Errors of Russia
#31
(02-14-2012, 12:34 PM)PeterII Wrote: If your idea of success is killing people in wars and taking property, then a lot of your examples were very successful. 
If liberty is God's plan for humanity He sure has taken a long time don't you think?
Reply
#32
(02-14-2012, 12:34 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with rights. The idea of "natural rights" is a completely modern invention coming out of the Enlightenment. Libertarians need to cool it on the cultural imperialism.

Yeah, yeah, that former Marxist you've been reading can't refute the 10 commandments and the object of justice.  
Reply
#33
(02-14-2012, 12:50 PM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:34 PM)PeterII Wrote: If your idea of success is killing people in wars and taking property, then a lot of your examples were very successful. 
If liberty is God's plan for humanity He sure has taken a long time don't you think?

Sure, there are always bad overlords getting in the way.
Reply
#34
(02-14-2012, 12:54 PM)PeterII Wrote: Sure, there are always bad overlords getting in the way.
'Bad' is a matter of perspective.

The ultimate overlord is the King of Heaven no? It seems even our Lord supports being Lord over all of us.
Reply
#35
(02-14-2012, 12:51 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:34 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with rights. The idea of "natural rights" is a completely modern invention coming out of the Enlightenment. Libertarians need to cool it on the cultural imperialism.

Yeah, yeah, that former Marxist you've been reading can't refute the 10 commandments and the object of justice.  

MacIntyre adheres to a basically Aristotelian political philosophy. I don't see what's so bad about that. Anyway, my having a duty not to kill does not mean that people have some sort of inherent right not to be killed. None of the 10 commandments imply anything like a natural right.

By the way, here is St. Thomas on the distribution of common goods: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3061.htm#article1

Obviously, St. Thomas couldn't have conceived of a modern welfare state, but as he puts it, "[j]ust as a private individual is praised for moderation in his bounty, and blamed for excess therein, so too ought moderation to be observed in the distribution of common goods, wherein distributive justice directs." The whole article would seem to allow a role for the state in wealth distribution.
Reply
#36
(02-14-2012, 01:00 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:51 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:34 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with rights. The idea of "natural rights" is a completely modern invention coming out of the Enlightenment. Libertarians need to cool it on the cultural imperialism.

Yeah, yeah, that former Marxist you've been reading can't refute the 10 commandments and the object of justice.  

MacIntyre adheres to a basically Aristotelian political philosophy. I don't see what's so bad about that. Anyway, my having a duty not to kill does not mean that people have some sort of inherent right not to be killed. None of the 10 commandments imply anything like a natural right.

By the way, here is St. Thomas on the distribution of common goods: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3061.htm#article1

Obviously, St. Thomas couldn't have conceived of a modern welfare state, but as he puts it, "[j]ust as a private individual is praised for moderation in his bounty, and blamed for excess therein, so too ought moderation to be observed in the distribution of common goods, wherein distributive justice directs." The whole article would seem to allow a role for the state in wealth distribution.

Well, slavery for the sub-humans is pretty bad political philosophy.  There is no difference really between stating one has the duty not to kill innocent human life, and saying one has a right to innocent human life. It's the same thing from two perspectives. 

I find most of MacIntyre unintelligible, and see him trying to reconcile his former Marxism with Catholicism in Communitarianism.  The important question in regard to state wealth-distribution is whether this is by consent or coercion.  If a bunch of dolts want to voluntarily give their property away in taxes to an overlord to distribute for them, they may, even though it's imprudent and bad economics.
Reply
#37
(02-14-2012, 10:59 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The "errors of Russia" are simply put the spread of Marxism, which manifests itself on many planes not just the political.

Saying that heaven intervened on behalf of libertarianism - "less government, more freedom" - is ridiculous.
I was on a plane once and the stewardess made us all eat peanuts.
I consider this Marxist :)
Reply
#38
(02-14-2012, 02:07 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 10:59 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The "errors of Russia" are simply put the spread of Marxism, which manifests itself on many planes not just the political.

Saying that heaven intervened on behalf of libertarianism - "less government, more freedom" - is ridiculous.
I was on a plane once and the stewardess made us all eat peanuts.
I consider this Marxist :)

:shrug:
Reply
#39
(02-14-2012, 01:52 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 01:00 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:51 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:34 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with rights. The idea of "natural rights" is a completely modern invention coming out of the Enlightenment. Libertarians need to cool it on the cultural imperialism.

Yeah, yeah, that former Marxist you've been reading can't refute the 10 commandments and the object of justice.  

MacIntyre adheres to a basically Aristotelian political philosophy. I don't see what's so bad about that. Anyway, my having a duty not to kill does not mean that people have some sort of inherent right not to be killed. None of the 10 commandments imply anything like a natural right.

By the way, here is St. Thomas on the distribution of common goods: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3061.htm#article1

Obviously, St. Thomas couldn't have conceived of a modern welfare state, but as he puts it, "[j]ust as a private individual is praised for moderation in his bounty, and blamed for excess therein, so too ought moderation to be observed in the distribution of common goods, wherein distributive justice directs." The whole article would seem to allow a role for the state in wealth distribution.

Well, slavery for the sub-humans is pretty bad political philosophy.  There is no difference really between stating one has the duty not to kill innocent human life, and saying one has a right to innocent human life. It's the same thing from two perspectives. 

Don't libertarians argue that the vast majority of people ought to be wage-slaves? On the question of duties and rights, we also have a duty to give to the poor. Does that mean that the poor have a right to my money? Someone having a duty to do something does not imply that I have some sort of "right" inhering in my nature that obligates him to fulfill that duty.

(02-14-2012, 01:52 PM)PeterII Wrote: I find most of MacIntyre unintelligible, and see him trying to reconcile his former Marxism with Catholicism in Communitarianism.  The important question in regard to state wealth-distribution is whether this is by consent or coercion.  If a bunch of dolts want to voluntarily give their property away in taxes to an overlord to distribute for them, they may, even though it's imprudent and bad economics.

I don't think MacIntyre is really attempting to reconcile Marxism with Catholicism. He does continue to make use of certain aspects of the Marxian critique of capitalism, but all of his positive proposals are rooted in an Aristotelian conception of politics.

At any rate, I'm not sure why consent is all that important in questions of distributing goods. The state has a right and obligation to oversee this distribution, and this entails the authority to create laws directed toward the common good, which are of course not based on consent. So, as long as the state is acting in order to promote the common good, I'm not sure that consent is especially important.
Reply
#40
(02-14-2012, 02:14 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:07 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 10:59 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The "errors of Russia" are simply put the spread of Marxism, which manifests itself on many planes not just the political.

Saying that heaven intervened on behalf of libertarianism - "less government, more freedom" - is ridiculous.
I was on a plane once and the stewardess made us all eat peanuts.
I consider this Marxist :)

:shrug:
You said Marxism manifests itself on many PLANES.
I was making a bad joke at the stewardess making everyone eat the same thing on the plane [a version of Marxism]
Oh well.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)