods represents as the teaching of economics is in fact simply one economic view among many, and that thus it is not the science of economics that is at odds with Catholic doctrine, but simply one school of thought representing ultimately the fallible reasoning of human beings.

In the first place, then, any instructed and orthodox Catholic will have no difficulty in dismissing Woods' claims at once, even without investigating his arguments. When confronted, for example, with claims by psychologists or sociologists that the findings of their particular disciplines invalidate this or that teaching of the Church, we can know that their claims are not to be taken seriously. Of course, usually it is necessary to refute them in order to show those outside the Church, or those weak in faith, that the teachings of the Church have not been disproven. But in principle, Woods' claims are no different from those made by many another partisan of one pet theory or idea after another. The popes have been quite explicit about their competence to teach in these areas of economic morality. Let us look at just two of their statements.

We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which belong to Us. For no practical solution of this question will ever be found without the assistance of Religion and the Church. It is We who are the chief guardian of religion, and the chief dispenser of what belongs to the Church, and We must not by silence neglect the duty which lies upon Us [Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, no. 13].

We lay down the principle long since clearly established by Leo XIII that it is Our right and Our duty to deal authoritatively with social and economic problems. It is not of course for the Church to lead men to transient and perishable happiness only, but to that which is eternal. Indeed "the Church believes that it would be wrong for her to inferfere without just cause in such earthly concerns"; but she never can relinquish her God-given task of interposing her authority, not indeed in technical matters, for which she has neither the equipment nor the mission, but in all those that have a bearing on moral conduct. For the deposit of truth entrusted to Us by God, and Our weighty office of propagating, interpreting and urging in season and out of season the entire moral law, demand that both social and economic questions be brought within Our supreme jurisdiction, in so far as they refer to moral issues [Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 41].

Mr. Woods may think that they have overstepped the bounds of moral theology into technical economic questions, but that is not what they thought. When not just one, but even more so many supreme pontiffs teach the same truths and consider that they have a perfect right to do so without this constituting an "abuse of papal and ecclesiastical power," then surely any orthodox and loyal Catholic must accept the popes' own notions of the limits of their teaching authority. As I said above, every dissenter and heretic in the history of the Church elevates some idea of his own, which he feels he has good reason to accept, into a principle higher than Catholic teaching. What makes Woods different from them? If a psychologist or sociologist claimed that his knowledge made it impossible for him to accept Catholic teaching on sexuality, we would dismiss his arguments as worthless, and rightly so. But who is Thomas Woods to set up his own boundaries as to what is and what is not acceptable for the Church to teach? What are his credentials to constitute a parallel magisterium? The Catholic Church has been teaching in the area of economic morality for centuries. Mr. Woods' quarrel is not with a few recent popes but with the entire tradition of Catholic teaching on economic morality.

Lest anyone argue that the Church has never defined infallibly the social doctrines stated in papal encyclicals, we should remember that infallibility extends beyond merely the teachings of the solemn magisterium to the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. (The First Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution, De Fide, chap. 3, taught: "Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching [magisterium], proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.") At least some of the contents of the papal social encyclicals, for example, the doctrine of the just wage, would seem to have been repeated enough times so that they qualify as part of the ordinary and universal magisterium. And even those matters which may not rise to the level of the universal magisterium, are by no means optional matters for Catholics. Pius XII authoritatively stated in his encyclical Humani Generis of 1950 the following:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority [Magisterium]. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority [Magisterio enim ordinario haec docentur], of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"... [No. 20].

And the Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium of 1964, taught:

[A] loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated” [No. 25].

Moreover, when one looks closely at this matter, one will discover that what Woods solemnly proclaims to be the teachings of economics are in fact only the opinions of one particular sect of economists. In fact, the Austrian school, to which Woods adheres, is a minority school of economists. It is true that many neoclassical economists would agree with many of Woods' criticisms, but there are other schools of economic thought whose findings harmonize well with Catholic social thought. Woods himself mentions, and excoriates, the German historical school. There is also the American institutionalist school, and there are others. Woods has no more right to consider his own economic ideas as equivalent to the entire field of economics than a Kantian philosopher has to regard the teachings of Kant as equivalent to the entire field of philosophy. If such a philosopher were to say, "There is a conflict between the teachings of the First Vatican Council and the science of philosophy on the ability of human reason to demonstrate the existence of God," we could easily point out to him that there are other schools of philosophy, such as Thomism, that have no such conflict, and that he is wrong to claim for his own school the mantle of philosophy as a whole. But this is exactly what Woods has done for economics. His own school says this, therefore economics as a whole says this. The faulty reasoning here should be evident. Woods quotes with approval the following statement of Professor William Luckey:

The fact that Catholic economic teaching, put forth as unchanging and required of belief, did not square with what Austrian economists know to be true, has created an agonizing crisis of conscience for such economists ["The Trouble with Catholic Social Teaching," p. 6, my emphasis].

Woods and Luckey have raised the fallible reasoning of a group of economists, a group which does not even command majority opinion within its own discipline, into an infallible voice of truth which they consider to be able to trump the teachings of the supreme pontiffs! Contrary to what Woods continually asserts, to question Austrian economics is not to question the validity of human reason; it is simply to question the validity of certain dubious conclusions reached by one group of men who enjoy no charism of infallibility.

Woods also makes much of the economic teaching of a group of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians who have sometimes been claimed as precursors of Woods's views, or of something like them anyway. There is some reason to question whether this similarity between their views and his own has not been greatly overstated. (I will instance only one example. In his first paper Woods (p. 8) quotes a passage from Juan de Mariana on the folly and evil of a ruler attemping to set a price of a good "in such a way that the legal price should differ from the natural.... Men are guided in this matter by common estimation founded on considerations of the quality of things, and their abundance or scarcity." Now "common estimation" was a traditional scholastic way of discovering a just price. Common estimation was the common opinion of men in general as to what was a reasonable price, and though it might in many cases be based in part on factors that included certain market forces, such as the "abundance or scarcity" of the item in question, the important point to recognize is that common estimation and the market price of Austrian or neoclassical economics do not mean the same thing. That is, even if in some cases they might coincide, they do so for different reasons. Moreover, this subject opens up the entire question of what is a market price, since all markets are subject to legal and customary rules, and whether in fact it makes any sense to speak of a market price. Rather, the question is: what market price exists under such and such a legal and social regime.) In addition, I will point out two things. First, if it were the case that these theologians agreed completely with Woods, what would that mean? Absolutely nothing. They have no special status above other theologians, and against the teaching of the popes their views carry no weight whatsoever, any more than the myriad of theologians of today whose views are widely quoted against authentic papal teaching. And secondly, if, as Woods avers, the vicars of Christ have overstepped the bounds of moral theology by their teachings on economic morality, what gives these Spanish scholastics, who were theologians not economists, any particular authority in this field? Is Woods making an argument from authority? If he is it fails, for by his own claims theology has nothing to say on these particular questions. If, on the other hand, he is simply claiming them as intellectual precursors, and appealing to the weight of their arguments, then I do not see any reason why I should specially attend to them, particularly as they (according to Woods) teach contrary to the popes and are no more infallible than any other economic writers.

Woods is especially agitated because he thinks that without his own conception of economics it must cease to be a science. Although I know of nothing in scripture or tradition that guarantees that economics is a science, nevertheless what he says does not necessarily follow. Heinrich Pesch, the great Jesuit economist, whose thought provided the background for the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, and whom Woods criticizes, strongly defended the status of economics to be a science, but a human and a social science, one that depends at least in part on the free acts of human beings. We are not required to give up the claim that economics is a science if we accept Catholic social teaching.

Although it is not my primary intention to engage in an economic debate with Woods, I must say just a word to show how the economic arguments he makes are far from compelling. The model of an economy which both neoclassical and Austrian economics present, and the economic policies which Austrian economists usually champion, are not the obvious conclusions of economic reasoning as they would have us believe. For economic activity always takes place within a legal, social and technological framework, and the structure of that framework to a great degree conditions and determines the shape which economic activity takes in any particular society. There was no economic reason, for example, why the guilds of the Middle Ages, which controlled the urban economies of Europe and severely limited competition among craftsmen, need have come to an end, and the economy which resulted from the demise of the guilds was largely the creation of a changed intellectual climate, not the result of so-called economic laws. Nor are limited liability corporations, which currently dominate our economy and which were created only in the nineteenth century due to emerging state general incorporation laws, the inevitable products of economic forces, but rather were brought into being by the free acts of legislatures. Market forces always work within a certain framework, and economic outcomes depend more on how these frameworks are structured than on the market forces alone. Thus within broad limits human beings have the ability to structure the way in which they conduct economic activity, and the notion that there is only one way which is sanctioned by so-called economic laws is false. Human beings create their legal and social institutions and can alter them. There is no reason why these institutions cannot be designed or reformed in such a way so as to facilitate the application of Catholic social teaching. (A concrete instance of how market forces always work within an institutional framework is the story of the Nova Scotia fishermen from the 1930s. "Their catch of fish and lobsters was handled by local dealers who in many cases kept the fishermen in a state of peonage. While Maine fishermen were getting about fifteen cents a pound for lobsters, the Nova Scotian fishermen were receiving as little as two cents a pound. All other prices were scaled down in the same ratio. For everything they bought, however, from their scanty food purchases to nets and lines, they paid top prices, with the result that they were invariably bowed down with a load of debts. Appalling poverty, illiteracy, poor health and the worst possible housing conditions existed throughout this section." In order to better their condition, priests from St. Francis College helped the fishermen organize cooperatives. By means of marketing cooperatives they were able to bypass the local middlemen and deal directly with wholesalers in large cities. In their first shipment of lobsters to Boston they received fifteen cents per pound net. The distribution of income before the establishment of the cooperatives was not the result of the operation of economic laws, but rather of the legal and social institutions within which these economic forces operated. These institutions were changed and a new set of institutions was created within which market forces could operate. This is an illustration of the freedom men have to change the framework and thus change the way economic forces operate to bring about a more just distribution of income. See Bertram B. Fowler, The Co-operative Challenge (Boston : Little, Brown, 1947) pp. 128-29.)

Lest any reader be tempted to think that I am too exercised over this topic, and my disagreement with Woods is simply a small matter over different interpretations of Catholic social doctrine, let me quote from Pope Pius XI. In his first encyclical, Ubi Arcano of December 1922, Pius introduced the notion of "social Modernism." He spoke of those Catholics who give lip service to doctrine concerning the social order, including "Catholic teaching concerning...the rights and duties of laborers...in industry" but who "by their spoken and written word, and the whole tenor of their lives" disregard and belittle this teaching. Pope Pius says of this, "In all this we recognize a kind of moral, judicial, and social Modernism, and We condemn it as strongly as We do dogmatic Modernism." I am sure that Thomas Woods would not like to be placed among the dogmatic modernists, but Pius XI definitely places him among the social modernists. And thus that saintly and traditional pontiff condemns Thomas Woods' views, condemns them "as strongly as We do dogmatic Modernism."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Oh, I see, my point was over your head. I most closely identify with reactionary anarchists; I am philosophically a monarchist. As you have no shared your politics, you are in effect dishonoring this exchange. I see a little nationalism, a little socialism, but god forbid I mention national-socialism and you call out the ADL.

Monarchy: It seems the best gambit, you might get a decent king, and if nothingelse, his time-prefernce/long term planning beats 2-4 year election cycles.

Let me try it another way. We live in a state of anarchy right now. The elites in government and business are actively trying to destroy the people they rule over and the people don't seem to care, even taking time on the Internet to post about how great government can be if only it had a different set of managers. Finding myself in an anarcho-tyranny, I reject it all. My family (extended) unit is the only political unit that matters; the rest of you are either threats or allies to my unit. My duties to my neighbors and friends and blood remain unchanged.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-07   19:08:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Anyhow, along the 'cultural and food' theme - what about the Chinese?

Their main staple historically has been rice and yet they have suffered horrible famines when a blight comes along and wipes out their crop. Why not diversify more than they have?

The answer is simple. In Imperial Days (a long time ago) the Government wanted to tax food production and the Emperor restricted grains to rice so they could get an accurate tally and tax done. Of course, in the mid-1800s, the Emperor also made an edict that any "Westerner" who attempted to learn the Chinese language would be executed. Lots of power centralized in that Chinese Imperial Government.

As a result, heavy rice cultivation made its way into the culture. It is only recently that they started diversifying once again.

The problem with not diversifying the food supply is that you get the occasional famine. And thus, the Chinese have a long history of dealing with famines. In fact, one of the common greetings is simply "Have you eaten yet?" and in Cantonese, the common phrase for "eat food" translates as "eat rice" -- or "sik faahn"

Never discount cultural problems - or Government interference.

Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2007-02-07   19:16:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am rather partial to Burke's politics myself. Then, again, I find a good deal that is attractive in Dr. Johnson's politics. So I suppose I'm a strange mixture of Whig and Tory.

But some things Burke and Johnson shared. For example, neither man was a doctrinaire believer in capitalism or laissez-faire. They despised calculators and economists.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-07   19:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's the same in Mandarin. "Have you eaten?' is "Nii chy fann le me?"

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-07   19:19:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Interesting this debate over the Irish Potato Famine and laissez-faire capitalism hinges on the claim that the liberal government wasn't actually so, and that the Irish didn't eat their oats... wow...

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   19:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm a fan of Burke; Wilhelm Roepke's A Humane Economy I also like as a way to look at economics -- no doctrinaire capitalist, but a believer in the market nonetheless.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   19:23:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever."

One of Burke's most famous passages.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-07   19:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I strike the 'over your head'. That was for a reply suitable to another, but we have been civil. My bad and apologies...

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Are you Irish and when did you get here? Was the potato famine exercise part of your histio-ideology. Truth be told, I am Welsh and Prot, but we were kicked over to Ireland after we sided with Cromwell as nice, but untrustworthy. I read that happened to a lot of families. My ancestors went native and they loved Ireland and mythologized her to epic status. One was a famous female author.

Understand, I am very sympathetic to conservatives and consider myself as much a paleoconservative as a paleolibertarian. I am still a reactionary anarchist. Every time I see an evil, an evil that you posted, I see the State.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-07   19:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

History is a great teacher - as are languages. They tell you a lot about the culture and what is important to that culture.

If you haven't read Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ or David Landes' _The Wealth and Poverty of Nations_ then I recommend both -- to everyone on this thread.

Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2007-02-07   19:27:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Capitalism tends to produce an elite that is more closely tied to money and the culture of money. The lesson is not that capitalism is bad, but that the state must be so small, capitalists don't see a reason to see proections from it.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-07   19:29:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Burke sought to enlist the aid of the British state to save the poor inhabitants of India from the abuses of the East India Company. As it happens, he lost in his impeachment of Warren Hastings, but he certainly tried.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-07   19:31:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The other part was a refusal on the part of the Irish to consume items like oats because they felt it was animal feed.

Irish? You mean the mostly Protestant landlords who ruled over the Irish.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-02-07   19:34:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Irish didn't eat their oats because the mostly Protestant landlords who ruled over the Irish refused to allow it.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-02-07   19:38:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know that passage. It's quite nice and describes laissez-faire capitalism as much as socialism. The culture is dead and must be renewed.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   19:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Good point. The laws (e.g., rental laws) were deplorable toward the Irish (mostly Catholics). They didn't eat them because they couldn't; most of them did not own any land; lived in mud huts, etc. The Irish were treated poorly by the "liberals."

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   19:43:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Good point. The laws (e.g., rental laws) were deplorable toward the Irish (mostly Catholics). They didn't eat them because they couldn't; most of them did not own any land; lived in mud huts, etc. The Irish were treated poorly by the "liberals."

It was their fault for being poor.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-02-07   20:08:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The policies were enacted by a very liberal, laissez-faire government. As one has said, it is as if one is debating a Communist whose primary defense is that "true" Communism has never been tried. Laissez-faire was tried and it was rejected. It was the governing ideology during that time period and people suffered greatly.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   20:11:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes, it was there fault... the landowners were noble.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   20:11:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hmm... I would take the opposite lesson. While I prefer small state, it (if the culture cannot) must be strong enough to disrupt the elite, counterbalance it, if you will. Otherwise the only capitalism one will have that damaging elitist element (this is to not imply that order, hierarchy, etc. are not necessary or good).

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   20:14:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Capitalism Is Not Catholic

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   20:37:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Perhaps the lesson is that capitalism is bad -- the materialism implicit in that tie to the "culture of money" is not good, but detrimental. It is the excesses of that "culture of money" and elitism which the state regulates, and no doubt which many in the West have criticized.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-07   23:12:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

News to G., we were kicked out of Eden. Quit trying to rebuild it.

The State regulates it? It is in on the heist. See the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax, tarriff policy, and road building.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   7:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Burke is lamenting the arrival of scientific socialists and their claim that they could perfect the human being through science to the political scene.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   8:09:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As the East India Company was a government protected monopoly, this describes a bureuacratic battle which as you noted Burke lost. He understood the State was the problem.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   8:11:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So, not only do you think there has never been a true laissez-faire government, but, when a business is responsible for evils, it's the state that's really to blame, if it protects that business.

I suppose you're aware that corporations in this country enjoy several legal advantages, notably that of limited liability?

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-08   11:03:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

When the State is intimately linked to the Bussiness, yes. Why is that such a difficult concept?

The State is just organized violence, a protection racket. I don't think there have been any 'good' mob bosses either, but that doesn't mean I don't think there are individual actors that can be admired.

Corporations in this country, since FDR's time, have enjoyed enormous advantages from the government, and limited liability doesn't really scare me. Remove the income tax, the fed, public works projects, and the corporation becomes less interesting. I have no particular love of Big Business, but under the circumstances, their ability to forward plan has been good for people. I guess I still believe that people have free will, and get the gubmint they deserve, good and hard.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   11:20:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The State is just organized violence, a protection racket.

And what are corporations?

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-08   11:52:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If the difference between volunteer and coercion has to be explained to you, then what is the point?

I'd rather you just come out with both guns blazing as a communist or a socialist, at least it would be honest. Tell me that you think the income tax is moral thing because ultimately any dollar we earn is because of exploitation.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   12:14:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If the difference between volunteer and coercion has to be explained to you, then what is the point?

Corporations depend on the force of the state. Intellectual property laws, contract laws, and the like only do any good for businesses if they can be enforced.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-08   13:59:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There you go mentioning the Evil State again. Try to pick a side and be consistent so I can follow.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   14:09:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm not saying the state is evil, in and of itself. I'm not saying corporations are evil. (Of course, individual governments and individual businesses can indeed be evil. Burke was right about the East India Company being evil in his day.)

What I am saying is that their fates are inextricably twined, so that, to the extent that one is evil, so is the other. You admit the connection in the case of the East India Company. For some reason that I do not understand, you seem unwilling to admit it in the case of businesses in America today.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-02-08   14:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

you seem unwilling to admit it in the case of businesses in America today.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. You have been blocking out the parts that "do not compute." Of course it's the same reality here, the final nails of that reality hammered home by FDR. (see #79 a half scroll above.)

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-08   15:28:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're reading into my comment an assumption that is not there. I know that Eden cannot be rebuilt -- that is precisely why some government regulation is necessary. Coincidentally, perhaps, I think it is you who seek to rebuild Eden with your advocacy of the laissez-faire economic ideology.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-08   22:37:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The point remains that big business still benefits from the state, and that the two are intertwined, removal of the income tax, public works, etc., not withstanding. The state (and I agree it is not a necessarily evil) is necessary to regulate corporations. How that translates into advocacy of "socialism" is beyond me.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-08   22:43:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

would the middle class exist without government regulation? In a laissez-faire economic society, would their be opportunity for the creation (or preservation) of the middle class? The "natural elite" would seemingly present no challenge to the "elite" in such a society, unless the culture of laissez-faire is significantly different than the present. Is laissez-faire capitalism less capitalist than the present form?

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-09   1:38:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know that Eden cannot be rebuilt -- that is precisely why some government regulation is necessary.

Sorry, that doesn't look like any logical synthesis I have ever encountered in my life. It looks like Political Speak.

I am a reactionary anarchist and a Christian. I am not trying to build anything save my family to exist on down through the ages. I am the antithesis of a utopian dreamer. I just try to limit the carnage.

Check out Dorothy Day, to get the conversation moving forward.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-09   8:53:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

We live in a socialist economy that shuns class movement. The elite is locked in time from the 19-teems in this country. The Elite agrees with you, Socialism is Great!, see Bismark.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-09   8:54:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ah, the problem of a philosopher trying to find his abstractions in the real world when the Truth is Right In Front of Your Eyes. The Welfare-Warfare State, particularly in our dichotimy, has practically been perfected and you can't see it. That is their genius, Evil that it might be.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-09   8:56:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's not political speak at all. It's not an odd trick of logic. Eden cannot be rebuilt. Human beings are flawed. That's part of the reason government's exist, that's part of the reason economies are regulated, because of human failings.

If Eden could be rebuilt, then I suppose I'd be an anarchist, but it can't be, so I'll pass.

I've read the article. I admire the story, the person.

Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later. --Allan Bloom

"The disgusting stink of a too loud electric guitar; now that's my idea of a good time." -- Frank Zappa

gargantuton  posted on  2007-02-09   21:24:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Nice tactical use of 'admoire.' Out in the real world, it's good tactic to have in your bag of rhetoric.

As I said, I am a reactionary anarchist. I would be at peace with political bonds no bigger than the city-state, and to the extent I care about democracy in the rural setting I live in, nothing much bigger than town meeting. The chief political unit should be the family and the extended family 'ruled' if you will, by the senior patriarch, succeeded by the matriarch (we Celts are such liberals!) when she is capable. A kick-up system, an evolved family based 'social safety net' would be a logical outgrowth, best scene in the 'old' American tradition of purchasing 'life insurance' at least for we Anglo-Celts of the Old American stock. In the same breath, Old American Stock, "Every home a man's castle" radical individualism is an American concept and should be respected by newcomers who might learn something from the concept.

And still, our duties to friends and neighbors, literal neighbors, not universal neighbors, remain unchanged, be it under the ageis of Christian ethics, or socio-bio ethics.

See, I am not a 'real' anarchist, you can't rebuild Eden, nor can you legislate it via the gun.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-02-12   8:35:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]