Blowing the Cover Off the Austrian 'Cult'
#41
(10-29-2012, 07:11 PM)James02 Wrote: Straw man not worthy of reply.

Uh oh

:safe:
Reply
#42
(10-30-2012, 12:07 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 07:11 PM)James02 Wrote: Straw man not worthy of reply.

Uh oh

:safe:

Already responded. Trads can continue to insist that Christians misinterpreted Church teaching for 1900 years and that it took non-Christians motivated by Enlightenment principles to finally get it right, but I don't see why anyone else should buy that claim. I mean, how can one reconcile this with the libertarianism advocated by trads:

Quote:49. It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property. Moreover, Leo XIII wisely taught "that God has left the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and institutions of peoples."[32] That history proves ownership, like other elements of social life, to be not absolutely unchanging, We once declared as follows: "What divers forms has property had, from that primitive form among rude and savage peoples, which may be observed in some places even in our time, to the form of possession in the patriarchal age; and so further to the various forms under tyranny (We are using the word tyranny in its classical sense); and then through the feudal and monarchial forms down to the various types which are to be found in more recent times."[33] . . . Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.
Reply
#43
(10-30-2012, 12:37 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 12:07 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 07:11 PM)James02 Wrote: Straw man not worthy of reply.

Uh oh

:safe:

Already responded. Trads can continue to insist that Christians misinterpreted Church teaching for 1900 years and that it took non-Christians motivated by Enlightenment principles to finally get it right, but I don't see why anyone else should buy that claim. I mean, how can one reconcile this with the libertarianism advocated by trads:

Quote:49. It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property. Moreover, Leo XIII wisely taught "that God has left the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and institutions of peoples."[32] That history proves ownership, like other elements of social life, to be not absolutely unchanging, We once declared as follows: "What divers forms has property had, from that primitive form among rude and savage peoples, which may be observed in some places even in our time, to the form of possession in the patriarchal age; and so further to the various forms under tyranny (We are using the word tyranny in its classical sense); and then through the feudal and monarchial forms down to the various types which are to be found in more recent times."[33] . . . Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.

So the Church advocated socialism and central planning for 1900 years?  You neglect to understand the most important part of the passage, which is that everything is subject to natural and divine law. Coercive redistribution of private property is theft, and cannot be justified. Private property must not be used coercively against others either.  Public authorities can deal with the necessary customary matters that inevitably crop up, but they have no authority to break God's laws.
Reply
#44
Some food for thought:

Catechism of Catholic Social Teaching, Fanfani

Q. Does the reform of institutions include also the reform of the right of private ownership? A. The State must respect man's natural right to private ownership; moreover, in the present circumstances the State can and must endeavour to make it possible for all; it must also regulate its use so as to harmonize it with the common good.

Quote:LEO XIII: "The right to possess private property is from nature, not from man; and the State has only the right to regulate its use in the interests of the public good, but by no means to abolish it altogether." Rerum novarum, p. 195, #35.

Quote:LEO XIII: "We have seen that this great labour question cannot be solved except by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favour ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many people as possible to become owners. . . . If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the result will be that the gulf between vast wealth and deep poverty will be bridged over, and the two orders will be brought nearer together." Rerum novarum, p. 194, #35.

Quote:Pius XI: "It follows from the twofold character of ownership, which We have termed individual and social, that men must take into account in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define in detail these duties, when the need occurs and when the natural law does not do so, is the function of the government. Provided that the natural and divine law be observed, the public authority, in view of the true necessity of the common good, may specify more accurately what is licit and what is illicit for property owners in the use of their possessions. Moreover, Leo XIII had wisely taught that 'the limits of private pos-session have been left to be fixed by man's own industry and the laws of individual peoples.' "It is plain, however, that the State may not discharge this duty in an arbitrary manner. Man's natural right of privately possessing and transmitting property by in-heritance must be kept intact and cannot be taken away by the State, 'for man is older than the State' and 'the domestic household is anterior both in idea and in fact to the gathering of men into a commonwealth.' Hence the prudent Pontiff had already declared it unlawful for the State to exhaust the means of individuals by crushing taxes and tributes." Quadragesimo anno, pp. 194— 195, #49.


Quote:Pius XII: "The dignity of the human person, then, requires normally as a natural foundation of life the right to the use of the goods of the earth. To this right corresponds the fundamental obligation to grant private ownership of property, if possible, to all. Positive legislation regulating private ownership may change and more or less restrict its use. But if legislation is to play its part in the pacification of the community, it must prevent the worker who is or will be a father of a family, from being condemned to an economic dependence and slavery which is irreconcilable with his rights as a person. Whether this slavery arises from the exploitation of private capital or from the power of the State, the result is the same. Indeed, under the pressure of a State which dominates all and controls the whole field of public and private life, even going into the realm of ideas and beliefs and of conscience, the lack of liberty can have the most serious consequences, as experience shows and proves." Christmas Message, 1942.

[b]Q. May the ownership of certain goods be assigned to the collectivity? A. When private ownership of certain goods constitutes a danger to the common good, it can be assigned to the community, for the attainment of the common good would require just that. [/b]

Quote:Pius XI: "For it is rightly contended that certain forms of property must be reserved to the State, since they carry with them an opportunity of domination too great to be left to private individuals without injury to the community at large." Quadragesimo anno, p. 220, #114.

Q. Is the socialization of business enterprises to be permitted? A. The socialization of business enterprises is permissible upon due compensation, if this is demanded by the common good or is necessary to remedy some abuse or to avoid waste and assure an organic marshalling of the productive forces.

Quote:Plus XII: "The Catholic Associations support socialization only in cases where it appears really necessary for the common welfare; in other words, when it is the only means to remedy an injustice and to ensure the coordinated use of the same forces to the benefit of the economic life of the nation, so that the normal and peaceful development of the economic life may open the gates to material prosperity which may become a sound foundation for the development of cultural and religious life. In any case, the Associations recognize that socialization carries with it the obligation of fitting compensation such as in concrete circumstances is just and fair to those concerned." Address to the Catholic Workers' Association, March 11, 1945.

Q. Is the State's intervention in the matter of the distribution of wealth necessary and effective? A. By means of appropriate provisions the State must prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few and favour a generous distribution of the accumulated wealth among wage earners.

Quote:Pius XI: "Every effort, therefore, must be made that at least in future a just share only of the fruits of production be permitted to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy, and an ample sufficiency be supplied to the workingmen. The purpose is not that these become slack at their work . . . but that by thrift they may increase their possessions and by the prudent management of the same may be enabled to bear the family burden with greater ease and security, being freed from that hand-to-mouth uncertainty which is the lot of the proletarian. Thus they will not only be in a position to support life's changing fortunes, but will also have the reassuring confidence that when their lives are ended, some little provision will remain for those whom they leave behind them." Quadragesimo anno, p. 201, #61.

Quote:Pius XII: "The natural course of affairs, no doubt, brings with it, within certain limits—this is neither economically nor socially abnormal—an unequal distribution of the goods of the world. But the Church is opposed to the accumulation of these goods in the hands of relatively small and exceedingly rich groups, while vast masses of people are condemned to pauperism and to an economic condition unworthy of human beings." Address to Catholic Men, Sept. 9, 1947.

Quote:Pius XII: "It is upon the basis of this solidarity, and not upon worthless and unstable systems, that we call upon men to build the social fabric. Solidarity demands that outrageous and provoking inequalities in living standards among different groups in a nation be eliminated. To achieve this urgent end the efficacious voice of con-science is preferable to external compulsion. Conscience will know how to set limits to expenditures for luxuries and likewise persuade those of more modest means to provide before all else for what is necessary and useful, and then to save whatever is left over." Christmas Message, 1952.

Quote:Pius XII: "It is not a question today of merely distributing the products of the social economy more equitably in closer correspondence with the labour and the needs of individuals. . . . Under present conditions . . . every social reform is strictly bound up with the question of a prudent organization of production . . . for it is clear that there can never be sufficient distribution where there is not sufficient production. . . . But if this productivity is attained as a result of unbridled competition and of an unprincipled expenditure of wealth, or by oppression and despotic exploitation of labour and the needs of individuals on the part of the State, it cannot be sound and natural, because social economy is an organizing of workers, and every worker is endowed with human dignity and freedom. The immoderate exploitation of genuine human values . . . leads sooner or later to decadence." Address to the Sacred College, June 2, 1948.
Reply
#45
Quote: 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?...... but I would at least like to see an Austrian explain his total rejection of Catholic social teaching.

And so I gave you Catholic Social teaching:
Quote: 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."
Now everyone reading this is completely aware that the Austrian system is in complete agreement with this Catholic social teaching.  Furthermore, those of us who actually understand the policies of the fascist distributist system know that it is completely opposed to this teaching.  Your claim is proven wrong.  Retract it, or address this Catholic Social teaching.

Quote: Obviously, I've disproved all of the Austrian claims in thread after thread, so there's no point in returning to any of that,
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:  You can't even address this one simple quote, and we've barely started.
Reply
#46
(10-30-2012, 03:27 AM)PeterII Wrote: ...Private property must not be used coercively against others either....
What means does Libertarienism have to guard this principle?

Take for just one example the sweatshops of yesteryear, where po'folk are forced to choose between "contracting" to work under inhumane conditions for a joke of a "wage", or starve. And not only yesteryear, such exists today in varying forms (think Apple factories in China as just one example to drive home the fact).  

Personally, I think Libertarianism makes some.good economic points, but at the end of the day fails because its foundation is corrupt...it is agnostic/athiest in its foundation.
Yes, in the present state of the world, all the systems are corrupt because mankind has turned its back on God. All are doomed to fail. Governments are corrupt, corporations are corrupt, Libertarians attack the former whike giving free reign to the latter. A recipe for disaster, misery, tyranny and eventual chaos. Albeit one of a slightly different flavor than the current recipe of misery, tyranny and eventual chaos we currently are in the last stage of.

Until Christiandom wakes up (post chastisement I'd wager), nothing will fix the situation. Society is driving a hundred mph over a cliff and methinks the brakepads done fell off.

My two cents.
Reply
#47
DustinsDad,
Peter is anarcho-capitalist, as in no government.  A libertarian allows for a limited government.

As far as sweatshops, the Catholic Social teaching is for collective bargaining, WITH LIMITS.  Probably most libertarians would oppose this.  I'm not sure about Karl Denninger. 

Some anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are agnostic and deny Original Sin.  The Catholic contingent start with the premise of Original Sin (e.g. Lord Acton), and therefore sanely say that government power is very dangerous.  I disagree with them in degree to some of their conclusions, but they have a sound premise.
Reply
#48
(10-30-2012, 11:28 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: Personally, I think Libertarianism makes some.good economic points, but at the end of the day fails because its foundation is corrupt...it is agnostic/athiest in its foundation.

It doesn't have to be. Of course, to an atheist/agnostic libertarian it is part of their foundation. But for James02, PeterII, and me, the Catholic Faith is our foundation. It comes first, and in our study of Austrian economics and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy, we have found them to be useful in creating a society where social justice is best upheld. We are not ignoring the social teachings of the Church. But we do recognize that there is room for disagreement on prescriptive measures.

None of the popes have ever claimed to have found the perfect political/economic system. They have been appropriately humble in the way they address these issues, not claiming to speak with absolute authority unless there is a clear moral connection.
Reply
#49
(10-30-2012, 11:53 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 11:28 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: Personally, I think Libertarianism makes some.good economic points, but at the end of the day fails because its foundation is corrupt...it is agnostic/athiest in its foundation.

It doesn't have to be. Of course, to an atheist/agnostic libertarian it is part of their foundation. But for James02, PeterII, and me, the Catholic Faith is our foundation. It comes first, and in our study of Austrian economics and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy, we have found them to be useful in creating a society where social justice is best upheld. We are not ignoring the social teachings of the Church. But we do recognize that there is room for disagreement on prescriptive measures.

None of the popes have ever claimed to have found the perfect political/economic system. They have been appropriately humble in the way they address these issues, not claiming to speak with absolute authority unless there is a clear moral connection.
Well aside from the 'free market' - what prescriptive measures are these fellas talking about? That goes back to my original question. Any and all "precriptive measures" would logically from a libertarian position be seen as artificial control of the state over individuals.

If the free market is the answer, I'll pass. The free market with no boundries/controls based on Catholic Social Doctrine rules,  by its very nature will choose Barrabus every time. And Hitler, and Stalin and Obama and so on.

The 'American Experimant' if you will has been tried...and here we are. Inevitably leading to the edge of the precipice on which we now teeter.

Libertarianism to me seems at best to 'reset the system' that got us here in the first place, with its masonic enlightenment principles, and at worst to break down the last remnants/shadows of Christondom that serve any - however small way - to keep the powers that be in check. (I say this while realizing that those last remnants and shadows are darn near gone btw).


Reply
#50
Quote: The 'American Experimant' if you will has been tried...and here we are. Inevitably leading to the edge of the precipice on which we now teeter.
The "American Experiment" was destroyed in 1913 with the formation of the Banking Guild, and in 1917 with the Federal Income Tax.  Both measures basically destroyed our system of subsidiarity.  The end of gold money in 1973 was the final nail in the coffin.

As far as "prescriptive" measures, the answer is subsidiarity.  So instead of trying for the impossible perfect system, you divide the country up into 50 states, and let them regulate themselves.  In that way competition will act as a natural check against the Original Sin present in government.  California goes green and crazy?  Enough people will move and it will collapse.  That is the reason why subsidiarity works.  Competition.  That is why the fascists had to create the banking guild and the national income tax and eliminate gold, so that a central government could be strengthened to eliminate subsidiarity.  That is the only way that the fascists could take power.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)