Blowing the Cover Off the Austrian 'Cult'
#31
(10-29-2012, 11:25 AM)MRose Wrote:
(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

It's obvious that in the above article that Mr. Tucker doesn't have a problem with adoption by same-sex couples. He seems to believe that in a truly free society, a free-market mentality would cause everyone to naturally want to do the right and good thing, such as, as Mr. Tucker states...."The feedback works here too: gay parents would have every reason to do the best possible job so as to improve the reputation of gay parenting."
I'm assuming that Mr. Tucker believes that the problem lies more with the poor reputation of gay parents, rather than there being an intrinsic problem with gay parenting. I don't think that this is what the Catholic Church teaches, though. It seems like an Enlightenment principle is at work with Libertarians: if people are truly free, they will automatically be more inclined to want to do the right thing. This seems to set aside the Catholic dogma of original sin, doesn't it?
Reply
#32
(10-29-2012, 05:21 PM)Meg Wrote: It's obvious that in the above article that Mr. Tucker doesn't have a problem with adoption by same-sex couples. He seems to believe that in a truly free society, a free-market mentality would cause everyone to naturally want to do the right and good thing, such as, as Mr. Tucker states...."The feedback works here too: gay parents would have every reason to do the best possible job so as to improve the reputation of gay parenting."
I'm assuming that Mr. Tucker believes that the problem lies more with the poor reputation of gay parents, rather than there being an intrinsic problem with gay parenting. I don't think that this is what the Catholic Church teaches, though. It seems like an Enlightenment principle is at work with Libertarians: if people are truly free, they will automatically be more inclined to want to do the right thing. This seems to set aside the Catholic dogma of original sin, doesn't it?

It's not clear to me that Tucker has no moral problem with same-sex adoption on a personal level.  I do think he comes across as too neutral and "objective" on the matter, but I do think the primary purpose of the article is a mental exercise. Nevertheless, he doesn't represent all Austrians. As I stated earlier, there are speculative aspects of Austrian economics, and even libertarianism, that I find quite useful in understanding current events, both political and economic. That does not mean I have to agree with every conclusion other Austrians come to regarding prescriptive actions.

There are many Austrians, for example, who hold up the late Austro-Hungarian empire (particularly its last hundred years) with great admiration and view it as the most favorable government of the last several centuries. Otto von Hapsburg was beloved among many Austro-libertarians. And there are certainly some among those Austro-libertarians who believe in the Social Kingship of Christ. Yet, we do not take a conventional statist approach in our understanding of how His Kingship is best served here on earth.

Personally, I am drawn to monarchy/aristocratic rule. However, we ain't gettin' there from here. There has to be a de-centralization and breakdown of the leviathan state to allow the naturally virtuous to arise. The virtuous our stifled under our current system. Thus, my political philosophy is one of Christian anarchism transitioning to Christian monarchy.
Reply
#33
(10-29-2012, 05:34 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 05:21 PM)Meg Wrote: It's obvious that in the above article that Mr. Tucker doesn't have a problem with adoption by same-sex couples. He seems to believe that in a truly free society, a free-market mentality would cause everyone to naturally want to do the right and good thing, such as, as Mr. Tucker states...."The feedback works here too: gay parents would have every reason to do the best possible job so as to improve the reputation of gay parenting."
I'm assuming that Mr. Tucker believes that the problem lies more with the poor reputation of gay parents, rather than there being an intrinsic problem with gay parenting. I don't think that this is what the Catholic Church teaches, though. It seems like an Enlightenment principle is at work with Libertarians: if people are truly free, they will automatically be more inclined to want to do the right thing. This seems to set aside the Catholic dogma of original sin, doesn't it?

It's not clear to me that Tucker has no moral problem with same-sex adoption on a personal level.  I do think he comes across as too neutral and "objective" on the matter, but I do think the primary purpose of the article is a mental exercise. Nevertheless, he doesn't represent all Austrians. As I stated earlier, there are speculative aspects of Austrian economics, and even libertarianism, that I find quite useful in understanding current events, both political and economic. That does not mean I have to agree with every conclusion other Austrians come to regarding prescriptive actions.

There are many Austrians, for example, who hold up the late Austro-Hungarian empire (particularly its last hundred years) with great admiration and view it as the most favorable government of the last several centuries. Otto von Hapsburg was beloved among many Austro-libertarians. And there are certainly some among those Austro-libertarians who believe in the Social Kingship of Christ. Yet, we do not take a conventional statist approach in our understanding of how His Kingship is best served here on earth.

Personally, I am drawn to monarchy/aristocratic rule. However, we ain't gettin' there from here. There has to be a de-centralization and breakdown of the leviathan state to allow the naturally virtuous to arise. The virtuous our stifled under our current system. Thus, my political philosophy is one of Christian anarchism transitioning to Christian monarchy.

You mention that it's not clear to you that Tucker has no moral problem with same-sex adoption on a personal level. But let's say for a moment that he does have a problem with it on a personal level. It seems to me that if this is the case, then his stance would be no different than those Catholic politicians who have a problem with abortion on a personal level, but feel that they have no right to subject their views on others in their constituency, and they therefore vote pro abortion. But the Church has a problem with this stance, correct? For Libertairans, it's all about freedom. Libertarianism seems quite liberal.

Regarding your advocating of Christian anarchism as a transition toward Christian monarchy, how does the Catholic Church view this? Does the Church teach that anarchism is ever a good thing, even as a means to a supposedly good end? My understanding is that the Church does not teach that monarchism is the best form of government. The Catholic Church allows and works in just about any kind of government, as long as Catholics are allowed freedom of worship.
Reply
#34
Quote: Ferrara also tends to interpret the principle of subsidiarity, first enunciated by Pius XI in Quadra­gesimo Anno, too rigidly. What Pius actually wrote is quite general: “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. So, too, it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies. Inasmuch as every social activity should, by its very nature, prove a help to members of the body social, it should never destroy or absorb them.”

Pius was too wise to be specific here, and Ferrara is too doctrinaire when he suggests that subsidiarity sanctions only local laws regulating the economy or that it would necessarily be opposed to federal regulatory agencies such as OSHA.

What part of GREAT EVIL is not specific enough?  Ferrara is clueless on economics.  What he doesn't realize is that if you follow the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity, then distributist fascism becomes impossible.

Quote:  No doubt if all the mandates of papal social teaching were implemented, the intermediate bodies proposed by Leo XIII and his successors would take over most or all of the economic regulation presently carried on by the state.
The local soviet system proposed by the fascist distributists has nothing in common with what Pope Leo talked about.  He supported collective bargaining.  That is all.  The distributists want fascist guilds to regulate your life.  Also, they are deceitful here.  These guilds will have government authority.  They are just organs of the State.  Totally deceitful.

You want proof?  Fine, here it is.  If the guild fascist system is not part of the State, then do it TODAY.  You see, they can't because they won't have State power to point guns at people.  Distributists are liars, and that is a big problem.
Reply
#35
So, according to the Austrians, all Christians supported evil and "fascistic" institutions until atheists like "St. Ayn" and Ludwig von Mises came around to show us stupid gentiles the truly Christian way of organizing society. How gullible does one have to be to believe this nonsense?
Reply
#36
Straw man not worthy of reply.
Reply
#37
Quote: You mention that it's not clear to you that Tucker has no moral problem with same-sex adoption on a personal level. But let's say for a moment that he does have a problem with it on a personal level. It seems to me that if this is the case, then his stance would be no different than those Catholic politicians who have a problem with abortion on a personal level, but feel that they have no right to subject their views on others in their constituency, and they therefore vote pro abortion. But the Church has a problem with this stance, correct? For Libertairans, it's all about freedom. Libertarianism seems quite liberal.

Well, maybe it is too late to stop the side discussion, but supporting homosexual adoption has nothing to do with Austrian ECONOMICS.  The Woods quote sums it up well.
Reply
#38
(10-29-2012, 07:11 PM)James02 Wrote: Straw man not worthy of reply.

Don't you think the fact that the Austrians adhere to an ideology completely opposed to Catholic social teaching and what the Church has always taught should at least be addressed? Obviously, I've disproved all of the Austrian claims in thread after thread, so there's no point in returning to any of that, but I would at least like to see an Austrian explain his total rejection of Catholic social teaching.
Reply
#39
An Austrian completely embraces Catholic social teaching, pre-Vatican II.  Yes, they utterly reject Caritas in Veritate, the new Schoenborn Hegel definition of subsidiarity, and the created "virtue" of solidarity.

Here is pre-Vatican II Catholic Social Teaching:
Quote: "Let them, however, never allow this to escape their memory: that whilst it is proper and desirable to assert and secure the rights of the many, yet this is not to be done by a violation of duty; and that these are very important duties; not to touch what belongs to another; to allow every one to be free in the management of his own affairs; not to hinder any one to dispose of his services when he please and where he please."
The Austrians embrace Catholics Social Teaching.  It is the fascist distributists that utterly reject this.  Their fascist system can only operate by ignoring Catholic Social Teaching.
Reply
#40
(10-29-2012, 05:57 PM)Meg Wrote: You mention that it's not clear to you that Tucker has no moral problem with same-sex adoption on a personal level. But let's say for a moment that he does have a problem with it on a personal level. It seems to me that if this is the case, then his stance would be no different than those Catholic politicians who have a problem with abortion on a personal level, but feel that they have no right to subject their views on others in their constituency, and they therefore vote pro abortion. But the Church has a problem with this stance, correct? For Libertairans, it's all about freedom. Libertarianism seems quite liberal.

As I have mentioned a couple of times already on this thread, I think Tucker's article is nothing more than a mental exercise. If he is actually advocating allowance for same-sex adoption, then he is wrong. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why must you associate the apparently incorrect opinion of one libertarian Catholic and associate it with all libertarian Catholics? Is that good logic?

(10-29-2012, 05:57 PM)Meg Wrote: Regarding your advocating of Christian anarchism as a transition toward Christian monarchy, how does the Catholic Church view this?

As far as I know, the Church is neutral on it. It's not an issue that has often explicitly come up, but I base my advocacy of temporary anarchism on Christian principles.

(10-29-2012, 05:57 PM)Meg Wrote: Does the Church teach that anarchism is ever a good thing, even as a means to a supposedly good end? My understanding is that the Church does not teach that monarchism is the best form of government. The Catholic Church allows and works in just about any kind of government, as long as Catholics are allowed freedom of worship.

The Church would be outside of Her competency if She attempted to give definitive teaching about the best form of government. There is nothing in the teachings of Our Lord or in Apostolic Tradition that explicitly speaks to this issue. I just happen to think that on a natural level, monarchy is the most sensible. Refer to the writings of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (particularly "Democracy: the God that Failed") if you would like to know why I believe so.

Finally, one should consider that it was out of the decentralized aftermath of the fall of Rome that the Church experienced Her most rapid period of expansion and evangelization, and out of this period arose the high-point of Christian civilization. It was also in the wake of the fall of the Aztec Empire that North America realized its most rapid period of evangelization, following the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)