The Individual, The Family, and Catholic Corporate Society - Dr. John Rao
#21
(10-09-2012, 02:02 AM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-09-2012, 01:47 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Even in religious matters? Or the draft?

Forced baptisms are invalid, so the Church concurs.

Yes, but this is a bit of a strawman. The State isn't to remain neutral in religious matters, and can suppress false, public worship, unless doing so would cause a greater evil (civil war).

I would expect such sophistry from a Vatican II apologist. Not a trad like you.
Quote:And the draft or conscription is kidnapping. 

How so?
Reply
#22
(10-09-2012, 10:19 AM)Tim Wrote: Pete in all charity you have your eyes closed. The time I spoke of was the greatest proliferation of small businesses. Everyone made a buck, because ownership was not removed from the day to day of the business. It was built up after the war, and to make a consumer good like a mix master took dozens of small shops co-ordinating to supply parts and sub-assemblies to the maker for final asembly and shipping to the sellers. This is where innovation comes from down at the bottom. The assets of those little shops were the men and their tools. The men were the sum of all the shops they worked in carrying that experience and using their imaginations to create better systems of manufacture.

I don't know where this "socialism" silliness comes from at all. Everyone made money according to their abilities. Guys with real talent and experience made a considerable amount more than average guys. There were no unions and that's one of the reasons this is history. They were called "job shops" because for whatever reason a journeyman could lock his tool box, walk out the door, and in to the next one, and negotiate a better deal, many times bringing his apprentices with him.

Owneship made sure that when they had a guy with extraordinary talent he stayed, even to the point of starting another "job shop" with him at the helm as a partner. This is the incubator for business. Start small and build on it. I know three brother I grew up with that started in their father'sbasement sharpening knives for restaurants, and grew the business to a Multi-national manufacturing concern.

They did it by hiring folks they thought could do the job and seeing they could trust them gave them larger and larger authority. Today they have operations in most of the US, Central America, South America, Europe, Middle East, and Russia. I personally know almost all of the guys running large parts of the Corporation, they all started in the their shop, from engineers, machinists, and grinders..

tim 

+JMJ+

Excellent response.

Pax
Reply
#23
(10-08-2012, 11:44 PM)PeterII Wrote: This Rao guy is a totalitarian socialist who makes Hillary Clinton proud with his, "it takes a village" crap. 

Really? At least this piece seems very sound to me.
Reply
#24
(10-09-2012, 10:19 AM)Tim Wrote: Pete in all charity you have your eyes closed. The time I spoke of was the greatest proliferation of small businesses. Everyone made a buck, because ownership was not removed from the day to day of the business. It was built up after the war, and to make a consumer good like a mix master took dozens of small shops co-ordinating to supply parts and sub-assemblies to the maker for final asembly and shipping to the sellers. This is where innovation comes from down at the bottom. The assets of those little shops were the men and their tools. The men were the sum of all the shops they worked in carrying that experience and using their imaginations to create better systems of manufacture.

I don't know where this "socialism" silliness comes from at all. Everyone made money according to their abilities. Guys with real talent and experience made a considerable amount more than average guys. There were no unions and that's one of the reasons this is history. They were called "job shops" because for whatever reason a journeyman could lock his tool box, walk out the door, and in to the next one, and negotiate a better deal, many times bringing his apprentices with him.

Owneship made sure that when they had a guy with extraordinary talent he stayed, even to the point of starting another "job shop" with him at the helm as a partner. This is the incubator for business. Start small and build on it. I know three brother I grew up with that started in their father'sbasement sharpening knives for restaurants, and grew the business to a Multi-national manufacturing concern.

They did it by hiring folks they thought could do the job and seeing they could trust them gave them larger and larger authority. Today they have operations in most of the US, Central America, South America, Europe, Middle East, and Russia. I personally know almost all of the guys running large parts of the Corporation, they all started in the their shop, from engineers, machinists, and grinders..

tim 

You're talking about an era that post dates the industrial revolution though.  Subsistence farmers did not become machinists overnight.  Society had to undergo a great change from being agriculturally based to industry based, with the corresponding changes in transportation and communication that is impossible to accomplish in a Distributist schemework.  It took big business and supposed "robber barons" to expand things like the steel industry, and make it affordable enough for small business to use and innovate in your era.
Reply
#25

PeterII Wrote:
Cambrensis Wrote:He's talking about the diffusion of power through a variety of autonomous institutions for the benefit of individuals.  Totalitarianism is the concentration of power in the state for the benefit of the state.

In the passage you quoted, Rao says, "[non-governmental social institutions] were involved in the enterprise of chaining the individual's destructive tendencies"

And this is the difference:  Those non governmental institutions came about voluntarily through the actions of individuals bettering themselves, not destroying themselves.  It's subsidiarity rather than top down economic planning.  Yet Rao condemns libertarianism in the name of "authority" despite the fact that it is the libertarians who create the foundation for non governmental social institutions.

Sure, but I think Rao is arguing that such voluntary institutions were only beneficial to the individual and to society as a whole because the individuals who came together to form them were Christians -- and they were only Christians because society as a whole was Christian.  They were born into a Christian society and absorbed Christian faith and morals every day of their lives because that was the norm.  If they'd been born into a degenerate pagan society, they might have founded guilds of abortionists or human sacrificers.  And in order to maintain such a stable Christian commonwealth, you need to be able to enforce its norms and defend them from anyone who seeks to destroy them, enemies external and internal, ie you need the strong arm of the state.

That doesn't mean a central authority proliferating rules and laws to micromanage every aspect of people’s lives.  All the laws in the world will not make people virtuous. A law is only effective to the extent that most people are habitually law-abiding, and that can only be the result of an intricate process of cultural osmosis whereby certain moral principles (and taboos) are quietly yet confidently propagated from generation to generation and class to class, embodied in countless variegated local customs through the mediation of families, churches, schools and other small-scale associations. It is cultural, not legalistic.

Once that ancient and delicate fabric has been torn apart by revolutionary liberalism, the state is forced to resort to legislation, passing more and more laws in a futile effort to control an increasingly bewildered and disorderly populace who have been brusquely commanded to despise their traditional instinctive sense of identity and morality. Modern Britain is far more liberal than, say, 1950s Britain yet far more law-ridden (and crime-ridden). And when the laws inevitably fail, there are always systems of technological control …
Reply
#26
PeterII,

I have a question for you: Do you accept the Social teachings of the Church? (Rerum Novarum and on) If not, it is rather rash to dismiss the teachings of the Popes on economic matters. Sure, the Popes do not specify a particular economic system but they state that economics cannot be divorced from moral considerations and state principles which must govern economics and social teachings. I don't have time to write more but it seems as if you are relying on the old canard of calling your opponent names to further your position.
Reply
#27
Cambrensis Wrote:Sure, but I think Rao is arguing that such voluntary institutions were only beneficial to the individual and to society as a whole because the individuals who came together to form them were Christians -- and they were only Christians because society as a whole was Christian.  They were born into a Christian society and absorbed Christian faith and morals every day of their lives because that was the norm.  If they'd been born into a degenerate pagan society, they might have founded guilds of abortionists or human sacrificers.  And in order to maintain such a stable Christian commonwealth, you need to be able to enforce its norms and defend them from anyone who seeks to destroy them, enemies external and internal, ie you need the strong arm of the state.

But the strong arm of the state has been used to crush the Church more than defend it.  As I've pointed out before, why has the Church been relatively free to flourish in America compared to places where the vast majority of the population is Catholic, such as France, Spain, or Mexico - where it was violently persecuted in modern times. Everybody craves power, until it turns on them. 
Reply
#28
Too all the [insert choice words here]s  calling Rao a socialist etc:

Anyone who has ever Listened to Rao's lectures knows he is the anti-Hobbes, the anti-Locke, the anti-Marx, etc., and all of his angles on society, the state, the city, etc, are soundly catholic and they especially emphasize the scholastic, pre-enlightenment, greco-thomistic beliefs that a state, in an ideal situation, should have a concern for virtue, men's souls, etc., in contrast to the above mentioned Hobbes, etc.

People who are bashing Rao are completely misreading him, and I suspect they are among that class of self-described so-called libertarians or individualists who get their understanding of political theory from Ron Paul YouTube videos and "conservative" Internet articles. 

By the way, publicly accusing people of things that aren't true or can't be proven gets you into detraction/slander/calumny territory which is potential grounds for mortal sin.  Let's make sure we be careful about what we say, like adults are supposed to.
Reply
#29
(10-10-2012, 11:39 AM)obscurus Wrote: PeterII,

I have a question for you: Do you accept the Social teachings of the Church? (Rerum Novarum and on) If not, it is rather rash to dismiss the teachings of the Popes on economic matters. Sure, the Popes do not specify a particular economic system but they state that economics cannot be divorced from moral considerations and state principles which must govern economics and social teachings. I don't have time to write more but it seems as if you are relying on the old canard of calling your opponent names to further your position.

The real canard is using Church teaching to justify socialism and totalitarianism when it can be demonstrated that societies can exist peacefully and profitably without the intervention of a State.  Every societal function can and ultimately should be privatized.  State coercion is as useful as the institution of slavery.  Some Catholics used Church teaching to justify that too.  
Reply
#30
(10-11-2012, 03:10 AM)Romish Papist Wrote: Too all the [insert choice words here]s  calling Rao a socialist etc:

Anyone who has ever Listened to Rao's lectures knows he is the anti-Hobbes, the anti-Locke, the anti-Marx, etc., and all of his angles on society, the state, the city, etc, are soundly catholic and they especially emphasize the scholastic, pre-enlightenment, greco-thomistic beliefs that a state, in an ideal situation, should have a concern for virtue, men's souls, etc., in contrast to the above mentioned Hobbes, etc.

People who are bashing Rao are completely misreading him, and I suspect they are among that class of self-described so-called libertarians or individualists who get their understanding of political theory from Ron Paul YouTube videos and "conservative" Internet articles. 

By the way, publicly accusing people of things that aren't true or can't be proven gets you into detraction/slander/calumny territory which is potential grounds for mortal sin.  Let's make sure we be careful about what we say, like adults are supposed to.

The Distributist Review loves attacking libertarians and admirers of Ron Paul.  They discuss philosphy, but hardly ever share their practical solutions to economic problems, because when they do, it becomes obvious that they're hacks.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)