Blowing the Cover Off the Austrian 'Cult'
#21
FWIW, my experience with Austrian economics has been very positive. To piggyback on the Woods response posted earlier, I think it's important to distinguish between economics as speculative versus prescriptive. As a speculative science, I have found Austrian economics to be more helpful (and accurate, in my opinion) than any other school of economics. My father, who earned his PhD in economics and taught at the college level, agrees that it is the most sensible, despite the fact that he was trained as a Keynesian. Austrians are the ones who predicted the housing bubble collapse because they understood the damaging effects of Fed policy and the arbitrary setting of interest rates (as opposed to the market determining interest rates). Empirically speaking, their theories have proven themselves to be correct time and time again.

Now, what you want to do with the speculative knowledge Austrian economics can give you is a matter of legitimate debate. Like any other intellectual school of thought, its followers are hardly unanimous in the prescriptive actions to be taken. I happen to think you can take Austrian knowledge and combine it with Catholic morals to come up with prescriptive policy action. Not all Austrians will agree with this because not all Austrians are Catholic, but this is just an example of how prescriptive recommendations may vary among Austrians.

I think applying to Austrians such inflammatory language as "cult" is severely counterproductive and intellectually dishonest. It's apparent to me that such writers have not looked at Austrian economics as a speculative science. They have simply allowed themselves to get caught up with the ideas forwarded by SOME Austrians that they find morally objectionable. Yet in opposing such folks, these critics have simply attacked the entire school, closing themselves off to the consideration that perhaps Austrian economics may be seeing things as they really are.
Reply
#22
(10-29-2012, 11:25 AM)MRose Wrote: 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

Did you read the article? It's really just an intellectual exercise and is morally neutral.

And it is entirely inaccurate to portray Tucker as pro-gay-marriage. He simply believes the state has no business involving itself in marriage (which actually gives the Church an edge on the whole issue).
Reply
#23
(10-29-2012, 11:36 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 11:25 AM)MRose Wrote: 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

Did you read the article? It's really just an intellectual exercise and is morally neutral.

And it is entirely inaccurate to portray Tucker as pro-gay-marriage. He simply believes the state has no business involving itself in marriage (which actually gives the Church an edge on the whole issue).
I have read the article. I did not say Mr. Tucker is supporting homosexual relationships, I just stated that several of his articles are online and gave a link to one. I understand that there may be a distinction between what one believes is moral and what one believes the State's rights and obligations are.
Reply
#24
(10-29-2012, 11:48 AM)MRose Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 11:36 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 11:25 AM)MRose Wrote: 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

Did you read the article? It's really just an intellectual exercise and is morally neutral.

And it is entirely inaccurate to portray Tucker as pro-gay-marriage. He simply believes the state has no business involving itself in marriage (which actually gives the Church an edge on the whole issue).
I have read the article. I did not say Mr. Tucker is supporting homosexual relationships, I just stated that several of his articles are online and gave a link to one. I understand that there may be a distinction between what one believes is moral and what one believes the State's rights and obligations are.

Understood. My comment about portraying Tucker as being in favor of gay marriage wasn't directed at you, but at "Meg," who originally made that assertion. Sorry for any confusion.
Reply
#25
(10-29-2012, 11:28 AM)rbjmartin Wrote: FWIW, my experience with Austrian economics has been very positive. To piggyback on the Woods response posted earlier, I think it's important to distinguish between economics as speculative versus prescriptive. As a speculative science, I have found Austrian economics to be more helpful (and accurate, in my opinion) than any other school of economics. My father, who earned his PhD in economics and taught at the college level, agrees that it is the most sensible, despite the fact that he was trained as a Keynesian. Austrians are the ones who predicted the housing bubble collapse because they understood the damaging effects of Fed policy and the arbitrary setting of interest rates (as opposed to the market determining interest rates). Empirically speaking, their theories have proven themselves to be correct time and time again.

Now, what you want to do with the speculative knowledge Austrian economics can give you is a matter of legitimate debate. Like any other intellectual school of thought, its followers are hardly unanimous in the prescriptive actions to be taken. I happen to think you can take Austrian knowledge and combine it with Catholic morals to come up with prescriptive policy action. Not all Austrians will agree with this because not all Austrians are Catholic, but this is just an example of how prescriptive recommendations may vary among Austrians.

I think applying to Austrians such inflammatory language as "cult" is severely counterproductive and intellectually dishonest. It's apparent to me that such writers have not looked at Austrian economics as a speculative science. They have simply allowed themselves to get caught up with the ideas forwarded by SOME Austrians that they find morally objectionable. Yet in opposing such folks, these critics have simply attacked the entire school, closing themselves off to the consideration that perhaps Austrian economics may be seeing things as they really are.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Reply
#26
(10-29-2012, 12:30 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 11:48 AM)MRose Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 11:36 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 11:25 AM)MRose Wrote: 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

Did you read the article? It's really just an intellectual exercise and is morally neutral.

And it is entirely inaccurate to portray Tucker as pro-gay-marriage. He simply believes the state has no business involving itself in marriage (which actually gives the Church an edge on the whole issue).
I have read the article. I did not say Mr. Tucker is supporting homosexual relationships, I just stated that several of his articles are online and gave a link to one. I understand that there may be a distinction between what one believes is moral and what one believes the State's rights and obligations are.

Understood. My comment about portraying Tucker as being in favor of gay marriage wasn't directed at you, but at "Meg," who originally made that assertion. Sorry for any confusion.

I don't see that I've made any assertion at all. I was simply quoting the article. It's Thomas Storck who is making the assertion that Tucker is supportive of same-sex marriage. Maybe Storck is wrong in his assertion. I've never heard of Storck or Tucker until this article. I don't see how a Libertarian who is Catholic can justify, though, not standing up for Church teaching in the matter. In the state where I live, we'll be voting next week on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Our Archbishop has requested that all Catholics stand up for Church teaching on the issue. Do Catholic Libertarians feel that they are exempt from standing up for Church teaching in this matter? Do they feel it is matter of conscience only?
Reply
#27
(10-29-2012, 01:59 PM)Meg Wrote: I don't see that I've made any assertion at all. I was simply quoting the article. It's Thomas Storck who is making the assertion that Tucker is supportive of same-sex marriage. Maybe Storck is wrong in his assertion. I've never heard of Storck or Tucker until this article. I don't see how a Libertarian who is Catholic can justify, though, not standing up for Church teaching in the matter. In the state where I live, we'll be voting next week on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Our Archbishop has requested that all Catholics stand up for Church teaching on the issue. Do Catholic Libertarians feel that they are exempt from standing up for Church teaching in this matter? Do they feel it is matter of conscience only?

You raise an interesting question. What doe it mean to "stand up for church teaching"? For me, it is a question of how the interests of God are best served. I am of the opinion that relying too heavily on the civil authority to assert divine law is counterproductive. We have had discussions about the question of same-sex marriage on this forum before, and many have pointed out that state recognition of marriages only became prevalent after the Protestant Reformation. Prior to that, marriage was solely the domain of the Church. I happen to believe it should stay that way. It used to be that religions defined marriage. Now, it is governments.

Without any sort of positive assertion of marriage by the state, homosexuals would have no recourse to seek societal recognition. They could go around saying they're married, but religious people would simply say, "No, you're not."  It would not be a banner issue for homosexuals, because they would have no means of enforcing their beliefs upon others. But state-sanctioned marriages gives them an opening to beat us over the head with positive laws that counter nature. Why even give them this weapon? Let's just remove it entirely, and we will continue to assert marriage as it has always been defined.

In sum, I choose to stand up for traditional marriage by not allowing the homosexual activists the means of imposing gay marriage upon all of us as a societal norm.
Reply
#28
(10-29-2012, 03:14 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 01:59 PM)Meg Wrote: I don't see that I've made any assertion at all. I was simply quoting the article. It's Thomas Storck who is making the assertion that Tucker is supportive of same-sex marriage. Maybe Storck is wrong in his assertion. I've never heard of Storck or Tucker until this article. I don't see how a Libertarian who is Catholic can justify, though, not standing up for Church teaching in the matter. In the state where I live, we'll be voting next week on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Our Archbishop has requested that all Catholics stand up for Church teaching on the issue. Do Catholic Libertarians feel that they are exempt from standing up for Church teaching in this matter? Do they feel it is matter of conscience only?

You raise an interesting question. What doe it mean to "stand up for church teaching"? For me, it is a question of how the interests of God are best served. I am of the opinion that relying too heavily on the civil authority to assert divine law is counterproductive. We have had discussions about the question of same-sex marriage on this forum before, and many have pointed out that state recognition of marriages only became prevalent after the Protestant Reformation. Prior to that, marriage was solely the domain of the Church. I happen to believe it should stay that way. It used to be that religions defined marriage. Now, it is governments.

Without any sort of positive assertion of marriage by the state, homosexuals would have no recourse to seek societal recognition. They could go around saying they're married, but religious people would simply say, "No, you're not."  It would not be a banner issue for homosexuals, because they would have no means of enforcing their beliefs upon others. But state-sanctioned marriages gives them an opening to beat us over the head with positive laws that counter nature. Why even give them this weapon? Let's just remove it entirely, and we will continue to assert marriage as it has always been defined.
In sum, I choose to stand up for traditional marriage by not allowing the homosexual activists the means of imposing gay marriage upon all of us as a societal norm.
This, I feel is the only real solution. The state is not our solution.
Reply
#29
A day after the Feast of Christ the King, and already blather about 'anarcho-capitalist libertarianism' on a traditional Catholic forum?

Find me one example of an 'anarcho-Catholic' state in history. 

Reply
#30
(10-29-2012, 04:44 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: A day after the Feast of Christ the King, and already blather about 'anarcho-capitalist libertarianism' on a traditional Catholic forum?

Find me one example of an 'anarcho-Catholic' state in history. 

Do you have anything productive or intelligent to say, or are you just trying to troll?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)