Blowing the Cover Off the Austrian 'Cult'
#11
I love this topic, no sooner is anything posted and the raving austrians come screaming "distributists are socialists" with spittle flying out on every syllable. They guard their sacred ideology in an effort to prevent the defamation of their Ideal. It's hilarious ! Economics is housekeeping no more, tallying sums divulges no secret workings of the pseudo-science of economics.

tim
Reply
#12
I love this topic, no sooner is anything posted and the raving distributists come screaming "Austrians are Randian atheists and opposed to the Church's social teaching!" with spittle flying out on every syllable. They guard their sacred ideology in an effort to prevent the defamation of their Ideal. It's hilarious! Flaky distributist theology is housekeeping no more, tallying sums divulges no secret workings of the pseudo-theology of distributism.
Reply
#13
(10-28-2012, 06:52 PM)anamchara Wrote: I love this topic, no sooner is anything posted and the raving distributists come screaming "Austrians are Randian atheists and opposed to the Church's social teaching!" with spittle flying out on every syllable. They guard their sacred ideology in an effort to prevent the defamation of their Ideal. It's hilarious! Flaky distributist theology is housekeeping no more, tallying sums divulges no secret workings of the pseudo-theology of distributism.

This is hilarious, I didn't call you anything but libertarians. I never said you're randian atheists. This shows how intoxicating this delusion is to drink. Truly I don't subscribe to any economic ideologies.
tim
Reply
#14
(10-28-2012, 07:33 PM)Tim Wrote:
(10-28-2012, 06:52 PM)anamchara Wrote: I love this topic, no sooner is anything posted and the raving distributists come screaming "Austrians are Randian atheists and opposed to the Church's social teaching!" with spittle flying out on every syllable. They guard their sacred ideology in an effort to prevent the defamation of their Ideal. It's hilarious! Flaky distributist theology is housekeeping no more, tallying sums divulges no secret workings of the pseudo-theology of distributism.

This is hilarious, I didn't call you anything but libertarians. I never said you're randian atheists. This shows how intoxicating this delusion is to drink. Truly I don't subscribe to any economic ideologies.
tim

This is hilarious. I saw no screaming or intoxication in the pro-Austrian posts. How can you claim not to subscribe to any economic "ideologies" when you scoff at Austrianism? Your very scoffing betrays the intoxication of your anti-Austrian delusion, whatever you want to call it.
Reply
#15
(10-28-2012, 03:13 PM)Meg Wrote: Thomas Storck wrote:

"The curious thing about the Catholics in the Austrian school is the degree to which they manage to pass themselves off on the unsuspecting as orthodox Catholics. For example, Ferrara amply documents Jeffrey Tucker's writing in support of the legality of same-sex marriage and of the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Yet Tucker, as a promoter of Gregorian chant and the traditional Latin liturgy, continues to write for orthodox Catholic publications that would never allow a self-proclaimed progressive to write for them on any subject."

So this Tucker fellow who is mentioned in Ferrara's book is a Traditional Catholic Libertarian who happens to support the legality of same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples? Interesting.

Jeffrey Tucker is an anarchist, so to say he supports the legality of same sex marriage or adoption is a lie because he believes there should be no State, let alone State involvement in such things.  He claims that the best way to resolve these moral issues is by non violent laissez-faire means.  That's a very different argument than what Ferrara or Storck present out of mailce or stupidity. 
Reply
#16
(10-28-2012, 08:17 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-28-2012, 03:13 PM)Meg Wrote: Thomas Storck wrote:

"The curious thing about the Catholics in the Austrian school is the degree to which they manage to pass themselves off on the unsuspecting as orthodox Catholics. For example, Ferrara amply documents Jeffrey Tucker's writing in support of the legality of same-sex marriage and of the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Yet Tucker, as a promoter of Gregorian chant and the traditional Latin liturgy, continues to write for orthodox Catholic publications that would never allow a self-proclaimed progressive to write for them on any subject."

So this Tucker fellow who is mentioned in Ferrara's book is a Traditional Catholic Libertarian who happens to support the legality of same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples? Interesting.

Jeffrey Tucker is an anarchist, so to say he supports the legality of same sex marriage or adoption is a lie because he believes there should be no State, let alone State involvement in such things.  He claims that the best way to resolve these moral issues is by non violent laissez-faire means.  That's a very different argument than what Ferrara or Storck present out of mailce or stupidity.   

More name-calling...ai, ai. Can there ever be a normal discussion regarding this topic? First, I am not so sure why you can never concede any points to those who are skeptical of libertarianism. Is there nothing of value to what they say? I would concede that libertarians make excellent points regarding the overarching power of the modern state. Nevertheless, the State does serve an important function and as long as it exercises its power appropriately then I can't see why there should be a problem with the notion of a State. I am not sure how Jeffrey Tucker as a Catholic can believe that there should be no State. This is what Pope Leo XIII said in Immortale Dei:
Quote:3. It is not difficult to determine what would be the form and character of the State were it governed according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life -- be it family, or civil -- with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."[1]

Also don't libertarians seem to minimize the effects of original sin? Man does not tend towards the good, he is ignorant, and if left to his own devices will find it difficult to achieve perfection in the natural and supernatural realm. That's it! Libertarianism doesn't seem to even leave any room for a Christian order.

Today was the feast of Christ the King but I suppose libertarians think it merely a quaint idea of Pius XI. When I have time I will post some excerpts from that encyclical because it is at the foundation of much of the Church's conception of a Christian worldview. Where am I getting it wrong?
Reply
#17
obscurus Wrote:More name-calling...ai, ai. Can there ever be a normal discussion regarding this topic? First, I am not so sure why you can never concede any points to those who are skeptical of libertarianism. Is there nothing of value to what they say? I would concede that libertarians make excellent points regarding the overarching power of the modern state. Nevertheless, the State does serve an important function and as long as it exercises its power appropriately then I can't see why there should be a problem with the notion of a State.

First, the title of this thread calls Austrian's cultists, which is an insult to their intelligence, and not the way to start a normal discussion.  LOL

After having impartially studied both sides of the issue, I came to the conclusion that the opponents to libertarianism are just a bunch a socialists, mostly well meaning but ignorant, and socialism has murdered and oppressed more of humanity than any other system.

Quote: I am not sure how Jeffrey Tucker as a Catholic can believe that there should be no State. This is what Pope Leo XIII said in Immortale Dei:
Quote:3. It is not difficult to determine what would be the form and character of the State were it governed according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life -- be it family, or civil -- with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."[1]

A society that uses force against innocent people is not civil.  Where does Christian philosophy allow us to sin against others for the "common good"?  The "common good" in that sense is an excuse to allow governments to break the 10 Commandments.  But sin can never be for the common good. 

Quote:Also don't libertarians seem to minimize the effects of original sin? Man does not tend towards the good, he is ignorant, and if left to his own devices will find it difficult to achieve perfection in the natural and supernatural realm. That's it! Libertarianism doesn't seem to even leave any room for a Christian order.

Today was the feast of Christ the King but I suppose libertarians think it merely a quaint idea of Pius XI. When I have time I will post some excerpts from that encyclical because it is at the foundation of much of the Church's conception of a Christian worldview. Where am I getting it wrong?

If man does not tend toward the good, then why would you advocate a government made up of men?  How can you give authority to people who themselves are affected by original sin? 

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.  The principles that Christ gave us to adhere to are broken by the State.  Remember, Europe was converted and civilized by Irish monks, and Ireland existed in a philosophical state of anarchy until conquered by England in the 17th Century. 

Listen to this: 

Reply
#18
(10-28-2012, 08:17 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-28-2012, 03:13 PM)Meg Wrote: Thomas Storck wrote:

"The curious thing about the Catholics in the Austrian school is the degree to which they manage to pass themselves off on the unsuspecting as orthodox Catholics. For example, Ferrara amply documents Jeffrey Tucker's writing in support of the legality of same-sex marriage and of the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Yet Tucker, as a promoter of Gregorian chant and the traditional Latin liturgy, continues to write for orthodox Catholic publications that would never allow a self-proclaimed progressive to write for them on any subject."

So this Tucker fellow who is mentioned in Ferrara's book is a Traditional Catholic Libertarian who happens to support the legality of same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples? Interesting.

Jeffrey Tucker is an anarchist, so to say he supports the legality of same sex marriage or adoption is a lie because he believes there should be no State, let alone State involvement in such things.  He claims that the best way to resolve these moral issues is by non violent laissez-faire means.  That's a very different argument than what Ferrara or Storck present out of mailce or stupidity.   

I agree with this statement. Tucker is a friend of several friends of mine in the liturgical music world, and I have no reason to believe he is anything other than a completely orthodox Catholic.

Before people go off speaking calumny against him, they should really ask around. He's not that hard to get a hold of since he has a blog and posts regularly on several websites.
Reply
#19
The very title of the this thread (and the article it discusses) sets the tenor of everything that follows. It guarantees a polemical and irrational discussion.
Reply
#20
(10-29-2012, 11:08 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-28-2012, 08:17 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-28-2012, 03:13 PM)Meg Wrote: Thomas Storck wrote:

"The curious thing about the Catholics in the Austrian school is the degree to which they manage to pass themselves off on the unsuspecting as orthodox Catholics. For example, Ferrara amply documents Jeffrey Tucker's writing in support of the legality of same-sex marriage and of the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Yet Tucker, as a promoter of Gregorian chant and the traditional Latin liturgy, continues to write for orthodox Catholic publications that would never allow a self-proclaimed progressive to write for them on any subject."

So this Tucker fellow who is mentioned in Ferrara's book is a Traditional Catholic Libertarian who happens to support the legality of same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples? Interesting.

Jeffrey Tucker is an anarchist, so to say he supports the legality of same sex marriage or adoption is a lie because he believes there should be no State, let alone State involvement in such things.  He claims that the best way to resolve these moral issues is by non violent laissez-faire means.  That's a very different argument than what Ferrara or Storck present out of mailce or stupidity.   

I agree with this statement. Tucker is a friend of several friends of mine in the liturgical music world, and I have no reason to believe he is anything other than a completely orthodox Catholic.

Before people go off speaking calumny against him, they should really ask around. He's not that hard to get a hold of since he has a blog and posts regularly on several websites.
There are several articles of Mr. Tucker's available online; here is one on adoption by homosexual couples: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker37.html

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)