Blowing the Cover Off the Austrian 'Cult'
#51
(10-30-2012, 11:23 AM)James02 Wrote:
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.

You posted a random quotation that doesn't even come from one of the social encyclicals. It is also being taken out of context in an effort to make it seem to support leftist and Enlightenment-derived political ideologies. Let's look at the quotation in context:

Quote:Nay, rather, unless forced by necessity to do otherwise, Catholics ought to prefer to associate with Catholics, a course which will be very conducive to the safeguarding of their faith. As presidents of societies thus formed among themselves, it will be well to appoint either priests or upright laymen of weight and character, guided by whose counsels they should endeavor peacefully to adopt and carry into effect such measures as may seem most advantageous to their interests, keeping in view the rules laid down by Us in Our Encyclical, Rerum Novarum. 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 scenes of violence and riot which you witnessed last year in your own country sufficiently admonish you that America too is threatened with the audacity and ferocity of the enemies of public order. The state of the times, therefore, bids Catholics to labor for the tranquillity of the commonwealth, and for this purpose to obey the laws, abhor violence, and seek no more than equity or justice permits.

What Pope Leo is discouraging here is rioting and violence on the part of workers. This is a perfectly Christian position, though one that libertarians and other leftists reject in their revolutionary fervor. Since this passage is discussing only the actions of private individuals, it really does not have much to say about the extent to which governments can regulate the use of private property. It deals only with the behavior of individuals. So, close, but no cigar.  :LOL:

Now, how would a libertarian respond to this passage from QA:
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.

In particular, I would be interested to see how a libertarian would respond to Pius XI's claim that ownership has a social character and that it is dependent upon social conditions, changing along with historical circumstances. It is also interesting to note that Pius XI tells us that it is in no way a violation of property rights when the state brings the use of private property into accord with the common good. This fact needs to be kept in mind when reading other parts of the encyclical.
Reply
#52
Why are you so gung ho against libertarians, citing Leo XIII et al, but when it comes to the theology of Gregory XVI to Pius XII, as well as "Enlightenment era neo-Thomism" there is nothing but caustic remarks and sarcasm?
Reply
#53
(10-30-2012, 01:15 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: 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 free market is not Thunderdome. It has boundaries or it cannot function. Theft is outlawed. Fraud is outlawed. Trade must be truthful. Non-aggression must be an absolute principle.

A "free market" doesn't mean corporations are free to trample on everyone's rights. In a real "free market," they are more culpable than they are now. Monsanto can't patent seeds, because there is no such thing as intellectual property. Companies that poison the environment can be held liable since they inevitably violate the property rights of others. Property rights, subsidiarity, non-agression, anti-fraud, anti-theft....these principles provide sufficient defenses against the powerful and greedy.
Reply
#54
Quote: What Pope Leo is discouraging here is rioting and violence on the part of workers. This is a perfectly Christian position, though one that libertarians and other leftists reject in their revolutionary fervor. Since this passage is discussing only the actions of private individuals, it really does not have much to say about the extent to which governments can regulate the use of private property.

Hogwash.  The context are the same "Catholic Associations" that the fascists are always hollering about.  THAT IS THE CONTEXT, thank you for pointing it out.  Here, so you don't miss your own quote:
Quote: As presidents of societies thus formed among themselves,
  Has that sunk in?  These are the very Catholic societies that the fascists clamor for.  Yes, the part about respecting private property could be interpreted to mean being peaceful and not riotous.  That COULD be an interpretation, and I'll even grant it for the sake of argument.  Now we get to the rest, again, with these "societies" as the context:
Quote:  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.
That completely eliminates the fascist concept of the fascist guild.  So your ridiculous statement that Austrians COMPLETELY and TOTALLY oppose Catholic social teaching is erroneous.  Retract it.
Reply
#55
Quote: In particular, I would be interested to see how a libertarian would respond to Pius XI's claim that ownership ..... is dependent upon social conditions,

Pope Pius XI never said that.  I have no problem with the State regulating pollution and water rights, as infringing these is an assault on someone else's property.  In fact, I believe libertarians also support this (not A-Cs).  This is what Pope Pius XI is talking about, as I'll show below.  And yes, these regulations against pollution and with regards to water rights certainly help the common good.

You left out the lead up to the quotes by Pius XI.  Here, let me correct it for you:
Quote:That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which  "cannot be enforced by legal action ."[31] Therefore, they (CP) are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use."
Reply
#56
Dustins Dad Wrote: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).

First, who is forcing them to starve?  Is it nature or a coercive thug?  If it is nature, than a "sweatshop with inhumane conditions" is a blessing since it is the only thing that allows them to provide sustenance and skills that was impossible for them to acquire through nature, or else they would already be doing it. They can then acquire the knowledge and skills to start companies of their own and provide more jobs.  Since 1) more stuff is being produced and 2) companies need to improve conditions to attract workers from other companies, living standards rise for all.

Problems only happen when competitive forces are stifled by coercion, and governments specialize in that.
Reply
#57
(10-30-2012, 03:07 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: In particular, I would be interested to see how a libertarian would respond to Pius XI's claim that ownership ..... is dependent upon social conditions,

Pope Pius XI never said that.

Come now. I posted the quotation right there:
Quote: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."

Also, how about this from Pope Pius. It sounds alarmingly close to the the "fascist" guilds of the distributists:
Quote:91. Recently, as all know, there has been inaugurated a special system of syndicates and corporations of the various callings which in view of the theme of this Encyclical it would seem necessary to describe here briefly and comment upon appropriately.

92. The civil authority itself constitutes the syndicate as a juridical personality in such a manner as to confer on it simultaneously a certain monopoly-privilege, since only such a syndicate, when thus approved, can maintain the rights (according to the type of syndicate) of workers or employers, and since it alone can arrange for the placement of labor and conclude so-termed labor agreements. Anyone is free to join a syndicate or not, and only within these limits can this kind of syndicate be called free; for syndical dues and special assessments are exacted of absolutely all members of every specified calling or profession, whether they are workers or employers; likewise all are bound by the labor agreements made by the legally recognized syndicate. Nevertheless, it has been officially stated that this legally recognized syndicate does not prevent the existence, without legal status, however, of other associations made up of persons following the same calling.

93. The associations, or corporations, are composed of delegates from the two syndicates (that is, of workers and employers) respectively of the same industry or profession and, as true and proper organs and institutions of the State, they direct the syndicates and coordinate their activities in matters of common interest toward one and the same end.

94. Strikes and lock-outs are forbidden; if the parties cannot settle their dispute, public authority intervenes.

95. Anyone who gives even slight attention to the matter will easily see what are the obvious advantages in the system We have thus summarily described: The various classes work together peacefully, socialist organizations and their activities are repressed, and a special magistracy exercises a governing authority.
Reply
#58
Quote: Come now. I posted the quotation right there:

Nope, still don't see it.  Please bold where Pope Pius XI says "ownership ..... is dependent upon social conditions, ".  I can't comment on something that doesn't exist.

Quote: Also, how about this from Pope Pius.
You left out this part:  (Edit: My apologies, I see you did include the voluntary part above).

Quote: .Anyone is free to join a syndicate or not , and only within these limits can this kind of syndicate be called free;

The fascist distributists say you must join.  And if you try to freely practice your trade where you please and when you please, you'll get a government bullet in your head.

As far as Pope Pius XI, he was under the disadvantage of Pesch.  Pesch was in opposition to Pope Leo XIII.  That put Pope Pius XI in a tough spot, as he could not contradict the past Pontiff, and yet he favored Pesch.  He also didn't understand the Great Depression.  Thus this commentary on the Italian fascist system appears as a commentary, and not a directive.  He also throws in the voluntary requirement.  Fascism in Italy was not voluntary.

Later on in the nadir of the Great Depression Pius does come out in favor of the Italian fascist system, which contradicts this previous statement, and contradicts Pope Leo XIII.  It is the only statement I have found in Catholic Social teaching in support of fascism.
Reply
#59
(10-30-2012, 01:15 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(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).
I think you are referring to modern liberal democracy, not the Free-Market.

Besides what we have now is not a Free Market; it is more of a Keynesian mercantilist system. There are so many subsidies for politically favored companies. This does not occur in a true free market. Companies that produce better “cheaper” products (that benefit the consumer) grow. rbj brings up the excellent point in regards to intellectual property; companies like Monsanto and the Big three have been hording patents for years that probably could have tremendously benefitted humanity. I KNOW there is technology around to get 100+ mpg on a regular sized car (oglemobile)? I think most people’s concern with the market is what is so aptly called the seen and unseen. You see government spending putting people to work and assume that this is a good thing. However, what the trained eye sees is money extracted (by force) from the private market and distributed to the companies that are working on the government project. This is at best a neutral gain, but more likely a loss, especially if the project is just to put people to work.

There are some here that are more educated than I am on this subject, so I usually stand by while they do the debating. I will say though, that Austrian economics makes so much more sense, and it has a proven track record to go along with it.

One more thing, I think the American Experiment of self-governance ended in 1865.
Reply
#60
(10-30-2012, 01:39 PM)James02 Wrote:
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.
I would say banking cartel rather than guild but nevertheless, it was the masonic usury based capitalist money sytem already in place in the "American Experiment" - that allowed so much power and wealth to be concentrated in these banker/usurers to enable them to co opt government in that way. Bad? Absolutely. I just don't see how giving these people free reign without government oversight / control solves the problem. One of the many problems in the current system is the "money men" own the system. politicians are bought and paid for. Quandary is...getting rid of the state doesn't solve the problem, it just one ''expense" the money men won't have to worry about.

Try to get to more later. Thx.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)